 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 07:14 pm |
|
Playing into the Hands of Osama?
About a dispute among the anti-Jihadists. Ed Husain, ex-jihadist, claims that other more vocal critics of Islam actually play into the hands of Osama bin-Laden by claiming that Islam's supremacist culture and practice are an inherent part of Islam, while Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others claim that jihad, the suppression of non-Islamic people and others similar attitudes are an inherent aspect of Islam.
Prez Bush claims that the terrorists "hi-jacked" the religion of Islam.
My position is that if jihad is not an inherent part of Islam, let's just say that it is so easy to hi-jack the religion of peace that it could be hard to tell the difference.
Christianity also had its supremacist tradition, its jihads against pagans and alternative forms of Christianity, not to mention its inquisitions and the rest.
Clearly, the West has been reformed, inadequately, but reformed.
If the West had truly been reformed in its religious perspective, then the great wars of the 20th century would never have happened.
If you read this piece from FrontPageMagizine, then I urge you it to read the whole article so you can read about some of Mohammed's acts against apostates.
Playing into the Hands of Osama?
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, November 30, 2007
Ed Husain is the author of The Islamist, a book about how he entered and then left the jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. He recently debated Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and has now written a piece in The Guardian, "Stop supporting Bin Laden," about how Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and I are -- unwittingly, of course -- playing into the hands of Osama bin Laden himself.
This is, of course, a familiar canard, and one that I have dealt with before, when Dinesh D'Souza made the same charge. The contention is that because I -- and Hirsi Ali, and Ibn Warraq, and others -- point out that there is a broad and deeply rooted tradition of violence and supremacism within Islam, therefore we are marginalizing other Islamic traditions and legitimizing bin Laden. In saying this, Husain (and D'Souza) implies that jihadism is a clear Islamic heresy, and that there is a broad tradition within Islam that rejects violence against non-Muslims and Islamic supremacism -- and that Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq and I are ignoring or downplaying it out of some base motives.
Bin Laden or someone like him invented jihadism and grafted it onto a religion that has otherwise peaceful teachings.
In reality, however, while there are a few courageous reformers out there, all -- not just one, or a few, but all -- the orthodox sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Islamic community to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law (references can be found here).
There is no sect or school recognized as orthodox that rejects this. It is not playing into bin Laden's hands to point it out; in fact, it is playing into bin Laden's hands to deny it and denigrate those who point out that it is so, for there can be no reform of what one will not admit needs reforming.
There are some disagreements between modern jihadism and traditional jihad theology: modern jihad is all defensive, as there is no caliph authorized to call offensive jihad, and some assert that only the state authority can call jihad in any case.
But these disagreements do not touch on the central point: that it is legitimate to wage religious war. If Ed Husain wishes to pretend to the world that the situation of Islamic theology and jurisprudence is other than what it is, how sincere a reformer can he be?
Wouldn't a genuine reformer acknowledge the existence of problematic passages and doctrines and formulate new ways to understand them, rather than pretending that they don't exist at all -- except in the minds of violent fanatics and those he would have you believe are merely hatemongers?
Husain's account of the debate is revealing: ...Organised by the thinktank the Centre for Social Cohesion, and masterfully chaired by Douglas Murray, a capacity crowd of politicians, journalists, Muslims, civil servants, authors, thinktankers, publishers, police bosses, Islamists, and feminists questioned Hirsi Ali and me on issues not ordinarily raised in public. Was the Prophet Mohammad responsible for the murders committed by some of his companions? Was the prophet a military leader? Is political sovereignty for God, or humans?
Good questions. Can we get answers from this reasonable reformist? Alas, no, for the questions themselves are ignorant and hostile: These, and other, questions stem from a deep ignorance of, and hostility towards, a complex, millennium-old Islamic tradition.
Maybe they do. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be answered. Maybe he answered them in the debate, but he certainly doesn't do so here. And since there are Muslims who say Muhammad ordered his companions to kill prisoners and to murder his opponents, and that he was a military leader, and that political sovereignty belongs to Allah, not to humans, why are non-Muslims ignorant and hostile when they ask these questions? Just as Wahhabites and Islamists bypass scholarship, context, and history in the name of "returning to the book", Hirsi Ali and others such as Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq commit exactly the same error. What do I mean? Let's take the question of apostasy. At an Evening Standard debate the other night, Rod Liddle had no qualms in declaring Islam, with a barrage of other baseless abuse, "a fascistic ideology". Why? Because the Qur'an commands the killing of those who abandon it. Really?
Actually, no, but read on: Well, here are a few facts that might help the new coterie of Islam-bashers retract ill-informed statements: a) there is no verse in the Qur'an that calls for the killing of apostates;
Actually, there is no verse in the Qur'an that calls clearly and unequivocally for the killing of apostates. But Al-Shafi'i, the jurist who founded the school of Sunni jurisprudence that bears his name, held that Qur'an 2:217 called for the killing of the apostate:
"And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter."
Others point to Qur'an 4:89 -- "But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them" -- as calling for the execution of apostates. The Qur'an interpreter Baydawi explained this verse this way: "Whosoever turns back from his belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel."
Is it ill-informed Islam-bashing for me to quote Baydawi and al-Shafi'i in their interpretations of these Qur'an verses? I don't see why. Is it not rather disingenuous of Ed Husain to assert flatly that no verse in the Qur'an calls for the killing of apostates, without bothering to inform us that leading Islamic thinkers have said otherwise?
I am all for reform and the rejection of the idea that apostates should be killed, but I seriously doubt it can be affected by denial that a problem exists rather than by confrontation of the problem......more...
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Dec 1st, 2007 07:36 pm |
|
So where, as my wife pointed out, are the women's libbers protesting the treatment of women in Muslim countries?
Teacher Hidden As Sudan Mob Urges Death
Rape Victim Given 200 Lashes Punishment
In fact, it was women around her, otherwise on the lib side of things, who pointed out the disparity.
We all know why this occurs. If the women's groups protest the treatment of women, they help "patriarchy", the Republicans, the Christians and the anti-abortion people here, while they end up supporting "militarism" and Bush's war- so they think, or better- so they don't think or would the operative word be and so they don't think or feel ?
Makes me miss the old Jung forum where we would have hashed this out. Meanwhile at the "K", if you even think politics while you post, you get warned.
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 09:19 pm |
|
So where, as my wife pointed out, are the women's libbers protesting the treatment of women in Muslim countries?
Same source:
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Student_Tied_to_Pickup_Dragged_to_Death_at_Campsite?OTC-widget
Student Tied to Pickup, Dragged to Death at Campsite
Deputies say they have arrested Wendell Sinn, Junior from Newman Lake, WA. The victim is 20-year-old Jerid Sturman-Camyn. He was a member of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity at EWU.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
deRodes
Honored Fellow Grover
| Joined: | Fri Aug 31st, 2007 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 742 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 09:30 pm |
|
We can lay this whole quagmire that we find ourselves in squarely at the feet of former President Carter:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/170201.shtml
Jimmy Carter and the 40 Ayatollahs
"Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? "No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
"The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.
"By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever."
=========
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml
The exiled Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran in February 1979 and whipped popular discontent into rabid anti-Americanism. When the Shah came to America for cancer treatment in October, the Ayatollah incited Iranian militants to attack the U.S. On November 4, the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and its employees taken captive. The hostage crisis had begun.
Eight U.S. servicemen from the all-volunteer Joint Special Operations Group were killed in the Great Salt Desert near Tabas, Iran, on April 25, 1980, in the aborted attempt to rescue the American hostages:
Capt. Richard L. Bakke, 34, Long Beach, CA. Air Force.
Sgt. John D. Harvey, 21, Roanoke, VA. Marine Corps.
Cpl. George N. Holmes, Jr., 22, Pine Bluff, AR. Marine Corps.
Staff Sgt. Dewey L. Johnson, 32, Jacksonville, NC. Marine Corps.
Capt. Harold L. Lewis, 35, Mansfield, CT. Air Force.
Tech. Sgt. Joel C. Mayo, 34, Bonifay, FL. Air Force.
Capt. Lynn D. McIntosh, 33, Valdosta, GA. Air Force.
Capt. Charles T. McMillan II, 28, Corrytown, TN. Air Force.
==========
http://www.iranianvoice.org/article774.html
As if a light were switched off, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, portrayed for 20 years as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, was suddenly, in 1977-1978, turned into this foaming at the mouth monster by the international left media. Soon after becoming President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left-wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution, besides enthroning one of the world's most oppressive regimes, would greatly contribute to the creation of the Marxist/Islamic terror network challenging the free world today.
In November 1977, the Shah and his Empress, Farah Diba, visited the White House where they were met with hostility. They were greeted by nearly 4,000 Marxist-led Iranian students, many wearing masks, waving clubs, and carrying banners festooned with the names of Iranian terrorist organizations. The rioters were allowed within 100 feet of the White House where they attacked other Iranians and Americans gathered to welcome the Shah. Only 15 were arrested and quickly released. Inside the White House, Carter pressured the Shah to implement even more radical changes. Meanwhile, the Soviets were mobilizing a campaign of propaganda, espionage, sabotage, and terror in Iran. The Shah was being squeezed on two sides.
Khomeini was allowed to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism that has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Jimmy Carter, and the extremists in his administration are to blame and should be held accountable.
____________________
Politicians and diapers should be changed often - for the same reason!
_________________
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
|
Roy
Quasi-Infallible Egocentric Tyrant
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Washington USA |
| Posts: | 4326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 01:54 am |
|
It's true. The shah was better. All the Iranian students on scholarship to UC Berkeley would bitch about the shah.
Now what have they got?
____________________
"The force and degree of a man's inner benevolence evokes in others a proportionate degree of ill-will" - Gurdjieff
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." — George Orwell
|
Current time is 06:28 pm | |
|
|
|
|
