Paris terror attacks on Friday 13th

Tincanalley said:
Interesting comments on Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia @VidaRed I was unaware of much of that history.
Do you tend to agree with the author of this article, then?
http://goo.gl/kCvCJN
Click to expand...


posted it yesterday on the ISIS thread - from the Huffington Post - it's from the summer of 2014. load of stuff i never knew (not as if i'm a expert but a good read)
 
Pogue Mahone said:
From that link you posted:



That applies here, surely?
Click to expand...
Good point.

Almost all Muslim theologians argue those committing these acts against the innocents goes against the commands of the very highest authority "The Qur'an" (see quote below). This is why you will find many Muslims arguing those committing these acts of violence are not Muslims. I'd argue they are Muslims but quite clearly radicalised, disturbed and their minds have been warped in hatred and a promise of a better life in the hereafter.

"Whoever kills a person it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur’an, 5:32)
 
Last edited:
diarm said:
But they do represent real muslims. They represent the thousands who join their ranks each day and the many thousands more who sympathise with their views.

Just because their are more muslims who don't agree with their views, doesn't mean these people don't represent Islam. Especially when their play book is lifted verbatim from the texts upon which Islam is based.

To say ISIS has basis in Islam is not an attack on the millions of decent, peaceful muslims and I don't know why you are trying to twist it into that. It is simply looking at the issue objectively rather than ignoring it by lazily saying they aren't real muslims.
Click to expand...

They are Muslim but represent few Muslims, and are no more real Muslims than those who oppose them. Its the latter that I object, those labeling their interpretation as direct, somehow more worthy then that of other muslims in the workd
 
diarm said:
No you said a very well researched and balanced article was "a load of nonsense", before going on to misunderstand its central point.

The way the Quran should be interpreted by educated, rational people is great. But when one faction interprets the words literally, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims from perceived peaceful areas are flocking to follow that faction, the world has a problem which doesn't get solved by people lazily saying "they don't represent real muslims.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point actually.

I'd also point out how ahistorical it is to not use religion in a violent way, and I would think this applies to all the Abrahamic religions. I won't speak of Islam as I know little of it but of the 2000 years of which Christianity has existed it's been used as a casus belli for about 1800 of them. I don't think Islam is significantly different in that respect.

Usual terms and conditions apply; anyone therefore thinking Muslims aren't peaceful, or Islam isn't a peaceful religion of peace, or ISIS represent Muslims, is stupid, etc
 
Sultan said:
Good point.

Almost all Muslim theologians argue those committing these acts against the innocents goes against the commands of the very highest authority "The Qur'an" (see quote below). This is why you will find many Muslims arguing those committing these acts of violence are not Muslims. I'd argue they are Muslims but quite clearly radicalised, disturbed and their minds have been warped in hatred and a promise of a better life in the hereafter.

"Whoever kills a person it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind." (Qur’an, 5:32)
Click to expand...

Nice quote.

The whole verse:

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." (Pickthall)

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land." (Yusuf Ali)

The punishment for "mischief" or "corruption":

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom" (Pickthall)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter" (Yusuf Ali).

Granted, "exile from the land" sounds somewhat reasonably. But "Allahs" disapproval of killing people is not as empathically as one might think from your quote.
 
2cents said:
The standard of discussion of these things on Redcafe is a cut above most other places on the internet IMO. I learn stuff every day on here.
Click to expand...

While this is true this is in no small part down to you personally :), btw.

However, while you're obviously right theologically:

2cents said:
It's not up to us to pass judgement on who is a 'real Muslim'. The point of the article is that the Islamic State's theology draws on traditions with a firm basis in Islamic texts which can be seen recurring throughout history.
Click to expand...

I have difficulty with this to the extent that it's meant to substantiate the "ISIS aren't real Muslims" rhetoric in the media. (I'm referring to things like this: http://rudaw.net/english/lifestyle/080720151)

That discussion is implicitly meant to draw us to the conclusion that Islam is a religion of peace, which is obviously true. But as has been pointed out, on a colloquial/social level we consider people Muslim when they smoke, drink, eat pork, dress in bikinis etc. (And we should!) In the context of the "is Islam violent?" discussion, it's then a bit silly to say ISIS aren't Muslim because they're violent, and Muslims aren't violent. It disguises a conclusion as a premise.
 
2cents said:
Nobody, however, is saying that jihad has to be understood this way, and that those Muslims who understand it as a purely defensive action, or as a more contemplative, internal struggle for self-improvement, are any less authentic for doing so. These understandings are equally firmly based in the scripture and historical examples also abound. Furthermore, no account of the Islamic State is complete without understanding the unique circumstances which have given their interpretation of jihad appeal across a broad (though shallow) spectrum of Muslim society at this particular time - the impact of Western economic, cultural and military dominance, the failure of secular regimes, the rise of Saudi oil money, the crisis of overpopulation and unemployment, the fight for resources, the role of the autocratic family hierarchy, etc. Consideration of these factors shows the limitations of referring solely to Islamic texts and historical examples for our understanding.
Click to expand...

It's this aspect that strikes me so strongly. They do represent a strand of Islamic thought and teaching and it's a strand that removes nuance, context and contradictory ideas. In doing so, they simplify any struggles, personal or global, to the failure to implement their model. The world becomes a battle of good and evil, with no grey areas or options.

Initially it's hard to see how young Muslims can go from a conventional westernised life (including its excesses and illegal acts) to contemplating killing people who are doing the same things that they once enjoyed. Yet, offered absolutes, including redemption, and a lack of contradiction (or compromise/hypocrisy as some might see it) perhaps it's easier to visualise. Which makes the question of how they can be led out of it even more complex.
 
naturalized said:
I have difficulty with this to the extent that it's meant to substantiate the "ISIS aren't real Muslims" rhetoric in the media. (I'm referring to things like this: http://rudaw.net/english/lifestyle/080720151)

That discussion is implicitly meant to draw us to the conclusion that Islam is a religion of peace, which is obviously true. But as has been pointed out, on a colloquial/social level we consider people Muslim when they smoke, drink, eat pork, dress in bikinis etc. (And we should!) In the context of the "is Islam violent?" discussion, it's then a bit silly to say ISIS aren't Muslim because they're violent, and Muslims aren't violent. It disguises a conclusion as a premise.
Click to expand...

I agree. The only consistent approach is to avoid wading into the 'Who is a real Muslim / What is the real Islam?' discussion altogether. These things can't be objectively 'known' by anyone who does not subscribe to the faith themselves (obviously believers regard the texts as sacred and universal and so will believe their own interpretation to be objective). When Muslims themselves can't decide these questions between them, it seems a bit absurd for the rest of us to be judging one way or the other.

What we can do is study the texts in the context of what Muslims have understood them to mean at various times. When we do that, there is no need to apply the labels of 'violent' or 'peaceful' to the faith or its adherents - Islam becomes, as that Professor Haykel says in the Atlantic article, "what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts." And those matters are decided by the same host of worldly issues which determine the actions of all of us.
 
2cents said:
I agree. The only consistent approach is to avoid wading into the 'Who is a real Muslim / What is the real Islam?' discussion altogether. These things can't be objectively 'known' by anyone who does not subscribe to the faith themselves (obviously believers regard the texts as sacred and universal and so will believe their own interpretation to be objective). When Muslims themselves can't decide these questions between them, it seems a bit absurd for the rest of us to be judging one way or the other.

What we can do is study the texts in the context of what Muslims have understood them to mean at various times. When we do that, there is no need to apply the labels of 'violent' or 'peaceful' to the faith or its adherents - Islam becomes, as that Professor Haykel says in the Atlantic article, "what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts." And those matters are decided by the same host of worldly issues which determine the actions of all of us.
Click to expand...

Agree fully with all this. Will echo Revan from previous page - thanks for your posts and please post more. Learn a lot from you.
 
Sultan said:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/schuster.column/
Click to expand...

So I posted an article specifically dealing with the motives and beliefs of ISIS, and you told me you could post a million links to counter that article. I asked for them and you posted one link which was:
  • Written in 2005 before ISIS existed.
  • Written about Al Quaeda (who have a very different agenda to ISIS and are considered infidels by ISIS precisely because of their political motives).
  • Written very specifically about suicide bombings carried out by Al Quadea.
  • Written by an American who had no background studying Islam, who's background was in the impact of air power in military conflict and who only began studying suicide bombers (not Islam) 4 years previously following 9/11.
The themes of the two articles could not be more different. I really think you should read the articles being discussed before telling us what is nonsense and what isn't. A couple of posts after this you praised another post as a "brilliant and fair assessment" (which it was), when it made many of the same points raised in the original article I posted and points which I fully agree with and have been (obviously badly) trying to convey.
 
naturalized said:
While this is true this is in no small part down to you personally :), btw.

However, while you're obviously right theologically:



I have difficulty with this to the extent that it's meant to substantiate the "ISIS aren't real Muslims" rhetoric in the media. (I'm referring to things like this: http://rudaw.net/english/lifestyle/080720151)

That discussion is implicitly meant to draw us to the conclusion that Islam is a religion of peace, which is obviously true. But as has been pointed out, on a colloquial/social level we consider people Muslim when they smoke, drink, eat pork, dress in bikinis etc. (And we should!) In the context of the "is Islam violent?" discussion, it's then a bit silly to say ISIS aren't Muslim because they're violent, and Muslims aren't violent. It disguises a conclusion as a premise.
Click to expand...
ISIS are Muslims. To say otherwise is a probably being defensive as well as apologetic for the actions committed in our religions name.

God loves those who repent and those who purify themselves of sins. So sinning does not mean you're out of Islam. However, the reason many theologians say ISIS are out of the fold Islam is when committing these despicable acts they think it's a virtue and never seek Gods pardon. If they're killed in the act of killing innocents, they do not have time to repent.
 
JuveGER said:
Nice quote.

The whole verse:

"For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." (Pickthall)

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land." (Yusuf Ali)

The punishment for "mischief" or "corruption":

"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom" (Pickthall)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter" (Yusuf Ali).

Granted, "exile from the land" sounds somewhat reasonably. But "Allahs" disapproval of killing people is not as empathically as one might think from your quote.
Click to expand...
Wow. This & the one Sultan quoted are totally different. In which form is it in book?
 
Mozza said:
Provide the context, when they were revealed, what the historical context under which they happened
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why I am providing context here when it isn't me disputing the legitimacy of the quotes used in the article, but I am happy to do so. I'll post chapters 8 and 9 in full so you can see the entire context for yourself. There are many different English translations of the Quran. Is there any one in particular you would like me to use?
 
diarm said:
I'm not sure why I am providing context here when it isn't me disputing the legitimacy of the quotes used in the article, but I am happy to do so. I'll post chapters 8 and 9 in full so you can see the entire context for yourself. There are many different English translations of the Quran. Is there any one in particular you would like me to use?
Click to expand...

Its not just about the chapters though, when were they revealed, what was happening at the time? This is why posting verses without context is pointless
 
diarm said:
I'm not sure why I am providing context here when it isn't me disputing the legitimacy of the quotes used in the article, but I am happy to do so. I'll post chapters 8 and 9 in full so you can see the entire context for yourself. There are many different English translations of the Quran. Is there any one in particular you would like me to use?
Click to expand...

Pick one you think rednev would and then use any translation but that one.
 
diarm said:
I'm not sure why I am providing context here when it isn't me disputing the legitimacy of the quotes used in the article, but I am happy to do so. I'll post chapters 8 and 9 in full so you can see the entire context for yourself. There are many different English translations of the Quran. Is there any one in particular you would like me to use?
Click to expand...

No offense to you (i do not believe you are doing it on purpose, but out of ignorance) but this is what exactly these ISIS followers do, you can't just take a verse out of the blue and use it willy nilly. If you want to know the true meaning (according to mainstream Islam) you have to look at the context of the verse, Tafsir books are recommended in these situations esp ones by reputable scholars like Ibn Abbas, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir etc.
 
Mozza said:
Its not just about the chapters though, when were they revealed, what was happening at the time? This is why posting verses without context is pointless
Click to expand...

Sorry you want me to provide information on when specific chapters of the Quran were revealed and the geopolitical climate of the time they were written?
 
The Man Himself said:
Wow. This & the one Sultan quoted are totally different. In which form is it in book?
Click to expand...
Mine was an abridged version.

These punishments are in an absolute Islamic state which do none exist. The punishments are for treason against the state. I would think there are still nations who have the death penalty for treason.
 
Sultan said:
ISIS are Muslims. To say otherwise is a probably being defensive as well as apologetic for the actions committed in our religions name.

God loves those who repent and those who purify themselves of sins. So sinning does not mean you're out of Islam. However, the reason many theologians say ISIS are out of the fold Islam is when committing these despicable acts they think it's a virtue and never seek Gods pardon. If they're killed in the act of killing innocents, they do not have time to repent.
Click to expand...

We have no disagreement Sultan. As far as theology goes no non-Muslim should be telling any Muslim how to define Muslim-ness.

But outside the field of theology, in social/colloquial usage or in the media, I think its fair game - and I know you're not making this argument - to use the normal terms of description, which is to let every group self-identify. To say otherwise has good intentions, with Islamophobia and all that, but it's a bit silly and is actually a bit insulting to people's intelligence. Not to mention no one who's actually Islamophobic is going to give a shit.
 
Sultan said:
Mine was an abridged version.

These punishments are in an absolute Islamic state which do none exist. The punishments are for treason against the state. I would think there are still nations who have the death penalty for treason.
Click to expand...
It just appears as if there's an awful lot of wiggle room to decide what constitutes corruption etc. That's worrying if you ask me.
 
2mufc0 said:
No offense to you (i do not believe you are doing it on purpose, but out of ignorance) but this is what exactly these ISIS followers do, you can't just take a verse out of the blue and use it willy nilly. If you want to know the true meaning (according to mainstream Islam) you have to look at the context of the verse, Tafsir books are recommended in these situations esp ones by reputable scholars like Ibn Abbas, Qurtubi, Ibn Kathir etc.
Click to expand...

Woah I haven't picked anything out of anywhere willy nilly, out of ignorance or on purpose. I posted an article written by a man who has a masters in English Language from Trinity, a Masters in Persian, Arabic and Islamic studies from Edinburgh and a PHD in Persian/Islamic studies from Cambridge.

When people on here said the article was nonsense and that the verses were used out of context, I asked them which verses had been used out of context and how. Nobody has answered that yet and I'm fairly sure none of us are more knowledgeable than the author of the piece.
 
diarm said:
Sorry you want me to provide information on when specific chapters of the Quran were revealed and the geopolitical climate of the time they were written?
Click to expand...

The Man Himself said:
:lol:
Click to expand...
He's absolutely correct. This from Wikipedia.

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير‎, translit. Tafsīr, Meaning: interpretation) is the Arabic word for exegesis, usually of the Qur'an. An author of tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسر‎, mufassir, plural: Arabic: مفسرون‎, mufassirūn). A Quranic tafsir will often explain content and provide places and times, not contained in Quranic verses, as well as give the different views and opinions of scholars on the verse.
 
Sultan said:
He's absolutely correct. This from Wikipedia.

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير‎, translit. Tafsīr, Meaning: interpretation) is the Arabic word for exegesis, usually of the Qur'an. An author of tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسر‎, mufassir, plural: Arabic: مفسرون‎, mufassirūn). A Quranic tafsir will often explain content and provide places and times, not contained in Quranic verses, as well as give the different views and opinions of scholars on the verse.
Click to expand...

He is. But it seems a bit much to ask me to put in that length of study when it is him refuting the writings of a learned scholar on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Sultan said:
Mine was an abridged version.

These punishments are in an absolute Islamic state which do none exist. The punishments are for treason against the state. I would think there are still nations who have the death penalty for treason.
Click to expand...
But the words like corruption, spreading mischief etc provide a big scope for those who want to use it their way, particularly if punishment is death.

Sultan said:
He's absolutely correct. This from Wikipedia.

Tafsir (Arabic: تفسير‎, translit. Tafsīr, Meaning: interpretation) is the Arabic word for exegesis, usually of the Qur'an. An author of tafsir is a mufassir (Arabic: مُفسر‎, mufassir, plural: Arabic: مفسرون‎, mufassirūn). A Quranic tafsir will often explain content and provide places and times, not contained in Quranic verses, as well as give the different views and opinions of scholars on the verse.
Click to expand...

With this & above together, how do you think misinterpretation can be controlled? Is tafsir a must when Qur'an is taught (?).
If Qur'an still continues to remain so important to so many Muslims world over maybe some kind of reform so as to not let it get misinterpreted is needed by Islam's religious leaders.
 
The Man Himself said:
With this & above together, how do you think misinterpretation can be controlled? Is tafsir a must when Qur'an is taught (?).

If Qur'an still continues to remain so important to so many Muslims world over maybe some kind of reform so as to not let it get misinterpreted is needed by Islam's religious leaders.
Click to expand...

This is a key point.

Of course we all recognise that every piece of religious text should not be taken literally and without context. We recognise that the large majority of muslims do not do so.

But when it is forbidden to alter the text or to reform it in any way, and there are those using the literal interpretations to wage war and violence, we don't get anywhere by saying "those people aren't following Islam" when what you really mean is "those people aren't following Islam as we would prefer it to be interpreted".

A young Muslim in Britain is reading the same words on the page as a young Muslim inside the Islamic State. Whatever way the British youngster is told to interpret those words, there will always be room for more charismatic or powerful speakers to skew those interpretations later on. Especially if they are recruiting impressionable and angry youths.
 
The Man Himself said:
But the words like corruption, spreading mischief etc provide a big scope for those who want to use it their way, particularly if punishment is death.



With this & above together, how do you think misinterpretation can be controlled? Is tafsir a must when Qur'an is taught (?).
If Qur'an still continues to remain so important to so many Muslims world over maybe some kind of reform so as to not let it get misinterpreted is needed by Islam's religious leaders.
Click to expand...

The biggest pb is this, there isn't one recognized and accepted Islam "leader". For instance there are interpretation difference between Muslims from Northern Africa and those from middle East and this is a silly simplification from me.
 
The Man Himself said:
If Qur'an still continues to remain so important to so many Muslims world over maybe some kind of reform so as to not let it get misinterpreted is needed by Islam's religious leaders.
Click to expand...

I think the leaders do strive to do that and have done for hundreds of years, that's why we see the divergence of views and the strands of the religion. ISIS in effect have simplified things by saying go directly to certain lines in the text, and ignore interpretation and context.

Sultan said:
These punishments are in an absolute Islamic state which do none exist. The punishments are for treason against the state. I would think there are still nations who have the death penalty for treason.
Click to expand...

I can understand that but isn't that what ISIS claim to be, or what they claim to be building towards?
 
The Man Himself said:
But the words like corruption, spreading mischief etc provide a big scope for those who want to use it their way, particularly if punishment is death.



With this & above together, how do you think misinterpretation can be controlled? Is tafsir a must when Qur'an is taught (?).
If Qur'an still continues to remain so important to so many Muslims world over maybe some kind of reform so as to not let it get misinterpreted is needed by Islam's religious leaders.
Click to expand...
The misinterpretation can be easily be avoided. Simply follow classical teachings or simply just be a devotee. Vast majority of the Worlds Muslims have no issues living in harmony with their neighbours and continue to practice their faith.
 
jojojo said:
I can understand that but isn't that what ISIS claim to be, or what they claim to be building towards?
Click to expand...

Sorry - if I can just jump in - in Islam election of a Caliph has a due process and certain criteria need to be fulfilled. IS have ignored all these and just appointed a Caliph without the correct process, and therefore, it is invalid, and anything that they try and justify under that Caliphate is invalid.
 
jojojo said:
I think the leaders do strive to do that and have done for hundreds of years, that's why we see the divergence of views and the strands of the religion. ISIS in effect have simplified things by saying go directly to certain lines in the text, and ignore interpretation and context.
I can understand that but isn't that what ISIS claim to be, or what they claim to be building towards?
Click to expand...
Yes! The world is an ever-changing environment. There have always been reformers over the centuries. What cannot be changed is the basics of faith. It would be too long winded to explain.

ISIS are literalists. They're trying to erase all the work done by reformers and classical scholars of the last 1500 years.
 
diarm said:
Which verses have been taken out of context?

In which context are phrases like these not violent:





If anything, you could argue it is the verses about "not killing innocents" which have been taken out of context when you consider that these people do not consider us innocents.
Click to expand...


9:5 is about the Battle of Tabuk. Battle. There is a clue in the word there.

8:12 on the Battle of Badr. Battle. There is a clue in the word there.
 
diarm said:
Sorry you want me to provide information on when specific chapters of the Quran were revealed and the geopolitical climate of the time they were written?
Click to expand...

If you are going to be quoting the Quran thats what you need to do to ununderstand whats being said
 
Sultan said:
The misinterpretation can be easily be avoided. Simply follow classical teachings or simply just be a devotee. Vast majority of the Worlds Muslims have no issues living in harmony with their neighbours and continue to practice their faith.
Click to expand...

Sultan (hope you are well)

If you were given a mandate by the government/UN whoever to somehow pro-actively sort this out within your faith, and had all the resources at your disposal, what would your approach be? (and i'm asking you to divorce this from a foreign policy debate, though I know it's a component)

Somebody of your calibre clearly needs to deconstruct/debunk these teachings if there is to be any way forward.
 
Fearless said:
Sultan (hope you are well)

If you were given a mandate by the government/UN whoever to somehow pro-actively sort this out within your faith, and had all the resources at your disposal, what would your approach be? (and i'm asking you to divorce this from a foreign policy debate, though I know it's a component)

Somebody of your calibre clearly needs to deconstruct/debunk these teachings if there is to be any way forward.
Click to expand...
Hi buddy,

Wow! That's a loaded question. I need to be a writer to answer this question. I'll get something simple together soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.