Understanding the Enemy

[numinus]

Dont you have an irrelevant wikipedia page to add to your comment? And I dont underestimate anything. The patrimony isnt only philosophical and leads many to believe that the Muslims are destined to rule the world by what allah has revealed.

No other source is necessary since you have already lost the argument.

 

[jb_1430]

No other source is necessary since you have already lost the argument.

??? You havent yet engaged in THE arguement, I stated

Unfortunately the Islamic scholars came to very different answers to those questions,

and you replied.

There is no way bin laden, nasrallah and co are anywhere near 'islamic scholarship' being contemplated here.

Nothing but a strawman used to evade the arguement. I never labeled bin laden, nasrallah and co as scholars. I did provide writings from Al-Mawardi and Ibn Khaldoon, and the best reply you can come up with is a declaration that I have lost the arguement. Typical

Quote:
Khilafah is one of the most important issues in Islam, many versus in Quran and many Hadiths of the Prophet ordered Muslims to establish such a system. Ruling by Islam is the most frequent issue discussed in Quran after the belief and creed. Therefore, Khilafah was discussed by many Muslim scholars, the following are the definition of some of them to Khilafah.
Ibn Khaldoon defined it as: A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.
Al-Mawardi defined it as: Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia).
Taqiudine al-Nabhani, (founder of Hizb at-Tahreer) defined it as: A total leadership for all the Muslims aimed at implementing the Shariah of Islam and carrying the Message of Islam to the world.
http://www.islamic-world.net/islamic.../theobasis.htm

 

[bewitched]

Typical

yeah. well some are awakened and some aren't. yes this is typical.

Koran 9:5 “When the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush…..”
is reflected in the last message AQ just put out.

 

[jb_1430]

Religious doctrine does not dictate human nature. So what if hermeneutics is a Western concept? That only means it was developed in the West. That does not mean that, in a personal capacity, it does not apply universally to all people. No religious institution is capable of really controlling what goes on in its adherents heads.

"It will come later"



It may be said, `What is the value of a faith in Islam which is a result of a threat? Abu Sufyan, one moment ago, was not a believer, then he believed after he was threatened by death.' We say to those who question: `What is required of an infidel or the one who confuses other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the religion of God and to subdue himself to the prophethood of Muhammad. But his heartfelt faith is not required at the beginning. It will come later. (Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography", 7th ed., p.284)

And since weve been talking about Jihad and Islamic jurisprudence-

The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ‘I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message ( Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography",
7th ed., p.134)

 

[vyo476]

One literally interprets the doctrine, the other ignores it. Thats why I am critical of the doctrine. This immunity for Islamic doctrine is why people think only those who perpetrate acts of aggression or terrorism need to be reformed and the doctrine can remain the same.

What would you have them do? Burn the sections of the Qur'an that you don't like?

Non-violent interpretations of the Qur'an do not ignore the sections you quote, they simply interpret them differently. The jihad-as-inner-struggle argument is a perfect example, one that even your best efforts to discredit cannot touch. All you can do to discredit an interpretation is post another interpretation and wave your arms about saying that yours makes more sense. Perhaps it does to you. Perhaps it does to whoever came up with it. This does not mean it is right.

But back to the real question here: If the doctrine is the issue, what would you have them do? What would you have us do?

So you wouldnt be critical of the doctrine espoused in Hitlers Mein Kampf, but would only criticize those who interpreted it literally?????

First of all, Mein Kampf is not a spiritual document, so you're making something of an "apples/oranges" comparison. Spiritual documents lend themselves naturally to both literal and figurative interpretation, in terms of all views of the text; Mein Kampf, a political manifesto/autobiography, does not lend itself naturally to either.

Second of all, there's a cause/effect problem with the comparison as well. In the case of the modern day, you're trying to say that the Qur'an causes Islamic terrorism. In terms of Mein Kampf, Nazism caused the book; the book didn't cause Nazism.

Third, there exist plenty of neo-Nazis in our very own country to this day. I'm not fond of them or their ideas, but so long as all they do is talk I'll put up with their existence.

Fourth, and finally, to the best of my knowledge there has never been what I would call a "positive" interpretation of Mein Kampf. The same is not true of the Qur'an, as I've demonstrated by posting those interpretations.

So...it isn't a spiritual document and relies on facts that are verifiably incorrect, and to my knowledge there has never been an interpretation of it that I would consider positive. Yes, I would be critical of Mein Kampf.

 

[vyo476]

"It will come later"



It may be said, `What is the value of a faith in Islam which is a result of a threat? Abu Sufyan, one moment ago, was not a believer, then he believed after he was threatened by death.' We say to those who question: `What is required of an infidel or the one who confuses other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the religion of God and to subdue himself to the prophethood of Muhammad. But his heartfelt faith is not required at the beginning. It will come later. (Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography", 7th ed., p.284)

None of this means they were capable of controlling his thoughts, only his actions.

And since weve been talking about Jihad and Islamic jurisprudence-

The Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy War has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ‘I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message ( Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, "Jurisprudence in Muhammad's Biography",
7th ed., p.134)

And what makes this interpretation any more valid than the one I've posted from CAIR?

 

[jb_1430]

What would you have them do? Burn the sections of the Qur'an that you don't like?

Ignore the ones regarding waging war against the unbelievers to rule as allah has revealed

Non-violent interpretations of the Qur'an do not ignore the sections you quote, they simply interpret them differently. The jihad-as-inner-struggle argument is a perfect example, one that even your best efforts to discredit cannot touch. All you can do to discredit an interpretation is post another interpretation and wave your arms about saying that yours makes more sense. Perhaps it does to you. Perhaps it does to whoever came up with it. This does not mean it is right.

Dude, Im an atheist, all interpretations are wrong. "Interpretation" what interpretation have I posted? Do you realize that those verses came from the Bukarri haddiths? And that other than the Quran, to the sunnis, there is nothing more authoritative than the Bukarri haddiths?

But back to the real question here: If the doctrine is the issue, what would you have them do? What would you have us do?

I want those who would wage war against us to not wage war against us, ignore the "slay the idolators" bits. And until they do, we need to realize that we cant give them what they want, so we will fight against them until they no longer wish to fight for what they want.

First of all, Mein Kampf is not a spiritual document, so you're making something of an "apples/oranges" comparison. Spiritual documents lend themselves naturally to both literal and figurative interpretation,

???? uuuuhhh? not according to an Islamic FUNDAMENTALIST. They adhere to the LITERAL meaning of the doctrine..

Second of all, there's a cause/effect problem with the comparison as well. In the case of the modern day, you're trying to say that the Qur'an causes Islamic terrorism.

Oh, Ive not argued the Koran caused terrorism. I would argue we wouldnt have this current, worldwide campaing of terrorism in the form of slaughtering as many civilians a you can, without the Islamic doctrine to give such actions legitimacy.

Third, there exist plenty of neo-Nazis in our very own country to this day. I'm not fond of them or their ideas, but so long as all they do is talk I'll put up with their existence.

???? Islamic fundamentalist are waging a worldwide campaign of terrorism against civilians. The Nazis are not.

Fourth, and finally, to the best of my knowledge there has never been what I would call a "positive" interpretation of Mein Kampf.

And Ive never heard a positve interpretation of
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The same is not true of the Qur'an, as I've demonstrated by posting those interpretations.

???? Did you post an interpretation of the koran? I must have missed it.

 

[jb_1430]

And what makes this interpretation any more valid than the one I've posted from CAIR?

Did you post a interpretation from CAIR? I must have missed it.

 

[numinus]

??? You havent yet engaged in THE arguement, I stated



and you replied.



Nothing but a strawman used to evade the arguement. I never labeled bin laden, nasrallah and co as scholars. I did provide writings from Al-Mawardi and Ibn Khaldoon, and the best reply you can come up with is a declaration that I have lost the arguement. Typical

It is enough to point out the FACT that jihad, as interpreted by rowdy goat-herders IS NOT PART OF MAINSTREAM ISLAM. That has been the argument from the very beginning. And that you refuse to or incapable of comprehending such a plain statement is quite telling, indeed.

 

[numinus]

yeah. well some are awakened and some aren't. yes this is typical.

Koran 9:5 “When the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush…..”
is reflected in the last message AQ just put out.

Islam started in the deserts of the hejaz region and became a distinct polity only after uniting the various tribes of arabia. A harsh and inhospitable region such as that, and the people inhabiting it could only give rise to a harsh polity and culture. Raiding and ambushing is a way of life for these desert nomads, and for the most part, IS THE ONLY MEANS OF SURVIVAL - a state of affairs in that region LONG BEFORE ISLAM.

This is not at all the case in some regions of africa and asia where islam had spread. To the moslems of say cosmopolitan malaysia or morocco, such passages do not overshadow the basic tenet of islam - the five pillars.

And yet, you insist on lumping these rational, intelligent, and for the most part, peaceful people with a handful of goat-herders the world is currently waging war against.

So, do yourself a favor and get a clue.

 

[jb_1430]

It is enough to point out the FACT that jihad, as interpreted by rowdy goat-herders IS NOT PART OF MAINSTREAM ISLAM. That has been the argument from the very beginning. And that you refuse to or incapable of comprehending such a plain statement is quite telling, indeed.

???? You really dont have a clue. Or dishonest?? The Bukhari Haddith is considered by "the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet" . Your underlined and bolded views dont change that fact.

Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), also known as the sunnah. The reports of the Prophet's sayings and deeds are called ahadith. Bukhari lived a couple of centuries after the Prophet's death and worked extremely hard to collect his ahadith. Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html

 

[numinus]

???? You really dont have a clue. Or dishonest?? The Bukhari Haddith is considered by "the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet" . Your underlined and bolded views dont change that fact.

Good god there isn't an iota of light in that dark place you call your mind!

Tell me, what does acceptance of, say, mosaic law have to do with, stoning to death as criminal punishment, hmmm? Or acceptance of the pope's infallibility in global politics, eh?

In that meandering logic of yours, does acceptance translate into literal, verbatim imperative?

And just for argument's sake, a haddith (which is an extrapolation of the koran) contains a verse that is logically incompatible with with modern life (as is the case in ALL holy texts), does it invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY????

And while you're at it, why stop at religion? Why not apply your absurd reasoning to natural science, philosophy, epistemology, mathematics, law, virtually every field of human inquiry? Do we rid humanity of these as well?

It appears you are infatuated with goat-herder logic. Not everyone need follow suit.

 

[jb_1430]

Good god there isn't an iota of light in that dark place you call your mind!

Tell me, what does acceptance of, say, mosaic law have to do with, stoning to death as criminal punishment, hmmm?

And I can assure you I would be the first to condemn the mosaic law if we had jews running around stoning to death criminals.

Or acceptance of the pope's infallibility in global politics, eh?

You notice how the West tends to ignore his calls to end all wars?

In that meandering logic of yours, does acceptance translate into literal, verbatim imperative?

Im an atheist einstein. It is for the Islamic fundamentalist who "translate into literal, verbatim imperative", thats what fundamentalist do.

And just for argument's sake, a haddith (which is an extrapolation of the koran) contains a verse that is logically incompatible with with modern life (as is the case in ALL holy texts), does it invalidate the RELIGION IN ITS ENTIRETY????

"Religion in its entirety"????? My criticism are directed at the doctrine.

And while you're at it, why stop at religion? Why not apply your absurd reasoning to natural science, philosophy, epistemology, mathematics, law, virtually every field of human inquiry? Do we rid humanity of these as well?

???? What reasoning would that be? And I am critical of many different philosophies and Epistemologies, fortunately most are limited to theoretical debate without too much impact in the world. Im very critical of many American laws, most wouldnt interpret my criticism as criticism of americans.

It appears you are infatuated with goat-herder logic. Not everyone need follow suit.

??? Again, my view of Islam is irrelevant. It is the views of the Islamic Fundamentalist who wage jihad against the west because they believe Allah requires that they do so.
I think you are just a little too close to the topic to think rationally about it.

 

[jb_1430]

And yet, you insist on lumping these rational, intelligent, and for the most part, peaceful people with a handful of goat-herders the world is currently waging war against.

So, do yourself a favor and get a clue.

Dude, he quoted a verse and made a comment about Al qaeda. Who is lumping anyone together.

 

[vyo476]

Ignore the ones regarding waging war against the unbelievers to rule as allah has revealed

I want those who would wage war against us to not wage war against us, ignore the "slay the idolators" bits. And until they do, we need to realize that we cant give them what they want, so we will fight against them until they no longer wish to fight for what they want.

Insufficient. If your criticisms are pointed solely at the doctrine, a complete change in prevailing attitude towards that doctrine should not affect your argument. After all, the words aren't going to change - only the various interpretations.

Oh, Ive not argued the Koran caused terrorism. I would argue we wouldnt have this current, worldwide campaing of terrorism in the form of slaughtering as many civilians a you can, without the Islamic doctrine to give such actions legitimacy.

And even if every single Muslim "Ignore(s) the ones regarding waging war against the unbelievers to rule as allah has revealed", as you said you'd have them do, the words of their holy books would not change.

In other words, what you'd like to see happen were the problems you'd like acknowledged accepted as truth would not have much, if any, bearing on the problems themselves.

So try again.

???? Islamic fundamentalist are waging a worldwide campaign of terrorism against civilians. The Nazis are not.

Not anymore, anyway. There aren't enough of them and they're stuck under hostile governments.

And Ive never heard a positve interpretation of
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

That is one passage from a book of many, many passages. I could cherrypick things out of Mein Kampf and say, "Hey, this is positive!" For instance, Hitler had a love of landscape artistry - I like landscape artistry too.

There are plenty of people who think the Qur'an as whole is okay.

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/KoranaBookofPeaceNotWarScholarsSay.aspx