Our system works best when responsible leaders temper uninformed mass misperceptions and prejudices. At times, unfortunately, we lapse into periods when purportedly responsible leaders elect to exploit it rather than temper it.
So, what would you like to try first? Re-education camps? Trials and imprisonment of those who are hostile toward Islam? Maybe we could just fast forward to mass executions of those who hold politically undesirable viewpoints?
Steve, welcome to America. Glad you could join us. In case you haven't noticed, popular opinion is fickle and there is a strong tendency to run toward isolationism and populism, often unfounded by fact.
I'll be busy cleaning up the remainders of manifest destiny and the whole sinking of the USS Maine thing while you mull that over....
Our system works best when responsible leaders temper uninformed mass misperceptions and prejudices. At times, unfortunately, we lapse into periods when purportedly responsible leaders elect to exploit it rather than temper it.
Ok thanks for the calrification (p.s, because of the nature of the medium my responses may seem more "strident" than they are intended, if we were face to face I am sure you'd find me more collegial/jovial in a debate). Let's use Ends, Means, Ways as a heuristic device for the discussion. Apologies in advance for the typing errors, I have yet to fix my keyboard 9I suppose I should stop eating soya nuts at the desk!).
1. Ends.Islam and conversion. Islam (by which I mean the core historical a priori/generative grammar centred on the Prophet, the hadeeth and sharia and the Quran) deman that the call (da'wa) to Islam be made universally. Jihad is the military manifestation (ways) of that goal. According to the Shaira (supported by hadeeth that are sahih (and that's an important issue) it is incumbent upon the Muslim polity to call (da'wa) non-Muslims to Islam...if they refuse then they must be conquered and brought under the system of Islamic governance as either Dhimmi (protected persons-"People of the Book" loosely defined or killed. That's the law. Whether we like it or not and whetehr our "moderate" muslim friends admit as much is irrelevant. When a "peaceful" Ahmaddiya or Sufi is confronted with the overwhelming evidecne of his duty to wage Jihad (under an appropriate authority, more on that later) what exactly is his reponse...either to fiollow the law or renounce his/her faith (under Islam any Muslim that fails in their duties toward Islam or the law is an apostate and thus must be...killed). Jihad, let us not forget, is a universal obligation upon Muslims/ The fact that many don't is a matter of a sliding scale of adherance. The more pious the Muslim, the closer he/she follows the dictates of Islam, the more inclined (obligated) they will feel towards Jihad. Rememebr, like the US constitution, Islams generative grammar exerts a tremendous ammount of centripetal/normative presuure upon Muslims. The laws stating that Islam does not belive in conversion by force (the Meccan verses) were abrogated (every Muslim knows this or if they don't they can find out from their Imam). They are relevant only to the uninformed. Islam does not advocate conversion by force (torture) but only by ultimatum. Their reasoning is that anyone who hears the call would in their right mind convert; if not then they must be possessed by Shaitan and thus destroyed (an analogy can be found in the Communist theory of war as being inevitable).
2. Muslims wish to impose/introduce Sahir'a to the whole world. Theuir religion dmenads that. Islam and Muslims have bnot fulfilled the Prophets mission until the entire world is Islamic (not necessarily Muslim). What people tend to forget is that according to Islamic law (but, curiously Shia versions differ because of their emphasis on the Hidden Imam) wherever Sharia law operates can be ipso facto declared Islamic territory and we all know the consequences of that. The Prophet stated that if a Muslim lives in a land without sharia then he should either conquer it (bring Sharia to it, sort of like American's bringing freedom and democracy) or they should elave for somewhere where Sharia is operative. The great number of Muslim fence-sitters ("moderates" to you) merely sit between their "foundationalist" co-religionists and their host societies and reap the rewards from both.
3. There are a great many Muslim clerics who denounce terrorism against women and children and suicide. They do not denounce Jihad (ways) or the goal (ends) of sumbission of all to Islam. Islam forbids the murder of non-combatants (civilians) only if they are not aiding and abetting the enemy (Us) but aiding and abetting can run the whole gamut to providing sanctuary to food (talk about a moveable feast). What clerics differ over is who constitues an appropriate polictal authority endowed with the wherewithall to declare jihad. The Shia resolve this with the Hidden Imam, hence they view their Jihad as purely defensive. But don't let that fool you. According to Islam Jihad is defensive because any non-Muslim entity that exists is a threat to the mission, veracity and truth of Islam (analogous to Nazism's view of the jews, hence Hitler could get away with stating that his war against the USSR was defensive because the Jews were a biological threat, Communism was a Jewsih plot and the Commisars were all Jews, even though his victims would have seen it differently).
Our problem is that we refuse to listen or examine Islam on its own terms (according to its own "rules of formation"/"generative grammar") and instead analyse it in accordance with what we think it should be. Robert Spencer's analysis of Islam is bang on the money but his subsequent programmatic goals (as a pro-Christian revivalist) is not. Indeed, if you compare his jingoistic Islam for dummies book with the more nuanced, reasoned and schollarly work of Bonner's Jihad in Islamic History you will fidn their conclusions are identical. I don't like Spencer or his approach either but that shouldn't detract from the essential soundess of his argument. Besides, like Bonner above, their are several score authories on Islam would state exactly the same (Espositio is not one of them).
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 10-22-2010 at 05:04 PM.
Sorry, but I stopped reading when I hit the sentence, "Jihad is the military manifestation (way) of that goal." I'm certainly no expert on Islam but even I know that's not correct.
Ironically, when asked about Old Testament passages advocating things like genocide, Christians usually contend that they have to be understood in historical context. But then some of the same will cherry pick a verse out of the Koran and assign a meaning to it which most Muslims disagree with.
If that's the case then I respectfully sumbit that the follwing statement's don't make sense...
Only when you analyse Islam fully (don't foregt how much time and effort was spent examining Communist doctrine) can you decide whether what is currently being raised (let's leave the identity of those involved out of it for the moment) is hostile or accurate. By that measure Communism was a benign doctirne (in terms of philosophy and theory nothing Marx said advocated violence as suh, that was a development largely due to Engels and even more so Plekhanov and Lenin).1) if we don't ratchet down the domestic hostilty toward Islam, we're going to have to radically revamp our global strategy; and,
2) we should take a deep breath and work with a realistic perception of Islam, both globally and domestically, rather than an hysterical notion based on ignorance, and on assuming that the most hostile and violent members of that culture characterize the whole culture.
To work with a realistic, rather than fanstaical/fictional, perspective of Islam one must be ready to accept the unsavoury aspects of it (which is a large part of the problem). The problem is that as soon as this is raised people slam the messenger as a fascist/nazi/racist/bigot/(&tc.). Our own perceptions of the criteria for the validity of truth claims clouds the fact that our opponents don't give a damn. Read anythign written by the actualised Jihadis (as opposed to those who have yet to fullfil their obligation) and what do you see? You see them quoting the central doctrinal texts (if you will) of Islam. There was a rideculous scene in NCIS-Los Angeles where a character confronts a Muslim terrorist and utters the imortal lines uttered by all delusional types (he did so in Arabic)"There is not compulsion in Reliogion" What does the suicide bomber do? He smiles and explodes the bomb because he, and to the programme writers credit, knew that that verse is irrelevant/abbrogated. The call to jihad is a universal obligation. We need to ask ourselves why more haven't answered the call not why so few have (got nothing to do with poverty either).Anyone who hears that and regards him/herself a Muslim CANNOT ignore the call to Jihad or risk falling into Shirk or being labbeled a Rafida. If you are not willing to hear the truth- in fact what counts as the truth is as much in dispute- and would rather take what our opponents and their supporters line/speil as truth then I don't see how we can ever come to a consensus regarding the threat (which we consequently downplay/ "misunderestimate").
What? Are you serious. Sir I absolutely cannot belive that you would say that in all seriousness. I don't have references to hand (who would have thought I needed them, given that I am merely stating both the consensus of Islamic scholars and Islamic texts themselves) but I will endevour to find them...I really think you need to start aqcuianting yourself with that material. I am truely shocked.
For a start this is as good a place as any.
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 10-22-2010 at 05:25 PM.
Without boring deeper into the question of whether Islam really is as insidiously aggressive as you suggest (and I clearly believe that you ascribe the beliefs of the most extreme Muslims to the religion as a whole), let me pose a question: If there is an irreconcilable "clash of civilizations" underway, what is the appropriate strategy for the West? I haven't seen any of the Islamophobic community, from the Spencer and Gellar to Woolsey and Gingrich, spell that out.
On an historic note, what eventually led to success in the Cold War was that rational, cold headed people like Kennan and Nitze, who understood communism as it was, were able to trump the hysterical anti-communism of the mass public.
The statement that you are "merely stating both the consensus of Islamic scholars and Islamic texts themselves" is simply false. Jihad is a complex notion. Any Islamic cleric will tell you that military conquest is by far the least important idea. In fact, most will argue that it is not part of jihad at all--that the AQ portrayal of it, which you seem to accept, is wrong.
By the way, here's the introduction of the book you linked. You tell me if the author says that jihad=coversion by military action.
Last edited by SteveMetz; 10-22-2010 at 05:39 PM.
I just think it is odd that Tukhachevskii appears to believe that both himself and Osama bin Laden have hit upon the genuine meaning of Islam, while billions of Muslims have lost the plot.
I like that - any non-jihadi Muslim is just a jihadi who hasn't fulfilled his obligation. I suppose that would include guys like my platoon sergeant in Iraq who did three combat tours and put more bullets in "actualised jihadis" than anyone else I've ever met. But I suppose he isn't a real Muslim, because he doesn't agree with your definition of Islam? Because he's unaware that all the verses in the Quran that argue for moderation have been abrogated in "real" Islam? Hmmm ...Read anythign written by the actualised Jihadis (as opposed to those who have yet to fullfil their obligation) and what do you see?
Gents,
Let's all work to keep the discussion civil, shall we? Personal attacks won't work the issue to any sort of reasonable conclusion (even if it's to agree to disagree).
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Er, I don't recall making the bove assertion. Perhaps if you had read the entire post instead of stoping where you heard something you didn't like then we could talk. However, I'm taking the advice of another poster and keeoing shtum about all things Islam. I hope you're all right in the long term. I sincerely do.
I seem to recall tussling with you before, I hink bodegas were mentioned at some point, seems you like to attack rather than discuss, nye problema. It's not MY definition of Islam. Its a reading of Islam based upon how the central tenets demand to be read, i.e., accoding to the rules by which they were themselves adumbrated. One of the key drivers of conflict in Indonesia, for instance, is that between Ahmaddiyya adherents and adherents of (any) one of the Sunni branches. Their argument, and they're not arguing about Jihad but rather other peripheral issues but the implications are the same, is that the Ahmaddiya have innovated (tantamount to bid'a) by ignroing how the Quran and the sharia in particular are meant to be implemented. The Ahmaddiya are some of the foremost adherents of the meccan verses (those that have been abrogated) and one of the fears they have is that their youth (again talking about Indonesia in partilucar but the import is universal) have been "weened" away from them by persuasive arguments based wholly upon Islamic methodologies. As I said in my original post its not about how many Islams there are out there but rather how many variations/deviations on the theme and how the whole discursive field has a strong system steering/maintenance capability (i.e., the rules which it itself lays down about how to interpret/implement it). Listen, agree with me or don't, I really don't care but provide me with evidence to the contrary and maybe we can talk.
T, over and out
Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 10-22-2010 at 08:08 PM.
seriously Shariah (and I mean civilized discourse that would "hold up in a court of law"), let's rejuvinate this thread, Mullah Omar: Taliban Rules and Regulations; and discuss what aspects of Shariah are and are not applicable to the so-called "GWOT".
BTW, Shariah is not a monolith as this map shows:
Fiqh Schools.jpg
Anyone who wants to join in discourse in the Mullah Omar thread, is welcome; but don't poison the well.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 10-22-2010 at 08:34 PM.
One of the "features" of Islam is the lack of any formal hierarchy to enforce compliance with religious interpretation. This raises a fundamental question: Who defines Islam? Is it what a majority of Muslims believe? Is it a "strict constructionist" view of the Koran? Is it cherry-picking certain tenets of Islamic thought?
The answer is yes to all of those and more. So, who can say what is a legitimate interpretation and what isn't? That's up to individual Muslims and the best thing we can do as non-Muslims is to stay out of interpretive disputes.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Sorry, it is your definition. If it wasn't, then I would expect that many Islamic authorities would be arguing that it is incumbent upon every Muslim to make war on every non-Muslim until the entire world has been converted to Islam, turned into a dhimmi, or killed. This is your interpretation, correct or no?It's not MY definition of Islam. Its a reading of Islam based upon how the central tenets demand to be read, i.e., accoding to the rules by which they were themselves adumbrated.
What exactly are you saying here? That the Quran and the hadith can really only be interpreted one way? What exactly is the "steering/maintenance capability" you are talking about?As I said in my original post its not about how many Islams there are out there but rather how many variations/deviations on the theme and how the whole discursive field has a strong system steering/maintenance capability (i.e., the rules which it itself lays down about how to interpret/implement it). Listen, agree with me or don't, I really don't care but provide me with evidence to the contrary and maybe we can talk.
So, we shortly should see a lawsuit challenging the ballot proposiition.
From NewsOK:
The ballot proposition, Oklahoma "Sharia Law Amendment", State Question 755 (2010), read as follows:Oklahoma Muslims to challenge ballot measure
An Oklahoma Islamic group says a legal challenge is planned against a ballot measure prohibiting state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
Published: November 4, 2010
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma Islamic group says a legal challenge is planned against a ballot measure prohibiting state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
The ballot measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's general election. But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, says Oklahoma Muslims believe it's unconstitutional.
.....
Awad says a lawsuit against the measure will be filed in federal court by a member of the state's Islamic community as early as Thursday.
Passage of the measure (70% apporoval) changed the Oklahoma State Constitution from this:This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal
Yes: __________
Against the proposal
No: __________
to this (key part bolded):The judicial power of this State shall be vested in Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, a Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court on the Judiciary, the State Industrial Court, the Court of Bank Review, the Court of Tax Review, and such intermediate appellate courts as may be provided by statute, District Courts, and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions created by the Constitution or established by statute as exercise adjudicative authority or render decisions in individual proceedings. Provided that the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State Industrial Court, the Court of Bank Review and the Court of Tax Review and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions as have been established by statute shall continue in effect, subject to the power of the Legislature to change or abolish said Courts, Boards, Agencies, or Commissions. Municipal Courts in cities or incorporated towns shall continue in effect and shall be subject to creation, abolition or alteration by the Legislature by general laws, but shall be limited in jurisdiction to criminal and traffic proceedings arising out of infractions of the provisions of ordinances of cities and towns or of duly adopted regulations authorized by such ordinances.
Let the games begin.A. The judicial power of this State shall be vested in the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, a Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court on the Judiciary, the Workers’ Compensation Court, the Court of Bank Review, the Court of Tax Review, and such intermediate appellate courts as may be provided by statute, District Courts, and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions created by the Constitution or established by statute as exercise adjudicative authority or render decisions in individual proceedings.
Provided that the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Workers’ Compensation Court, the Court of Bank Review and the Court of Tax Review and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions as have been established by statute shall continue in effect, subject to the power of the Legislature to change or abolish said Courts, Boards, Agencies, or Commissions. Municipal Courts in cities or incorporated towns shall continue in effect and shall be subject to creation, abolition or alteration by the Legislature by general laws, but shall be limited in jurisdiction to criminal and traffic proceedings arising out of infractions of the provisions of ordinances of cities and towns or of duly adopted regulations authorized by such ordinances.
B. Subsection C of this section shall be known as the “Save Our State Amendment”.
C. The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.
I posted this on another thread but it may have some bearing here. It is called 3 things you didn't know about Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/user/HISTROIKA
This is simply not a reasonable argument. Islam is a religion, and people are prone to interpret religious texts however they damn well please. The struggle between the western and "Muslim" worlds is not about religion, it's about economics. Religion at best shapes the threat--it doesn't create it.
Bookmarks