Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge

PedroMendez said:
There is no evidence that the majority of these people are actually lying when it comes to their own identity and the theory that they usually have mental health problems is debunked (at least there is no evidence that supports this claim). It is quite telling, when somebody argues at great length, that these people are no “real Muslims”.
Click to expand...
JPRouve sums up my belief on the issue below.
JPRouve said:
But there are rules in Religion, you are not Christian because you say so, you have to respect basic rules. The same goes with Islam, someone that doesn't respect basic rules isn't a believer, you can't pick and choose.
Click to expand...
I agree completely.
Classical Mechanic said:
The problem being that the rules are open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
There's bending rules, then there is outright breaking them. Terrorists do the latter.
 
JPRouve said:
But here we have a problem, while a salafi can interpret Islam individually, that particular encouragement is extended to his community whether they are salafi or not, he has to respect the interpretation of the communities around him or the interpretation of the individuals around him. Indirectly that's a rule that he has to respect and that rule should prevent him from imposing his own interpretation by way of terrorism.

Maybe it's me but wherever I look, I see people that don't respect their own rules.
Click to expand...

Let me use the example of UK Muslims. Because most of them have their origins in the Indian subcontinent, most of them have a heritage in the Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence. The Hanafi school for example has historically accepted that Muslims living under non-Muslim rule are required to accept the law of the land peacefully, so long as they're allowed to practice their religion and proselytise. I'm less familiar with how the other three schools approach this subject but I presume it's along similar lines.

Salafis reject the practice of referring automatically to these schools of interpretation, as they believe doing so carries with it a danger of innovation (bida'a), as the laws of each school were formulated over a century after the time of Muhammad. Still, most Salafis would accept that political authority must be respected as long as it is not used to oppress Muslims. However given the individualism of interpretation for Salafis, there are some who would interpret something like the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a breaking of the pact they believe exists with their non-Muslim rulers, and a license to strike back in some way. Salafism contains no institutional check on such an interpretation, since the role of 'Ijma (consensus) is not accepted by them as binding.
 
2cents said:
Let me use the example of UK Muslims. Because most of them have their origins in the Indian subcontinent, most of them have a heritage in the Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence. The Hanafi school for example has historically accepted that Muslims living under non-Muslim rule are required to accept the law of the land peacefully, so long as they're allowed to practice their religion and proselytise. I'm less familiar with how the other three schools approach this subject but I presume it's along similar lines.

Salafis reject the practice of referring automatically to these schools of interpretation, as they believe doing so carries with it a danger of innovation (bida'a), as the laws of each school were formulated over a century after the time of Muhammad. Still, most Salafis would accept that political authority must be respected as long as it is not used to oppress Muslims. However given the individualism of interpretation for Salafis, there are some who would interpret something like the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a breaking of the pact they believe exists with their non-Muslim rulers, and a license to strike back in some way. Salafism contains no institutional check on such an interpretation, since the role of 'Ijma (consensus) is not accepted by them as binding.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph is what I know about Islam and the second is what perplexes me. Most of post 2003's victims have been muslims. How do they justify that?
 
So how did Christians get from "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to the inquisition ? Was Paisley right, the Pope is not a true Christian ?
 
jackofalltrades said:
So how did Christians get from "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to the inquisition ? Was Paisley right, the Pope is not a true Christian ?
Click to expand...

That line (from John John 7:53-8:11) got removed as scholars found it was put in at a later date. Not really related to your point (which I fully understand) but for the sake of accuracy, I thought I would chime in :)
 
JPRouve said:
The first paragraph is what I know about Islam and the second is what perplexes me. Most of post 2003's victims have been muslims. How do they justify that?
Click to expand...

By portraying those they target as hypocrites and apostates. These people (I'm referring specifically to Salafi-Jihadi types) are immersed in the idea that they're re-living the first few decades of Islamic history. For someone with that mindset (and of course shaped by the brutality of modern life in places like Iraq), such enemies will appear everywhere. The first few decades of Islamic history are portrayed in the histories as full of violence, betrayals, etc., e.g. after Muhammad's death many of the Arabs who had converted to Islam during his life reverted to their previous practices. The first caliph Abu Bakr (who al-Baghdadi of ISIS consciously models himself on) waged the so-called Ridda Wars to bring these tribes back into the fold.

Three of the first four caliphs were murdered, and then of course there were numerous revolts led by a sect called the Khawarij (kharijites) who rejected the authority of the caliphs, not to mention the conflicts that produced the Shi'a-Sunni divide. Look at a figure such as Khalid ibn al-Walid (there is an ISIS faction fighting in southern Syria named after him); as an example of a violent man of action his story provides a lot of material.

The schools of jurisprudence were formed later on, when the Muslims had established a successful global empire which was at that time the apex of human civilisation and had incorporated different peoples with different cultures, languages, and interests. That situation demanded pragmatism and flexibility in determining a normative standard of Islam which would appeal to people from Africa to China, and the schools (along with the Sufi orders) were able to provide that.
 
2cents said:
By portraying those they target as hypocrites and apostates. These people (I'm referring specifically to Salafi-Jihadi types) are immersed in the idea that they're re-living the first few decades of Islamic history. For someone with that mindset (and of course shaped by the brutality of modern life in places like Iraq), such enemies will appear everywhere. The first few decades of Islamic history are portrayed in the histories as full of violence, betrayals, etc., e.g. after Muhammad's death many of the Arabs who had converted to Islam during his life reverted to their previous practices. The first caliph Abu Bakr (who al-Baghdadi of ISIS consciously models himself on) waged the so-called Ridda Wars to bring these tribes back into the fold.

Three of the first four caliphs were murdered, and then of course there were numerous revolts led by a sect called the Khawarij (kharijites) who rejected the authority of the caliphs, not to mention the conflicts that produced the Shi'a-Sunni divide. Look at a figure such as Khalid ibn al-Walid (there is an ISIS faction fighting in southern Syria named after him); as an example of a violent man of action his story provides a lot of material.

The schools of jurisprudence were formed later on, when the Muslims had established a successful global empire which was at that time the apex of human civilisation and had incorporated different peoples with different cultures, languages, and interests. That situation demanded pragmatism and flexibility in determining a normative standard of Islam which would appeal to people from Africa to China, and the schools (along with the Sufi orders) were able to provide that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that post.
 
Zarlak said:
This part is amusing, it isn't 'their' word. It's a word that has a definition accessible to anybody and everybody. I am an English speaker, but there's probably an Arabic speaker out there who can tell me what an English word means that I might not know. Just because that's your language doesn't mean you know and understand every word in it, nor does it mean that nobody else can understand what a word means. You don't have to go to a high priest to gain insight into what a word means, you can find out anywhere.
Click to expand...

That is absurdly incorrect.

Language is also dependent on cultural context, so has many nuances depending on where its spoken. Of course a native speaker speaking his language in the land of that language will have greater appreciation for its meaning.

Eg: English words can have very different meanings inside UK than for example in India or USA.

I don't know how you think thats controversial.
 
Last edited:
2cents said:
As to your actual point, I don't know about Qur'an-burning, but some of the greatest Muslims in history have been enthusiastic wine-drinkers, writers of homoerotic poetry, etc. There have been Sufi orders who believed in deliberately flouting the shari'ah as a means of engaging with God. Pre-modern Islamic history is full of this stuff.
Click to expand...

Neither of which form the basis of the 5 fundamental pillars of Islam (1 God with Muhammed (pbuh) as his last messenger, 5 prayers a day, observe Ramadan, give Charity, perform Hajj). There is no debate whatsoever over this.

After these core principles, there are several secondary and many tertiary rituals, recommended abstoinances and behaviours that help one followers attain 'peace'.

Scholars and practitioners are divided on the relative importance of these in terms of satisfying Gods requirements. Hence why you are likely to find differing levels of adoption over history and in the present day.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
The first paragraph is what I know about Islam and the second is what perplexes me. Most of post 2003's victims have been muslims. How do they justify that?
Click to expand...

They believe the Muslims being attacked are either misguided or accept it as collateral damage.

eg: ISIS believe non ISIS Iraqi Muslims are 'corrupted' so therefore expendable in their quest to create their own state.
 
2cents said:
By portraying those they target as hypocrites and apostates. These people (I'm referring specifically to Salafi-Jihadi types) are immersed in the idea that they're re-living the first few decades of Islamic history. For someone with that mindset (and of course shaped by the brutality of modern life in places like Iraq), such enemies will appear everywhere. The first few decades of Islamic history are portrayed in the histories as full of violence, betrayals, etc., e.g. after Muhammad's death many of the Arabs who had converted to Islam during his life reverted to their previous practices. The first caliph Abu Bakr (who al-Baghdadi of ISIS consciously models himself on) waged the so-called Ridda Wars to bring these tribes back into the fold.

Three of the first four caliphs were murdered, and then of course there were numerous revolts led by a sect called the Khawarij (kharijites) who rejected the authority of the caliphs, not to mention the conflicts that produced the Shi'a-Sunni divide. Look at a figure such as Khalid ibn al-Walid (there is an ISIS faction fighting in southern Syria named after him); as an example of a violent man of action his story provides a lot of material.

The schools of jurisprudence were formed later on, when the Muslims had established a successful global empire which was at that time the apex of human civilisation and had incorporated different peoples with different cultures, languages, and interests. That situation demanded pragmatism and flexibility in determining a normative standard of Islam which would appeal to people from Africa to China, and the schools (along with the Sufi orders) were able to provide that.
Click to expand...

Brilliantly succinct synopsis. Thanks!

@2cents @Sultan
Have you read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Prophet-Story-Shia-Sunni-Split/dp/0385523947

It explains the schisms in Islam immediate after the death of Muhammed (pbuh) and the foundational history between sunni, Shia and Wahabi. You already seem to understand this schism very well, but if not, you should read it. The author writes in an exciting style, so it reads like a page turning thriller:

Also, pls can you recommend any other foundational essays on the first 50-100 years of Islam, that is relatively easy to read? I don't mind different interpretations or heavy criticism.
 
sammsky1 said:
That is absurdly incorrect.

Language is also dependent on cultural context, so has many nuances depending on where its spoken. Of course a native speaker speaking his language in the land of that language will have greater appreciation for its meaning.

Eg: English words can have very different meanings inside UK than for example in India or USA.

I don't know how you think thats controversial.
Click to expand...

It isn't absurdly incorrect at all. On a daily basis you encounter people who don't understand what words in their own language mean. They've never heard them or think they mean the wrong thing. They use words incorrectly and in the wrong context. The point I was making was a simple one, a native speaker has a higher probability of knowing but doesn't inherently know. There are English speakers who cannot use their, there and they're correctly and Spanish speakers who can. The fact that you may be a native speaker of a language does not mean that inherently you know more than somebody else about something, that's an absurd statement to make. It may be more probable that you do but that's all. An English speaker is not by default correct on something relating to the English language when arguing with a Russian for example simply because they're English, that would be retarded. The person is only correct if what they are saying is actually correct, which it may not be. It's pretty simple. A mathmetician who says 2+2=4 is not correct because he's a mathmetician, he's correct because what he says stands up on its own merits, it's simply more probably that he knows that as a result of being a mathemetician and the same applies here. To make a statement like 'a non Muslim can't tell a Muslim what their word means' is a stupid statement to make. It assumes that one starts off at a disadvantage based on no evience at all. For all you know the Muslim misunderstands the word just as an Englishman may not understand the correct use of there, their, they're and the non Muslim in this sense understands the word perfectly having studied it. It's a simple concept. Far too often people look for bullshit ways like this to discredit somebody and reduce their argument. It's a stupid thing to fall back on to say 'well what do you know, how can you tell him X, Y or Z. He obviously knows more than you because [insert fallacy of reason here].'
 
Zarlak said:
It isn't absurdly incorrect at all. On a daily basis you encounter people who don't understand what words in their own language mean. They've never heard them or think they mean the wrong thing. They use words incorrectly and in the wrong context. The point I was making was a simple one, a native speaker has a higher probability of knowing but doesn't inherently know. There are English speakers who cannot use their, there and they're correctly and Spanish speakers who can. The fact that you may be a native speaker of a language does not mean that inherently you know more than somebody else about something, that's an absurd statement to make. It may be more probable that you do but that's all. An English speaker is not by default correct on something relating to the English language when arguing with a Russian for example simply because they're English, that would be retarded. The person is only correct if what they are saying is actually correct, which it may not be. It's pretty simple. A mathmetician who says 2+2=4 is not correct because he's a mathmetician, he's correct because what he says stands up on its own merits, it's simply more probably that he knows that as a result of being a mathemetician and the same applies here. To make a statement like 'a non Muslim can't tell a Muslim what their word means' is a stupid statement to make. It assumes that one starts off at a disadvantage based on no evience at all. For all you know the Muslim misunderstands the word just as an Englishman may not understand the correct use of they, their, they're and the non Muslim in this sense understands the word perfectly having studied it. It's a simple concept. Far too often people look for bullshit ways like this to discredit somebody and reduce their argument.
Click to expand...
Ever heard of paragraphs?! Or perhaps the wall of text is meant to bamboozle me?

Anyways you're arguing extremities and within that, semantics.

Im not out to win any argument, simply to experiment with points of view and learn others. Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion, so lets leave it there.
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
Ever heard of paragraphs?! Or perhaps the wall of text is meant to bamboozle me?

Anyways you're arguing extremities and within that, semantics.

Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion, so lets leave it there.
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to read as it is to be honest. I'm sorry if you struggle with it or if it bamboozle's you.
 
sammsky1 said:
@2cents @Sultan
Have you read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Prophet-Story-Shia-Sunni-Split/dp/0385523947

It explains the schisms in Islam immediate after the death of Muhammed (pbuh) and the foundational history between sunni, Shia and Wahabi. You already seem to understand this schism very well, but if not, you should read it. The author writes in an exciting style, so it reads like a page turning thriller:

Also, pls can you recommend any other foundational essays on the first 50-100 years of Islam, that is relatively easy to read? I don't mind different interpretations or heavy criticism.
Click to expand...

I haven't read that book, no.

A book I always recommend on Islamic history for anyone who wants to learn the most in the fewest amount of pages is called The Formation of Islam by Jonathan Berkey - it has an academic style but is easy enough to get through, and it takes you all the way from the pre-Islamic Middle East to the Ottoman conquests (and a bit beyond). The period up to the Abbasid Revolution (128 Gregorian years after Hijra) is covered in 100 pages. However given that the main argument of the book is that the formation of Islam (as a civilization) as we know it today wasn't really completed until a later period, there's a lot of value in getting to the end (it's about 270 in total).

There are other scholars I could mention (such as Fred Donner and Patricia Crone, whose article on jihad I posted earlier today) who are specialists on the early period, but whose books are heavily dense, academic studies of particular questions.

sammsky1 said:
Neither of which form the basis of the 5 fundamental pillars of Islam (1 God with Muhammed (pbuh) as his last messenger, 5 prayers a day, observe Ramadan, give Charity, perform Hajj). There is no debate whatsoever over this.
Click to expand...

Just to quickly get back to this issue, here a Muslim scholar called Shahab Ahmad highlights the complex issues even the shahadah has raised for Muslims in history:

"To witness that "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God," is...not a settled end in itself; rather, it is the prelude to asking a number of fundamental questions: What is God? What is His Message? What does it mean to live according to His wise purpose? (Also, the Shi'i shahadah contains the further asseveration, "I witness that 'Ali is the Deputed One [wali] of God" - which is a statement that hardly leaves unaffected the meaning of the term "Messenger [rasul]" as applied to Muhammad in the first part of the shahadah)...

...the mere act of declaring one's islam - that is, to declare that "There is no God but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God" - is to submit oneself to rich possibilities of interpretive disagreement about God, His Messenger, and the meaning and constitution of the object of the act of submission: that is to say, the meaning and constitution of Islam."​
 
facund said:
Are Quakers not Christians then? They don't adhere to some of the ritualistic practices prevalent in mainstream Christianity, baptism* being the most relevant in this case.

The diagram posted on the last page displays the issues with trying to typify a religion, the sheer breadth of competing organisations brought under a single umbrella such as "Christianity" will encompass vast amounts of variance/diversity and often contradictory stances.

Edit *In the sense that one can be baptised by the church.
Click to expand...
If you want to enter the Catholic Church, a previous Trinitarian baptism (baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is considered valid. This is because for us, baptism can only happen once.
 
Zarlak said:
I'm not offended, I was just using EyeInTheSky's line that if you're not a Muslim you can't say what the word means because it's not your word.
Click to expand...

Oooh:nervous:. I hope that it doesn't work for english.
 
@Zarlak @sammsky1 @EyeInTheSky

I think both of you are debating from a different angle. The debate is not simply about Arabic or it's simple translations. It's about the Quran and it's translation with many nuances. One word or sentence can have many meanings. It is not enough just to know Arabic the language to understand the Qur'an. Along with extensive knowledge of the rules of the language, its styles and manners of expression, a deep insight into the rules of Shariah is required.

It is essential to know what has been narrated from the Messenger (SAW) and his companions that may give some insight into how one should interpret the meaning on the basis of his understanding. The one who does that must also have extensive knowledge of the rules of the Arabic language and its styles and manner of expression, as well as deep insight into the context of the word, verse, history, when, where and why the verse was revealed. Islamic jurisprudence, and consensus of the first few generations of Muslims; or the consensus and jurists of the Muslim world.
 
Sultan said:
@Zarlak @sammsky1 @EyeInTheSky

I think both of you are debating from a different angle. The debate is not simply about Arabic or it's simple translations. It's about the Quran and it's translation with many nuances. One word or sentence can have many meanings. It is not enough just to know Arabic the language to understand the Qur'an. Along with extensive knowledge of the rules of the language, its styles and manners of expression, a deep insight into the rules of Shariah is required.

It is essential to know what has been narrated from the Messenger (SAW) and his companions that may give some insight into how one should interpret the meaning on the basis of his understanding. The one who does that must also have extensive knowledge of the rules of the Arabic language and its styles and manner of expression, as well as deep insight into the context of the word, verse, history, when, where and why the verse was revealed. Islamic jurisprudence, and consensus of the first few generations of Muslims; or the consensus and jurists of the Muslim world.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely, I just called out the silly statement that you can't tell somebody what something means because you're not a native and they are. It's a silly starting position, it reduces somebodies starting position based on nothing at all and elevates another based on something that doesn't necessarily make any difference. It's just a silly tactic used to reduce somebodies credibility without actually focusing on the merits of their statement. It was one throwaway line that wasn't true that I picked up on, I never imagined it would evolve into this.
 
Zarlak said:
This part is amusing, it isn't 'their' word. It's a word that has a definition accessible to anybody and everybody. I am an English speaker, but there's probably an Arabic speaker out there who can tell me what an English word means that I might not know. Just because that's your language doesn't mean you know and understand every word in it, nor does it mean that nobody else can understand what a word means. You don't have to go to a high priest to gain insight into what a word means, you can find out anywhere.
Click to expand...
Sultan said:
@Zarlak @sammsky1 @EyeInTheSky

I think both of you are debating from a different angle. The debate is not simply about Arabic or it's simple translations. It's about the Quran and it's translation with many nuances. One word or sentence can have many meanings. It is not enough just to know Arabic the language to understand the Qur'an. Along with extensive knowledge of the rules of the language, its styles and manners of expression, a deep insight into the rules of Shariah is required.

It is essential to know what has been narrated from the Messenger (SAW) and his companions that may give some insight into how one should interpret the meaning on the basis of his understanding. The one who does that must also have extensive knowledge of the rules of the Arabic language and its styles and manner of expression, as well as deep insight into the context of the word, verse, history, when, where and why the verse was revealed. Islamic jurisprudence, and consensus of the first few generations of Muslims; or the consensus and jurists of the Muslim world.
Click to expand...

Zarlak said:
I agree with you completely, I just called out the silly statement that you can't tell somebody what something means because you're not a native and they are. It's a silly starting position, it reduces somebodies starting position based on nothing at all and elevates another based on something that doesn't necessarily make any difference. It's just a silly tactic used to reduce somebodies credibility without actually focusing on the merits of their statement. It was one throwaway line that wasn't true that I picked up on, I never imagined it would evolve into this.
Click to expand...

Just to close my contribution to this stupid sub-discussion @Zarlak not quite what you said and you are being dienegenious

As @Sultan has said, in the instance of Islamic Arabic scriptures, one does require a 'High Priest' or somebody with societal and contextual knowledge to get the true meaning. A point you 'now agree with completely'. I dont think its a silly point whatsoever, especially in these times when misinterpretation can be catastrophic.

You can argue that certain 'High Priests' may have different agendas but that is an entirely different debate.
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
Just to close may contribution to this stupid sub-discussion @Zarlak not quite what you said and you are being dienegenious

As @Sultan has said, in the instance of Arabic Islamic scriptures, one does require a 'High Priest' or somebody with similar societal and contextual knowledge to get the true meaning. A point you 'now agree with completely'. I dont think its a silly point whatsoever, especially in these times when misinterpretation can be catastrophic.

You can argue that certain 'High Priests' may have different agendas but that is an entirely different debate.
Click to expand...

Now who is arguing semantics? As I said already, the definitions of words are very easy to find including from Muslim sources. If you want to pretend that these words have yet to be defined and that we must complete a pilgrimage to a temple in order to have them bestow the meaning on us then be my guest. Rather than the truth, which is that you can simply now look them up as all of this has been done already. The words may have at some point in the distant past required somebody to provide context to them, but that was done long ago and is now freely available to those who are both native and non-native speakers. This argument is truly ridiculous.
 
Zarlak said:
Now who is arguing semantics? As I said already, the definitions of words are very easy to find including from Muslim sources. If you want to pretend that these words have yet to be defined and that we must complete a pilgrimage to a temple in order to have them bestow the meaning on us then be my guest. Rather than the truth, which is that you can simply now look them up as all of this has been done already.

The words may have at some point in the distant past required somebody to provide context to them, but that was done long ago and is now freely available to those who are both native and non-native speakers. This argument is truly ridiculous.
Click to expand...
In your case, evidently not, given how you've crudely translated words to suit your own agenda.

eg: even in the above post, Muslims go to mosques, not temples. didn't do so well there, did you?

Anyways, Im beyond bored of this. Reply and disagree as many times as you wish, it will only amplify your bigotry on this subject.
 
Last edited:
What a debate. If you are a native speaker, chances are you'd probably know the true meaning of a certain word. However there is no guarantee that a non native speaker will not know the same just because he isn't native.
 
Moonred said:
What a debate. If you are a native speaker, chances are you'd probably know the true meaning of a certain word. However there is no guarantee that a non native speaker will not know the same just because he isn't native.
Click to expand...
I think the underlying dissent here is not just on a linguistic level, but on an absolutely fundamental one: Is this text the absolute truth (because it is the word of God), or is it man-made and therefore necessarily inconsistent?

Is there a divine 'true meaning' to be found? That would justify the otherwise exaggerated insistence on the text's original, absolutely undistorted form. Or is it just one of many religious ideologies that can be critically deconstructed? That would mean understanding its practical social influence is probably a more important issue than attempting a coherent intrinsic interpretation (which might not be possible anyway).

So this basic question has serious consequences for the possibility of interpretation, translation and criticism from 'outside'. And I have the feeling that the insistence on the Arabic language (and extensive knowledge of its connotations) has something to do with this question.
 
EyeInTheSky said:
I see where you are coming from. There is a central authority imo and its called the Quran also the hadith. Also in every country, the ruling power does not advocate for terrorist acts. There is and has been a deliberate and insidious attempt by certain parties to hijack the word Jihad.

Jihad means the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin. So in an accidental way you are right in that "Jihad is a legitimate part of Islam". The linguistic meaning is as follows:

  • The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word "jihad" means struggling or striving.
  • The arabic word for war is: "al-harb"
These are 2 different words. You see the fallacy of trying to attribute that word "Jihad" to anything to do with "holy" or "war" or any other narrative?
Click to expand...

There's no 'hijacking' of the word Jihad and while it can be used to mean 'struggle' against sin, it also means physical struggle as in the act of war. To pretend otherwise is ignoring much of the Quran and Sunnah. The Salafis use the word Jihad very frequently and they are very very rarely talking about a struggle against sin, some may say they use it quite aggressively. When a muslim says 'I'm going on Jihad'. No Muslim literally ever actually thought, 'oh that's nice, he's off to be spiritual and overcome his sins, good for him'. They know full well he's going off to fight a cause.

EyeInTheSky said:
if someone decided to use the word "struggle" in the context of a horrendous act despite being told explicitly and implicitly with grave warnings, both by his Spiritual and Legal Authority does that mean the Authority legitimises the very act it warns gravely against?
Click to expand...

Many Islamic leaders do condemn terrorism, others vocally encourage it. If yours don't then good, most don't, but a large number do. If I was in your shoes I wouldn't want to be associated with Islamofacism either, but that fact is it exists

EyeInTheSky said:
In no other sphere of existence would someone use this argument against any peoples unless it was a double standard or a deliberate misinformation campaign based on an aggressive agenda. We would all be rolling on the floor laughing if the shoe was on the other foot and someone tried to equivocate secularism or democracy or even Christianity with war because certain groups plan/plot and make up demonstrable and proven lies about countries in order to invade and steal their resources whilst killing millions across the globe yet it happens.
Click to expand...

It did and it was a war crime. But the fact it required lies to justify it shows it was against the democratic system. IN contrast ISIS have daleel from Quran/Sunah.

EyeInTheSky said:
The problem I have is that people are jumping to the most negative possible interpretation despite the actual facts of any aspect of Islam which is due to both an inner dislike or hate for it and the constant and deliberate legitimisation of that ill will via propaganda from elements in places of power. Just because someone saw a bbc news clip or read a website and saw the word "Jihad" on it suddenly they are an expert in The Arabic language and what Islam teaches.
Click to expand...

You aren't an expert on what Islam teaches either, you haven't read very much about it at all. You laughably denied quotes from Muhammed's first biographies and your response was 'I won't discuss it here I just want to respect the dead'. Yet you're still here arguing, however many postson. So here it is IbnIshaq's first biography of Muahmmed, pages 510-516, Muhammed massacred all the men of a tribe, enslaved all of their women and married/raped the wife of a man who he tortured to extort treasure from him. He then told off Bilaal because Bilaal let said rape victim view the dead bodies of her dad/husband, before he raped her and Muhammed thought it insensitive of Bilaal. His companion guarded his tent all night because he thought said rape victim was going to extract revenge on Muhammed. Can you be bothered to read 6 pages of the holy prophets firs biography Eyeinthesky, it's here for you (pages 510-516, mainly 510/511/515/516 if you're being lazy):

http://www.justislam.co.uk/images/Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah.pdf

Read on to hear how 'the perfect man on earth' then agreed neighbouring tribes were asked to give up all of their property but allowed them to keep half of their property as tribute as they told him they knew how better to farm etc and they'd make him more money.

Now I'll do you a favour and argue for you now because let's be honest you don't have the knowledge to debate here. Not one Islamic scholar denies these tales of Muhammed's massacres and rapes that I posted were recorded in Mohammed's first biography because they know full well that they were. They claim the leaders of the time (200 years after Muhammed) were warlords and made up these stories to justify their warring. The thing is no Islamic scholars questioned this version of events until the 20th century. Ethics and standards of morals naturally changes over time though.

In seriousness the Paris cartoons were garbage but this story told in the right tone would be hilarious. That and the real satanic verses where Muhammed decided for about 6 months where Muhammed said 2 daughters of Allah were also gods to be worshiped but then came back and said it was satan pretending to be Allah misleading him that whole time. You might have thought Allah might have put him straight in those 6 months, but Allah was busy, probably with his 24/7 surveillance of every human alive while analysing every single virtious and sinful act they've ever commited. It's completely understandable that Allah as busy as he was with all those trillions of actions couldn't keep Muhammed informed of who was and wasn't a god for 6 months.

EyeInTheSky said:
Thankfully there are a good and steadily rising number of people who actually use their reasoning and rationale to investigate the subjects pertinent to the topic and don't rely on the manipulated mainstream media owned by the very parties that seek to spread these lies and hate. There are others who are just misinformed and can't really be blamed for being lost in the myriad of BS
Click to expand...

And unlike yourself there are those who've bothered to read the uncut versions of Muahmmed's biographies.
 
Synco said:
I think the underlying dissent here is not just on a linguistic level, but on an absolutely fundamental one: Is this text the absolute truth (because it is the word of God), or is it man-made and therefore necessarily inconsistent?

Is there a divine 'true meaning' to be found? That would justify the otherwise exaggerated insistence on the text's original, absolutely undistorted form. Or is it just one of many religious ideologies that can be critically deconstructed? That would mean understanding its practical social influence is probably a more important issue than attempting a coherent intrinsic interpretation (which might not be possible anyway).

So this basic question has serious consequences for the possibility of interpretation, translation and criticism from 'outside'. And I have the feeling that the insistence on the Arabic language (and extensive knowledge of its connotations) has something to do with this question.
Click to expand...

The irony is that the Quran is not written in what we know to be modern Arabic and isn't completely legible in modern Arabic so needs written commentary from 'scollars' to interpret it. It also has many words that aren't of Arabic origin. It's almost as if it's literature taken from other cultures in an era where Arabs were generally not literate.

Religions as a whole don't want the masses to analyse and interpret them because they know they'll get found out under the microscope. Muslims complain when people analyse Muhammed's biography and demand 'you can only understand Islam/Quran in Arabic'. Ctholics did the same demanding only Latin speakers have access to understanding Christianity. It's hiding their flawed religion and controlling the masses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.