The Islamic State

[Michael]

@ Leifeng, like I said in the other thread, I see the high profile examples of violence from Muslim sects, especially Wahabi and Takfiri, as being the result of geopolitical ambition and not a true reflection of the religion.

[Steve James]

That's the thing. Which group of people truly reflect their religion? Are the Buddhists who immolated themselves to protest the war in Vietnam or the Buddhists who torture and kill Muslims the true Buddhists? Does the pedophile priest or pastor reflect his religion?

[leifeng]

Islam is a religion with a few major schools that include the great majority of Muslims. They all believe in the same Quran and share many interpretations directly quoted from the prophet by the trusted eyewitnesses or in case of the Shiites, the riwayah which is quoted from the chosen descendants of the prophet so when you talk about what reflects each school of Islam you need to refer to their scriptures (which in major schools is similar for the most part).
In case of Quran which is accepted by all and according to them has never been altered, I believe it has a lot of teachings that are compatible with modern human values and some that are not. For example in this verse(5:33) we read: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."
In the present-day society that you come from you decide if it can be considered as a violent punishment for the captured enemy or criminals that the Quran refers to but even if you take a Koran to the geopolitical conditions of Mars these words are not going to magically change.

[zenshiite]

=(5:33) we read: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet be cut off on opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."

Allamah Tabatabai's Tafsir al-Mizan:

QUR'AN: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this: Fasaadan (mischief) is a masdar used in the sentence as a circumstantial clause. Waging war against Allah: It is impossible to take it in its literal sense; it can only be interpreted metaphorically. But the metaphorical meaning is very wide and it can be applied on disobeying any rule of the shari'ah and on every injustice and extravagance; yet the verse joins the Messenger with Allah and it means that the disobedience covers those rulings in which the Messenger had some involvement. This narrows the circle to include only those affairs for which Allah has given His Messenger certain authority, like fighting the disbelievers under the banner of the Prophet (s.a.w.) and keeping the roads safe from highway robbers, by maintaining the general law and order which the Prophet had established in the land. The clause: "and strive to make mischief in the land", pinpoints the intended meaning, i.e. to make mischief in the land by disturbing the peace and highway robbery; it does not refer to fighting against the Muslims. Moreover, it is known that the Prophet (s.a.w.) had never meted out the above-mentioned punishments of killing, crucifying, cutting their hands and feet on opposite sides or imprisonment to the disbelievers who were vanquished in wars.

Apart from that, the exception contained in the next verse indicates that waging war against Allah and the Messenger only means this making mischief in the land, because one may repent from waging war, and not from polytheism, etc.

Therefore, waging war and making mischief obviously mean the same thing, i.e. disturbing general law and order. Law and order is upset when fear and anxiety prevail in society; normally this happens when arms are used and lead to killings. That is why the sunnah explains making mischief as drawing sword, etc., as we shall write under "Traditions", God willing.

[muttaqi]

I had a recent conversation with a friend of mine, who's a well known Muslim author - and he made the interesting observation, that in some regards, Muslims, Christians, Jews and Pagans from the era of the Prophet (sal) had more in common with each other, apart from spritual/theological concepts, than a Muslim from our era does culturally speaking, with a Muslim from that time.

The world has so dramatically changed, that it is not remotely possible to truly understand a thing from that time by way of juxtaposing it to today's era and analyzing it by modern standards. It simply does not work. The whole world view was different in all matters - as was the sheer brutality of life (especially in the Arabian Peninsula during the advent of Islam) - that one cannot judge a harsh hudud punishment (which was intended largely as a deterrent in a very lawless dangerous place and time) by modern societal norms, which has had the benefit of some form of law and order present for quite some time (noting that in periods or places where this was not the case , that punishments tended to revert to very public draconian forms).

When detractors of Islam and Muslims at large single out certain verses of The Quran with moral indignation and accusations that Islam is incompatible with modern times - they always do so in the same predictable manner. First, they quote an Ayat out of context. So a harsh violent response is always seen as some offensive attack rather than a last defensive resort against violence from someone else. Next, they usually leave out the parts allowing for forgiveness of those who repent - further failing to mention that notions of compassion and mercy are far more mentioned in The Quran than themes of war or punishment; and lastly, as their goal is to push forward a specific agenda -where only their culture and religion (or non religion, as the case may be) has the "cure" to such outrages - they conveniently fail to address the fact that these issues have already long been topics of discussion as well as subjects of religious rulings - within the Islamic Ummah for centuries (with a wide variety of interpretations in many different countries) - many of which have long forgone certain punishments or made their implementation very difficult. All the while they ignore their own cultures violent past (or present) - championing by way of example, as secularists so often do, the West's Greek and Roman heritage (but overlooking the very same punishments those civilizations used against their criminals and murderers).
Furthermore - they ignore not just those reforming actions from within the religious sectors of the Islamic world (whether scholars or Judges) - choosing instead to only site cases from extremist savage regimes such as Saudi Arabia, or their proxies the Taliban and now 'Islamic State' - they also ignore the indigenous process of secularization that had been happening within vast sectors of the Muslim world (on their own terms) for well over a century. Instead they call on Muslims to make a choice... "your religion or western modernism...deny your Prophet, your culture, your place in the world"...or be a useless anachronism at best - and at worst, a subhuman plague that needs extermination. All the while making excuses for their own cultures religiously derived traditions which they still allow themselves to hold dear (despite their secular and perhaps even atheist inclinations). For some reason, all but Muslims are allowed this dichotomy.

It is no wonder that when Leifeng first posted his rantings, that I actually thought him to be defending the Islamic State. The Takfiri approach of submit or die is much the same approach. And of course it benefits anti Muslim extremists to showcase the worst elements from within the Muslim sphere - because it only helps reinforce their own black and white world view to have someone on the other side gladly accept the role of a demonic anti civilizational barbarian (ISIS). But in the end, they espouse the same hate filled exclusionary world view that leads precisely to the formation of groups like ISIS in the right circumstances.

As I've said in a previous post - no religion can develop and sustain itself based off of hatred. When any religion enters a period of darkness - it is due to a falling away from its founding principles and spirit and succumbing to the very things it was intended to combat.

So if one really does want to push forward civilization - and not just promote hidden agendas, then it would benefit them to actually listen to what Muslims are telling them positively about their own faith, rather than arrogantly dismissing the voices of reason they claim are so missing from the Islamic World. But of course - there goal is never quite what they claim is it? And in the end, with all the double standard mentioned above - it really just does come down to simple racism and or xenophobia.

But the fact remains, whatever their reasons, whatever their goals - they will never succeed in ridding the world of Islam or Muslims. So it's a futile pursuit. One would hope, if for no other reason, they'd abandon it on that principle alone. But then again, hate and prejudice are not rational concepts.

All the rest of us can continue to do is try and live by way of example and represent whatever ideal we hold dear to the best of our abilities - engaging each other, and showing the commonality we share as human beings can unite us beyond theological/ nationalistic or political constructs.

In the end - if there's a God, which I believe there is, that Being sustains us all, regardless of who or what we think it is or isn't (and whether or not one "believes")...likewise, if those of us who are religious are wrong, and it's all just some unexplained accident - we still have to spend our lives together on this planet. Hatred and prejudice are a colossal waste of time.

[leifeng]

The world has so dramatically changed, that it is not remotely possible to truly understand a thing from that time by way of juxtaposing it to today's era and analyzing it by modern standards. It simply does not work. The whole world view was different in all matters - as was the sheer brutality of life (especially in the Arabian Peninsula during the advent of Islam) - that one cannot judge a harsh hudud punishment (which was intended largely as a deterrent in a very lawless dangerous place and time) by modern societal norms, which has had the benefit of some form of law and order present for quite some time (noting that in periods or places where this was not the case , that punishments tended to revert to very public draconian forms).

they also ignore the indigenous process of secularization that had been happening within vast sectors of the Muslim world (on their own terms) for well over a century.

So you mean some parts of the Shariah law are outdated and should not be implemented? Right? Do you mean that part of the things that the prophet taught Muslims to do should be banned (as Haram) or just ignored?
If you label things that the prophet taught Muslims as haram then you mean that the prophet wasn't the perfect example of Islam and everyone will be lost without a compass. If you simply mean to ignore those parts of the Shariah because they are outdated then unfortunately we don't have a standard version of Islam that teaches us which parts should be ignored. As someone else said it is like the icing on the cake. When you give the cake to a Muslim you give it to him with the icing but tell him not to eat it. Many might take your word for it but as long as the icing is there some might get even more motivated to eat it because of your word. This is why history has also proved that as the reformists rise the extremists also rise with them. So what is your solution?

[muttaqi]

Leifeng
I have made it more than clear what I think of your idiotic statements, questions and unfounded assertions. And you have made it more than evident that you don't actually seek real answers, but merely try to further propel you agenda.

I have nowhere stateted that anything the Prophet taught should be banned, or ignored. I have simply affirmed that the various Islamic schools of law have long had there own complex methodologies for understanding the context of what is mentioned In Quran and Hadith with regards to implantation in the Sharia law developed in various Muslim countries . There has never been ONE Shariah.

It's not just your racism and xenophobia that make it pointless to engage with you. You also either have such a poor grasp of the english language or are just so moronic as to not be able to properly convey whatever shitty point it is your trying to make. It's like your talking in riddles that you yourself don't know the answer to, so no one else can ever have a hope of
assertaining the full scope of your pitiful world view. Your the human equivelant of a penis enlargement spam email. Only a fool would think you contain any truth. And writing back trying to get you to quit sending out your bullshit is never gonna make it stop. just a major waste of time and energy

[leifeng]

I have nowhere stateted that anything the Prophet taught should be banned, or ignored.

In Banu Qurayza incident. Muslims accused the Jewish tribe of treason, then surrounded the tribe and after the Jewish tribe surrendered they killed the men in cold blood and took their women and children as slaves or concubines. Let's say X is the leader of the Islamic state and he goes to war against Yazidis for legitimate reasons. After the Yazidis surrender X orders to kill the male prisoners and takes the girls as concubine. What is there to stop him from simply following what his prophet did?

[zenshiite]

I have nowhere stateted that anything the Prophet taught should be banned, or ignored.

In Banu Qurayza incident. Muslims accused the Jewish tribe of treason, then surrounded the tribe and after the Jewish tribe surrendered they killed the men in cold blood and took their women and children as slaves or concubines. Let's say X is the leader of the Islamic state and he goes to war against Yazidis for legitimate reasons. After the Yazidis surrender X orders to kill the male prisoners and takes the girls as concubine. What is there to stop him from simply following what his prophet did?

Well, that's one way to look at it I guess. If your only intention is to depict the situation in the worse possible light, with assumptions that can't possibly be substantiated outside just making them and saying "see, Muhammad sucked!" You're also intentionally leaving out the entire history before that of the Banu Qurayza fighting once before against the Muslims after already having been part of a treaty of peace between all parties in Medina when both the Arab tribes(Aws and Kazraj) and the Jewish tribes(Nadir and Qurayza) invited Muhammad to the city as an arbitrator between them. Qurayza had previously taken up arms, were quelled but allowed to stay in Medina. They apparently did violate the terms of that agreement when it came to the confederate army of the Quraysh besieging Medina. They surrendered and chose a judge from the Aws tribe, who had previously been their allies in Medina before Muhammad came, and that judge is said to have judged the Qurayza according to the Torah... usually Deuteronomy 20:12-14 is cited as the basis for this punishment.

Here's a recounting of the incident from PBS. http://www.pbs.org/muhammad/ma_jews.shtml

It's a difficult thing to even imagine. It was a different time and place than what we have today. Certainly not uncommon for 7th century Arabia, let alone almost anywhere else on earth at that time.

What's to stop ISIS from doing such a thing? Apparently nothing, as they want to turn the clock back rather than continue moving forward as Islam has and the various understandings of jurisprudence amongst scholars and people over the centuries. It's important, however, to not take ISIS as the representative of Islam par excellence. Nevermind that the situations would be completely different. Most Muslims, most Muslim clerics, would not be in favor of enacting such a punishment just out of the blue against anyone. Which is why there has, in fact, been such a prominent denouncement of ISIS and al-Qaida over the last 15 years. Granted, many claim to not hear these proclamations. I think, however, that this thread readily demonstrates the tendency of implacable Islamophobes to shout down and attempt to silence or discredit(by way of saying, "well, you're not really Muslim" and other tactics) any Muslim voices that are raised in protest against these extremists.

The fact that there are extremely peaceful groups of Muslims, various schools of thought, esoteric and exoteric people, etc puts they lie to the monolithic Islam that liefeng is scrambling to depict and implicitly call for suspicion and derision of all Muslims with. You have vegetarian, tripped out hippy Sufi Muslims kicking it in West Philadelphia. They are just as Muslim, just as serious about their Islam, as any wackjob that thinks Islam is only about warfare and harsh punishments. I think there's an argument to made that they are, in fact, more Muslim than those wackjobs. With a greater depth of vision and understanding of the true message of the Qur'an and character of Muhammad(peace be upon him and his family). I can't change what some jack-off on the internet with an axe to grind thinks, and I frankly don't fucking care to.

[yeniseri]

muttaqi,
Those people are evil and must be destroyed! When you behead someone who has done you no harm, who is a child, innocent, unable to fight back them something has to happen.
Whose bid'a (interpretation) is relevant? Sunni or Shi'a Look at those who perform ignoble action, words and deeds. Judge by actions!

[Steve James]

Which interpretation? I dunno. When it comes to any specific situation today, I don't think there's an automatic answer, and the answer might be different tomorrow. Whose texts say "Do not murder"? Who manages to explain how killing this or that person does not violate their texts?

Imo, it's never a question of whether the other guy follows his religion. The question is whether we follow ours. ... Now, don't get me wrong. All answers are fair. They just might not be moral. So, I can understand why someone says he is doing this or that for his beliefs. It just doesn't matter to me at all. I'm not going to respond to his religion. I agree with yeniseri

Look at those who perform ignoble action, words and deeds. Judge by actions!

[Dajenarit]

How do you respond to actions justified by religious scripture. That's the whole point.

[Steve James]

How do you respond to actions justified by religious scripture. That's the whole point.

That's a badly formed question. Do you mean, how do "I" respond? or how does anyone respond? Since not all Christians or Muslims respond to (or interpret) their scriptures the same way, what exactly is "the whole point"?

[Dajenarit]

You love playing words games huh Steve? You and I makes we. We when not speaking of specific people is usually interpreted as a general statement which makes it rhetorical. You can answer for yourself or everyone else. The question still stands. When a man can find an unambiguous quote in any religious book to justify his or her evil behavior, its a problem and a really unnecessary one. The whole scripture as infallible sacred text is an outmoded way of thinking. The political correctness, denial and misplaced loyalty won't allow a fair majority of religious people to admit that. Just a cursory look into the number of edits and re-edits most religious texts have gone through and the political/military motivations behind them will prove that.

When a person believes a divinity who has the power over life and death gives them the power over life and death, the potential heinous behavior becomes especially boundless and it shuts down whatever moral conscience that person has. "What do my moral values and societal limits and laws mean compared to gods infallible, all-wise and incomprehensible will (as passed down from some other dude, probably long dead, who I know nothing about)?"

I want to say that I'm not religious so violence and oppression inspired by whatever scripture is not my problem but unfortunately we all live on the same planet so I can't. Honestly we're all capable of plenty evil without the "its gods will/god says its ok" excuse but its an especially convenient one. People, as our blessing and curse are infinitely capable of deluding themselves into justifying any behavior imaginable and they do so on the regular.

[Michael]

Daj, I think you were supposed to raise your hand and first ask permission to speak.