Thanks for posting this, Aziz. This is the way in which this particular violent movement will ultimately come to an end. It's incredibly valuable to have clear-thinking people like you speaking out.
Consider post-war Iraq. If we simply set up a barbie dolls and rock and roll culture, then there will be a fundamentalist backlash. And as we saw with Afghanistan, should the fanatics gain power, they become incubators for terror groups like Al-Qaeda.
If we had simply tried to set up a democracy in a post war Germany that still had many active, growing fascist paramilitary groups in power, there would have been a fascist backlash there too. That's why it's important to defeat the bad guys beforehand. Attempting to install democracy without dismantling powerful extremist groups first is like reconstructing New Orleans by painting over the rotted, broken houses without repairing. It's a waste of time. The best way to keep the fanatics from gaining power is to eliminate the fanatics. That's what always worked in the past.
Fanatics are inflamed by cartoons, by words, by Valentine's day, by Burger king. Let's face it, they're inflamed by the fact that we're breathing. If we, as non-Muslim westerners, try to fight a propaganda war against al Qaeda, we will be wasting our time. We'll also be wasting a lot of our money, money we can't afford to lose.
However, since the majority of Muslims do not support al Qaeda, any efforts that they can make to condemn OBL and deligitimize the Saudi-financed paramilitaries out there will be a great benefit to Muslims as a group. After all, most of the victims of al Qaeda are Muslim. You all have every reason to make every effort to diminish their authority, and it's good to see that many moderates like you are making the effort to do this.
It is in our collective best interest, to understand the classical interpretations of Islam, because that understanding can shape policy
I'm glad you said this, because too many Muslims in the world today treat the Koran as if every line can be removed from its context in the 7th century and applied to our modern era exactly as written.
For example, you mention 5:33 which prescribes torture and execution for those who commit "corruption in the land.", later in the same Sura (5:64), Mohammad says:
The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will. That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them, and We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguisheth it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loveth not corrupters
Because Jews are mentioned generally here, Islamists will apply this generally to all Jews today (and therefore should torture and kill them), even though Mohammad was specifically refering to the Jews of 7th century Arabia because of his quarrels with them. Torture was also a common punishment amongst all Arabian tribes at that time, and has no bearing what-so-ever in today's world.
You have to admit, when Muslim ecclesiastes and traditional schools of jurisprudence proclaim that the Koran is God's eternal words, it is difficult for people to reject a literal application of the Koran and Koranic laws in the 21st century. Especially when the majority of Ayatollas and Muftis throughout the Middle east advocate adapting modern society to the 7ht century teachings, rather than the other way around.
How do you think Muslims like yourself can challenge the hegemony of these Ayatollas and Muftis across the Muslim world? Isn't that like Andrew Sullivan trying to convince the Pope to allow for gay marraige in the Catholic Church?
well done aziz. i like the switch from jihad to harabah. what about calling it qital as some have suggested? in the end, i agree, that we need to add an element of criminality to obl's behavior.
by the way you might stop by my blog and look at the 'problematic quran verses' section. my first post was about the slayer verse 9:5, which obl relied upon in that fatwa. i made similar arguments as you.
"You have to admit, when Muslim ecclesiastes and traditional schools of jurisprudence proclaim that the Koran is God's eternal words, it is difficult for people to reject a literal application of the Koran and Koranic laws in the 21st century."
er, why do I have to admit this? the debate whether the Qur'an is literal or symbolic has been ongoing for 14 centuries and almost all muslims nowadays apply varying elements of literalism and interpretation as they see fit (as as their madhabs instruct).
I pretty much reject teh Andrew Sullivan example - its simply isnt true that mainstream Islam adheres to the extreme literalist view as you imply. There is no hegemony in Islam on religious thought except where that hegemony is enforced with state power.
thanks Ali - lets get an index up that we can post at CoB and eteraz.org that summarizes the various exegesis that we have both done. Can you send em a list of links to posts youve written? Ill send out a call for more. We still need to get eth carnivval of brass off the ground, i was disappointed that so few replied t my email on that.
...the debate whether the Qur'an is literal or symbolic has been ongoing for 14 centuries and almost all muslims nowadays apply varying elements of literalism and interpretation as they see fit (as as their madhabs instruct).
I think this is precisely why it is difficult for many Muslims to reject archaine Koranic commandments ; it wouldn't be a problem if the debate were not still ongoing, or there were no variation amongst interpretations.
Isn't the largest madhab of Sunni Arabs, the Salafist school? And is it not commonly accepted amongst mainstream Salafist scholars that the punishment for apostasy is death, and religions like Christianity are forbidden to be proseletyzed in a Muslim land?
Even simple things like polygamy and the full-length chador are abhorrent medeival practices, yet they are more-common-than-not in the Muslim world. Do these practices exist today solely because of state power?
If you are a Catholic, would you not seek the wisdom of the Pope on how to live a christian life? If you are Shi'at, would you not do the same with the Grand Ayatolla?
At what point does state power break down, and ecumenical power begin (i.e. the power placed into religious authority by believers)?
My mistake, maybe I was thinking of Shafi (sounds like Salafi), which if I am correct, is the one that says adultery is punishable by 100 beatings, not death as the other 3 schools teach.
Instead of calling them jihadis, we could call them jihasbeens.
More than 40% of Osama and company's trained mujadiheen have been killed by coalition forces. Publicizing that fact is a good way to delegitimize OBL's authority.
I think my response about the Shafi Mudhab was better, eh Dean?
Aziz says:
all muslims nowadays apply varying elements of literalism and interpretation as they see fit (as as their madhabs instruct).
Let me clarify my above response: Isn't it true that all 4 Madhabs of Sunni Jurisprudece and all of the Ayatollas of the Shi'at proclaim that apostasy is punishable by death, adulterers must be beaten or killed, polygamy is encouraged, homosexuality is a crime? ect...
If the above premise is true, and If Mudhabs are important to individual Muslims for their interpretations of the Koran (as you have clearly stated), wouldn't you admit that it may be difficult for muslims who place faith in Madhabs to flat out reject what they say?
Aziz's response: "er, why do I have to admit this?"
Me: "because it is a logical conclusion that naturally follows from the premises that you accept as true."
If it is not difficult for Muslims to reject what their Mudhabs teach, are you not indicting your fellow everyday Muslims for not standing up to authority? What if most Muslims philisophically agree with their respective Mudhab scholars?"
Deans counter arguement: "You are a very silly Jimmy"
If we had simply tried to set up a democracy in a post war Germany that still had many active, growing fascist paramilitary groups in power, there would have been a fascist backlash there too. That's why it's important to defeat the bad guys beforehand. Attempting to install democracy without dismantling powerful extremist groups first is like reconstructing New Orleans by painting over the rotted, broken houses without repairing. It's a waste of time. The best way to keep the fanatics from gaining power is to eliminate the fanatics. That's what always worked in the past.
Fanatics are inflamed by cartoons, by words, by Valentine's day, by Burger king. Let's face it, they're inflamed by the fact that we're breathing. If we, as non-Muslim westerners, try to fight a propaganda war against al Qaeda, we will be wasting our time. We'll also be wasting a lot of our money, money we can't afford to lose.
However, since the majority of Muslims do not support al Qaeda, any efforts that they can make to condemn OBL and deligitimize the Saudi-financed paramilitaries out there will be a great benefit to Muslims as a group. After all, most of the victims of al Qaeda are Muslim. You all have every reason to make every effort to diminish their authority, and it's good to see that many moderates like you are making the effort to do this.
OBL == takfiri a**hole.
;-)
I'm glad you said this, because too many Muslims in the world today treat the Koran as if every line can be removed from its context in the 7th century and applied to our modern era exactly as written.
For example, you mention 5:33 which prescribes torture and execution for those who commit "corruption in the land.", later in the same Sura (5:64), Mohammad says:
The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will. That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them, and We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguisheth it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loveth not corrupters
Because Jews are mentioned generally here, Islamists will apply this generally to all Jews today (and therefore should torture and kill them), even though Mohammad was specifically refering to the Jews of 7th century Arabia because of his quarrels with them. Torture was also a common punishment amongst all Arabian tribes at that time, and has no bearing what-so-ever in today's world.
You have to admit, when Muslim ecclesiastes and traditional schools of jurisprudence proclaim that the Koran is God's eternal words, it is difficult for people to reject a literal application of the Koran and Koranic laws in the 21st century. Especially when the majority of Ayatollas and Muftis throughout the Middle east advocate adapting modern society to the 7ht century teachings, rather than the other way around.
How do you think Muslims like yourself can challenge the hegemony of these Ayatollas and Muftis across the Muslim world? Isn't that like Andrew Sullivan trying to convince the Pope to allow for gay marraige in the Catholic Church?
by the way you might stop by my blog and look at the 'problematic quran verses' section. my first post was about the slayer verse 9:5, which obl relied upon in that fatwa. i made similar arguments as you.
"You have to admit, when Muslim ecclesiastes and traditional schools of jurisprudence proclaim that the Koran is God's eternal words, it is difficult for people to reject a literal application of the Koran and Koranic laws in the 21st century."
er, why do I have to admit this? the debate whether the Qur'an is literal or symbolic has been ongoing for 14 centuries and almost all muslims nowadays apply varying elements of literalism and interpretation as they see fit (as as their madhabs instruct).
I pretty much reject teh Andrew Sullivan example - its simply isnt true that mainstream Islam adheres to the extreme literalist view as you imply. There is no hegemony in Islam on religious thought except where that hegemony is enforced with state power.
thanks Ali - lets get an index up that we can post at CoB and eteraz.org that summarizes the various exegesis that we have both done. Can you send em a list of links to posts youve written? Ill send out a call for more. We still need to get eth carnivval of brass off the ground, i was disappointed that so few replied t my email on that.
Isn't the largest madhab of Sunni Arabs, the Salafist school? And is it not commonly accepted amongst mainstream Salafist scholars that the punishment for apostasy is death, and religions like Christianity are forbidden to be proseletyzed in a Muslim land?
Even simple things like polygamy and the full-length chador are abhorrent medeival practices, yet they are more-common-than-not in the Muslim world. Do these practices exist today solely because of state power?
If you are a Catholic, would you not seek the wisdom of the Pope on how to live a christian life? If you are Shi'at, would you not do the same with the Grand Ayatolla?
At what point does state power break down, and ecumenical power begin (i.e. the power placed into religious authority by believers)?
Salafism is not a madhab. Salafis are members of different madhabs - I think Hanbali is the most popular. Other Salafis reject madhabs entirely.
Here are some background articles from Wikipedia which are probably mostly accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhab
Best. Response. EVER!
LOL.
More than 40% of Osama and company's trained mujadiheen have been killed by coalition forces. Publicizing that fact is a good way to delegitimize OBL's authority.
Aziz says:Let me clarify my above response: Isn't it true that all 4 Madhabs of Sunni Jurisprudece and all of the Ayatollas of the Shi'at proclaim that apostasy is punishable by death, adulterers must be beaten or killed, polygamy is encouraged, homosexuality is a crime? ect...
If the above premise is true, and If Mudhabs are important to individual Muslims for their interpretations of the Koran (as you have clearly stated), wouldn't you admit that it may be difficult for muslims who place faith in Madhabs to flat out reject what they say?
Aziz's response: "er, why do I have to admit this?"
Me: "because it is a logical conclusion that naturally follows from the premises that you accept as true."
If it is not difficult for Muslims to reject what their Mudhabs teach, are you not indicting your fellow everyday Muslims for not standing up to authority? What if most Muslims philisophically agree with their respective Mudhab scholars?"
Deans counter arguement: "You are a very silly Jimmy"
J to the D droppin Knowledge like Bombz
Killin' threadz wit my dope Logik!