Last week, I discovered that a debate between a personal friend of mine (Dr. Daniel Peterson) and the controversial author/lecturer Robert Spencer is available online via YouTube. The debate, though somewhat brief by debate 'standards', is an excellent introduction into some of the more delicate issues involving Islam. I think most viewers will enjoy this debate, and I am looking forward to dialogue with those who take the time to view it.
Grace and peace,
David
Ok, I watched and listened twice all the way through, pausing and repeating in places to get down the references and some of the names.
ReplyDeleteSince the Grandverbalizer19 comes here often and has informed us all at his web-site that he is a Sunni Muslim from the Maliki school of Interpretation . . .
Affiliation: Sunni
School of Jurisprudence: Maliki
http://www.acommonword.net/2010/03/about-me.html
and since Robert Spencer quoted from Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (one of the Imams of the Maliki School), and that all 4 of the Sunni schools of Jurisprudence (Fiq’ فقه) are in agreement (consensus = Ijma اجماع) with each other that Jihad warfare (either fighting or helping/supporting the fighters) is binding on all Muslims and that they should invite non-Muslims to Islam and if they refuse, they are to fight them; since that great recognized scholar of Islam from the Maliki school agrees with that, ( and this is what Muhammad did – invited Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and the Persia Shah Khosroe to Islam, and after they rejected, the Muslims fought them until they were subjugated, in line with Surah 9:29) it would be nice to hear from the Grandverbalizer19 on this issue.
I guess my post is caught in the Spam file again; David, please get it out. (smile)
ReplyDeleteIslam "is". it is neither this not that----if one thinks of it as friend or foe depends on that persons predisposition than on Islam. The believers of Islam are human beings, the same as christians or any other believer/non-believer. They have the same aspirations, hopes and fears as all other human beings on the planet.
ReplyDeleteIslam is a complete system of belief, worldview, law, politics, society, (no separation of religion and government); but Muslims are people, who follow Islam in different ways and to different degrees. Two different things. Yes, most Muslims have the same aspirations and hopes and fears as all other human beings on the planet.
ReplyDeleteBut they were debating the doctrines of Jihad and violence and the harsh stuff in the Qur'an and Hadith. like Surah 9:29; 8:39; and other things like the Hadith and Sirat and Muslim Tafsirs on Jihad/Harb/Qatal, etc.
they were debating about the system, not the people who have the same hopes and fears as the rest of us.
The issue of the debate is the root of the ideas and doctrines, not people.
ideas and doctrines are simply words. It is people who understand and use them. ---And people are people---all the same.
ReplyDeleteFor us Muslims, the Quran is a book of Guidance from the All Compassionate and Merciful. We don't pick and choose verses. The Quran is read as a whole, each verse understood in context of the ones preceding and the ones following and each Surah also understood within the framework of those preceding and following. The Quran itself says it must be read as whole and should not be cut up.
People have a right to self-defense--and its not just the Quran that says that---the Catholic church also lays it out in its catechism for the "Just war" doctrine.
Many times, there is no historical context in the Qur'an - one has to know the Hadith, the Sirat literature, and the Tafsirs and the Tarikh (History of Islam, for example Al Tabari) in order to get the historical context - the Asbab ol nozool - the reasons for the revelation - اسباب النزول
ReplyDeleteMuslims like to quote the Qur'an 3:64 to invite others, especially Christians to Islam, but the Hadith gives the historical of this verse - The letter of invitation to Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. (and also to the Shah of Iran, Khosroe, and to the Abbysinian king also)
Hadith - Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 191
Narrated Abdullah bin Abbas:
. . .
"In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Heraclius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship none but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..(Qur’an 3:64)
After the Byzantines and the Persians did not accept the invitation to Islam based on these letters, the Muslims attacked both Byzantine and Persia, conquering them on both sides of the newly formed Arabian Islamic state and did aggressive warfare for centuries - aggressive Jihad against the Zoroastrian Persians, the Christian Byzantines, Egyptians, Syrians, North Africans, Spain. They were following the example of the prophet and did aggressive warfare in Surah 9:29 and 8:39 ("fitnah" فتنه does not mean "persecution", but "tumult, rebellion, confusion, sedition") All are in rebellion until they are subdued by Islam.
Then after the Arabs converted the pagan Turks to Islam, (900s AD) the Turks became the military and dominant force in the Ottoman Empire and they also followed Surah 9:29.
They were not doing defensive or just wars; they were following Surah 9:29 and other Hadith to conquer the world for Islam and impose Sharia law. It was the Christians in Europe who stopped them in 732 in France. They the Byzantines stopped them for centuries until they finally lost Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottoman Turks. The whole history of Islam is the Muslims obedience to Surah 9:1-29 - against pagans and Hindus in India (result: Pakistan and Bangla Desh) and against the Zoroastrians in Persia and against Christianity in the Middle East, N. Africa (now continuing in places like Sudan and Nigeria, etc.)
It seems like history tells us that Islam has viewed Surah 9:29 as open ended warfare, following the command given to Muhammad.
They had no right to do that and those wars by the Arabs were unjust.
Hadith – Shahid Al Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
ReplyDeleteNarrated Abu Huraira:
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
Khosrau ( خسرو) is the King (Shah = شاه ) of Persia
Caesar is the ruler of Byzantine/Rome
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Khosrau
( خسرو)will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.
www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.267
The whole book 52 of Volume 4, of Al Bukhari on Fighting in Jihad:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/052.sbt.html
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord...
ReplyDeleteHere is some food for thought...
http://www.youtube.com/user/RefutingActs17#p/a/u/0/vjpI1UXP1lQ
This is also rather interesting information here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgI1aph7AsE&feature=bulletin
As far as the experts on Islam....
ReplyDeleteSpencer, White, Walid Shoebat...
I would love for any of those men to tell me Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani's time in Egypt and his study of the Radd Ala Muhammed Ash Shaybani helped his and latter interaction with the Shaf'i school of jurisprudence in Sudan.
I would also love to hear Spencer, White, Walid Shoebat explain the differences in the Hanafi and Maliki schools of jurisprudence on weights and measures concerning barley.
I bet they can tell us how Dawud Al Zuhri influence Ibn Hazm and how they differed with the Shaf'i school on issues of Qiyas, Nask and Mansukh. I would be fascinated to read James White, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Pamella Geller and the IVY league scholars treatment of these issues.
Or I would love to hear, read, some of their published works on Islamic culture, and civilization.
For those who are interested in polemic, and clash of civilization talking heads it gets no better than Spencer, Horowitz, Huntington, White, Shoebat, Caner....the list of experts is mind boggling...
Or maybe Americans may just wake up and realize that if Islam grows in the United States the populace of America maybe more sympathetic or at least more balanced to the approach of the situation in Palestine (now there's a thought....
Grandverbalizer19 -
ReplyDeleteThe post and discussion is not about Barley measures or other details of the 4 Sunni schools of Jurisprudence and their differences. It is also not about the different issues that you bring up with the links to videos on other subjects.
Try to focus – the very thing you complain about at your web-site – you don’t focus on the specific issue.
Robert Spencer quoted the Malaki scholar, Ibn Abi Zayd Al-Qayrawani on the specific issue of Jihad and aggressive warfare against non-Muslims; and his agreement with all the other 4 schools on Jihad, its binding on all Muslims and that the practice of inviting non -Muslims to Islam, and then if they refused, then they are to attack. That is what the Qur’an says in 9:29 and 8:39 and Sahih Al Bukhari volume 4, book 52 (verses 191, 196, 267 and all the others in between, before and after, those are some of the most clear for the com box); and that is what the first Muslims did; the same way that Muhammad did in his letters to Khosroe, Shah of Iran, and to Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantine. That is what Muslims have done all through history (not all, but overall – until they were stopped by the “infidels” in self defense.)
Now, answer the questions:
Do all the four schools of Sunni Islam agree with that, yes or no?
If yes, then Spencer is right and he won the debate.
Did Al Qayrawani say that, yes or no? If yes, then Spencer is right and he won the debate.
Amazing how you try to sidetrack the issue with Barley measures and David Duke.
Hello kat,
ReplyDeleteWanted to welcome you to AF; it always nice to see a new 'face', especially one who is able to contribute constructive content.
BTW, I checked out your blog (http://kattor-islam.blogspot.com/), a pristine (I like blogs without the 'frills') and informative site for sure—nice job. (Are you planning on adding a brief bio anytime soon?)
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Ken and GV19,
ReplyDeleteInteresting discussion so far. I am certainly 'playing catch-up' on this whole issue of Jihad (both theologically and historically), and I'm trying to locate and/or obtain some scholarly resources on this issue...recommendations???
Also, I would like to know, from both of you, what you thought of Dr. Peterson's presentation; he cited a number of sources I have not read that sure seemed to support he position.
Lastly, I am currently reading online the following book (at least what is available), it seems to be a solid treatment:
Jihad in Islamic History
Grace and peace,
David
Here is a 26 page study of all the primary source texts from the Qur'an and Hadith on Jihad(struggle)/Qatal (fight, kill, slay)/Harb (War)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.answering-islam.org/Bailey/jihad.html
It is good to just read patiently through these primary texts and notice the four stages of Jihad/Qatal. (Spenser said three - and all scholars agree that there was a progression of the peaceful Meccan period, the early Medina period and the later Medina period.
Dr. Peterson, to me, is a nice Mormon, a gentleman, and has a good motive and wish for his way of looking at things; but was he was weak on argumentation and grounding his argument in the actual text of the Qur'an or Hadith. The problem with any critique of Islam as a doctrine is that it offends Muslims as people, those who want to hold on to a form of Islam without the Jihad / Qatal / terrorism stuff. Peterson is right that even many Muslim leaders condemn suicide bombing and targeting civilians, but they still agree with aggressive warfare on those who reject Islam after invitation.
ReplyDeleteHe has a good motive; a wish and desire for peace, namely to not give more fuel to other regular Muslims, and for the modern Jihadists like Ben Laden and Zawahiri, etc. But Spenser is right that the Jihadists and Islamists are already there. If other Muslims don’t see the problem and ugliness of it, then that is their problem. It makes no sense to “sugar coat” the problems in Islamic texts and doctrines and practices.
But, Spencer is right in that one cannot reform something, unless you first admit that the problem is there.
Peterson relies on minority pockets of examples of peaceful Muslims in history, (but not citing the earliest history of Islamic history, Muhammad and his first Khalifs) and the possibility of a different reading of the violent clear texts. The biggest problem is not acknowledging that Muhammad clearly commanded all out war against pagans (9:1-5, 14) and Jews and Christians (9:29) and everybody (8:39 - Fitneh means "mischief", "rebellion", "Sedition", "confusion" - like street protests against the authorities) and none of the early Muslims, including Muhammad himself interepreted these things in the peaceful way that Petersen wants us to today. Zebah Khan and Maajid Nawaz tried to argue the same way, and I like them and their peacefulness and their polite way of debating. The problem is they can never get into knitty gritty exegesis and quoting of texts, because they will loose. Spenser and others like David Wood and Nabel Qureshi quote specific texts and do specific exegesis and historical background. Khan and Nawaz and Peterson speak in general terms of possibility of different interpretations; and never answer the specific questions about Muhammad himself and what he did and his aggressive warfare and what Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, and the other Khalifs after them did.
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/10/zeba-khan-and-maajid-nawaz-vs-ayaan.html
And it is clear that the earliest Muslims actually carried out these commands for centuries - look at Egypt, N. Africa, Syria, Turkey, Iran today - those areas and Spain were conquered by Islam by 732 - 900s (except for Turkey - 1453 AD) Why is no one acknowledging this plain historical fact?
my last post is caught in the spam thingy. Please bring it out David.
ReplyDeleteand the clearest Hadith, which I gave you, and will give you again.
ReplyDeleteHadith – Shahid Al Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
This is all too clear.
Peterson wants to take a different reading on those texts. Fine; but the Muslim world will have to agree to that - all there scholars and authorities - yet Spencer showed that all the four schools of Sunni Islam agreed with the example of Muhammad, letter of invite to submit to Islam, if you don't, we fight you until you do submit. (9:29; 8:39; Hadith Al Bukhari 4:52:196).
Peterson is right that Dar Al Islam and Dar Al
Harb are non-Qur'anic phrases, but their roots in all those verses and traditions of how they carried out Muhammad's example in history. They justify it by the Qur’anic verse that says “all the world belongs to Allah”, and the Muslim community is the best community, and the unbelievers are the worst. The emphasis of Islam on law and society and rules and washings and external rituals and punishments and hijab for women, etc. make it a “sacred space”/territory kind of religion, not much of a religion of the heart. Dar means the “abode” or “house” or “territory” and that is Islam’s emphasis.
We would love for the moderate Muslims and peaceful Muslims like Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz and Sufis, etc. to reform Islam; and convince the others to do so also; but as long as they avoid even interacting with the Qur'anic texts and Hadith texts, they look like they are playing games and avoiding the obvious.
ReplyDeleteThey have no text that actually says, "these Jihad / Qatal / Harb texts are fulfilled and finished.”
Christianity and the NT has clear texts that show that the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel, the law was fullfilled by Christ, and the OT "holy wars" are no more; and the church has no right to wage war or be united with political structure (Matthew 21:43-45; 5:17-20; 26:51-52; Ephesians 6:12; I Peter 2:9-10); Hebrews chapters 10, 11, 12, 13.
Problem for Islam is that Christianity was able to Reform because it went back to the Bible(Luther, Calvin, Sola Scriptura); whereas going back to the Qur'an and Hadith is proof of Spencer's point.
Thanks for bringing it out so quickly!
ReplyDeleteWith the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord...
ReplyDeleteOne thing I'll always respect about you David is that you read, and you read and you read all sides of an issue to the extent that God allows you to be satisfied. Mash'Allah.
This is very refreshing from people who quote one source from a book, like short quips or Google the net to find yes men who support their anti-Muslim diatribe.
"and I'm trying to locate and/or obtain some scholarly resources on this issue...recommendations???"
As far as "scholarly resources" translated into English by the Islamic academics I am not to aware.
"Fundamentally, as understood by orthodox Islamic jurists (as opposed to radical Islamists, who reject the classical position), jihad theory closely resembles some versions of Just War theory as this has been developed in several Christian churches since the time of St. Augustine."-Abdul Hakim Murad a leading Muslim intellectual thinker in the U.K (and convert) has recommended... For some good debates about the resemblance see John Kelsay and James Turner Johnson (eds.), “Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions” (New York, Westport and London, 1991)
Mohammed Hashim Kamali, “Freedom of Expression in Islam” (Cambridge, 1997) (Dealing with past, current issues relating to apostasy)
Shattering the Myth:
Islam beyond Violence
Bruce B. Lawrence
I think it's also worth to read the Islamist by Ed Husain (this is not really so much about the issue of Jihad per say but radical Islam in general)
As far as watching the 'debate' above I did not. I honestly am not interested to watch it.
ReplyDeleteI think watching debates entails that people are sincere and have something genuine to say. I find it hard to believe that Spencer who is close to Pam Geller who believes that if Iran attacks Israel that Israel should 'nuke mecca and madina' and also attack Europe would have anything genuine to say.
I personally would love to put the Christian radicals (reconstructionist, dominionists and others, Jewish radicals and Islamic radicals all on one big island and let them play nice together).
The only ever article I was ever given a link to by C.S Lewis about the 'just war' I found to be very flat. It didn't touch on issues of rather Christians should join the military of their respective nations and when they should disobey the commands of the general (like abuse prisoners, gas Jews, drop nukes on civilian population centers) and it didn't touch on issues like the permissibility to spy on other nations, or partake in espionage.
It seems that there is a general lack of direction on these subjects.
I apologize David for in any way being condescending but I genuinely find it hard to take seriously people who say 'we should fear Islamic radicals' and than remain silent about 'nuke mecca' 'nuke medina' comments.
There just seems something...well...insincere about it all.
GV19-
ReplyDeleteYou are still avoiding the Qur'anic texts and the Sahih Al Bukhari texts - what about those?
What about Surah 9:29; 8:39 (and that fitneh never means "persecution", it means "rebellion", "stirring up trouble", "sedition", "commotion", "confusion") and
What about Al Bukhari, book 4, 52, number 196??
What about the fact that soon after those passages and historical contexts took place, the Muslim attacked all areas to subdue everyone - first Abu Bakr's "Wars on apostacy" to get the Muslims in Arabia back in line (many left Islam after the prophet Muhammad died) = force.
Then they attacked Persia, Syria/Jordan/Levant/Palestine/Israel - Omar conquered Jerusalem in 638 AD.
Then Egypt and on to Morocco and Spain by 732 AD. Persia was conquered from the 640s into 900s to fully subdue them to Islam. The Persians to this day, even though most are Muslims (98%) resent that injustice and some of these Muslims (yes) make a puppet effigy of Omar and put firecrackers in him and blow him up and/or cut him up slowly with scissors, etc.
If Pam Geller said that, then that was very wrong and not a good idea. She obviously doesn't distinguish between Saudi Arabia and the Arabs and the Iranian Shiite differences. Further, it would be unjust to attack a different nation that did not actually do the first offensive deed.
Just read the Qur'an verses on Jihad and Qatal and Hadith verses first all the way through the 26 pages that Bailey documents. What harm is that to start with? It is pure texts from Qur'an and Hadith.
GV19-
You never answer the questions on this issue and your response is, "but what about Barley measurements, Pam Geller, yogurt and cucumbers, Felafel, and David Duke (anyone who was part of KKK should be ashamed; I think I heard he repented of that; but I have not spent time studying his life.) and C. S. Lewis' article was weak and what about the rules for warfare, etc.? (totally avoiding any explanation of 9:29; 8:39 and Hadith Sahih Al Bukhari 4:52:196)
First, answer the original Islam - Muhammad's Islam and what Abu Bakr and Omar and Uthman and Muawiya and Yazid, etc. did to follow Muhammad's example for the first 200 years in aggressive warfare against the unbelievers, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians before you skip to the period of after 200 years.
GV19-
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you did not even watch the debate! You avoid the painful reality of facing the clear Islamic texts on Jihad and Qatal and the quote for your Maliki Imam.
Spencer even agreed with Peterson that the Jihadist/Al Qaedah / terrorist Islam is not the only expression of Islam and said, "I don't say that that is real Islam; I only say that those guys who do that are claiming it is real Islam and using Qur'anic texts to back up their claims." (not a direct word for word quote but anyone can confirm that this is the essence of what he said, and anyone can correct me if I am wrong.)
So, you don't even first listen to both sides at all?
The call of the post is to listen and watch and then comment.
I wonder how many other Muslims refuse to even listen to any of these kinds of debates, study or listen to the issue?
Your refusal to even listen is an indictment against you and you should be ashamed of not even listening to it.
Where is following the fairness انصاف and justice عدل و عدالت of Islam in that?
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteKen says,
"Where is following the fairness انصاف and justice عدل و عدالت of Islam IN THAT?"
This sums up rather well why I do not interact with people like Ken and his ilk anymore. The whole of Islam 1.3 billion Muslims, our legacy, culture, history, achievements everything is penned down to the actions of one individual human being.
But let us not kid ourselves, because we are not here to learn and share because at the end of the day Islam does not have fairness and justice right?
But people like that are restless and cheat only themselves. How can a person who has traversed the middle east and ate with the Persians and Arabs enjoyed their warmth, hospitality, love, friendship not see that as being the product of Islam molding and shaping them?
No. We can't have that. Islam only shapes them when they beat their wives, blow themselves up, demand holy wars...
So what happens is we cheat ourselves we never once had a real friend who was a Muslim of Arab or Persian background.
Can't be because in the end I'm just a dirty kafir in his eyes and maybe he's practicing taqiyyah and just pretending to be my friend.
We talk about Surah 9:29 in one breath and manage to talk about the Asbab ol nozool - the reasons for the revelation in the next.
But one wonders what Islamic works has Ken (and others like him) read about the asbab ul nuzul?
There is no educating and engaging such people they have Surah 9:29 on lock down. There is only one way of understanding it....'their way'.
So the way I see it is you just have to leave some people with their Lord.
With Allah is the final argument.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for responding to my request for scholarly resources on the issue of jihad; unfortunately, the Reverend Bailey's contribution is NOT (IMHO) a scholarly assessment at all. It nice to have the majority (but not all) of the pertinent ayat and hadith at one's 'finger-tips', but it is another thing all together to interpret the material. I think Dr. Peterson is spot-on when he spoke of many competing "Islams"; and when it comes to the issue of jihad, this fact becomes quite evident, and must not be overlooked. Dr. Peterson also points out that the Quranic ayat need not be read/understood in an "open-ended, universal sense", but rather, can legitimately read/understand as applicable to a specific events and/or times. Interestingly enough, the Twelver understanding of jihad follows Dr. Peterson's take, though their scholars refer to the Quranic ayat pertaining to jihad as either "conditional" or "unconditional".
My expanding research into the issue of jihad has me leaning towards Dr. Peterson's assessment, and in fact, reminds me a lot of the competing Christian views on war. I own (and have read) numerous books on war from a Christian perspective. One of these books has four Evangelical scholars arguing for four different views (War - Four Christian Views - 1981). As with so many theological viewpoints, Christians are considerably divided over this issue. It comes as no surprise to me that Muslims are divided over this issue too. I find Spencer's basic argument that a 'good' Muslim must believe X, to be naive at best, and most likely disingenuous.
What I find interesting is that all the Christian apologetic 'ministries' that focus on Islam (at least those I am familiar with) side with Spencer; this reminds of a similar paradigm among the Christian apologetic 'ministries' that focus on Roman Catholicism (many over-lap, claiming to be 'experts' on both), in that they side with Thornwell over Hodge over whether or not the RCC remains a Christian denomination. I cannot help but think that high degree of unwarranted prejudice is at work in both cases. But, as with so many issues, I remain open to the fact that I could be wrong, and am willing to listen differing positions.
BTW, I finished reading (what was available via Google preview) Dr. Bonner's (Chair, Department of Near Eastern Studies; Professor of Medieval Islamic History, The University of Michigan) book that I linked to my previous post. I found the book to be an excellent introduction into the subject of jihad, and ended up ordering the book to read the portions that were omitted online. Hope you find the time to read the preview too.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello GV19,
ReplyDeleteI want to thank you too for responding to my request for scholarly resources. As I mentioned to Ken, I ordered Dr. Bonner's book (found an excellent used copy for under $10.00). I will shortly look into the works you suggested to me—thanks much!
Last night, I found a Twelver essay on jihad that was quite informative (IMHO). It is pre-Ruhollah Mostafawi Mousawi Khomeini (i.e. 1979), and even though you are Sunni, I think you would enjoy it:
JIHAD
Also, hope you reconsider watching the debate that I linked to in the opening post of this thread. Not only is Dr. Peterson a personal friend of mine, he is a recognized (and published) Islamic scholar, and offers an 'antidote' to some of Spencer's troubling viewpoints.
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of Allah...
ReplyDeleteWith your in put and urging I will watch the debate...and give feed back...and I also will read the article that you linked to...
I will be quite busy the next week or so as I am going to Kuala Lumpur to meet with Dr. Mahathir and continue a program that increases awareness about Islam through guided mosque tours.
Something that has been very beneficial to the public and a great service to humanity.
Ken gave me a link to an article by an Israeli some time back in late spring on the issue of abrogation. I think it would be appropriate for me to respond to that (which I have yet to do) and I think it would help shed a great deal of light on some of the matters he brings up.
If any one could send me some Pecan or Pumpkin pie I would be indebted!!! LoL :)
David,
ReplyDeleteI don't think I said that Bailey's 26 page paper on the primary texts of Jihad are a "scholarly interpretation of the texts", rather they are the texts themselves, even if they are not all of them. ( I realise there is much more in other Hadith collections and Tafsirs and Sirat and Tarikh, ok.)
All I am saying, is that people should start with the reality of reading through the plain and clear and uninterpreted texts before they read a scholarly treatment of the interpretation of them. If the modern books and scholarly treatments of them don't deal with the plain texts, then they are either being un-scholarly, incomplete, playing games, or dishonest with the facts and the clear texts.
It seems that you and GV19 both have again avoided going back to the actual verses (even if it is only most of them in Qur'an and Al Bukhari, etc.) and yet you are still, skipping all the centuries of history where the Muslims actually carried out all those commands and principles in aggressively attacking the Byzantine Christians and the Persian Zoroastrians.
Come on! How come you won't first deal with that?; then you can move to later history of writers who are perhaps interpreting Muhammad's example in the Sunna and clear verses in the Qur'an in a different way. This is what Dr. Peterson and you and the GV19 seem to be doing. Why the skipping over the first centuries of Jihad and wars?
What about the Maliki Imam and what he said and agreement that Muslims are to first invite (da'wa) and then if they reject, fight them. ??
It seems you guys cannot deal with the evidence.
Dr. Peterson said, that Surah 9:29 and other verses "can be read a different way" - ok, but how did Muhammad himself, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Muawiyeh, Yazid, Ali, General Khalid, etc. interpret them?
They did not read them in a different way!
David Waltz wrote:
ReplyDeleteDr. Peterson is spot-on when he spoke of many competing "Islams"; and when it comes to the issue of jihad, this fact becomes quite evident, and must not be overlooked.
Question: what are the competing Islams of the first two to three hundred years? say 621 - -900 AD - Besides Kharajites (even more aggressive and radical than most modern Jihadists and they killed Ali) and Shiites? I am not saying there are no other "Islams" of that era, but what are they and what was their view? Would you not agree that the dominant view was the Sunni view of the rightly guided Khalifs and then Muaywiya and Yazid who brutally ambushed and killed Hossein at the battle of Karbala and put down "the Shiite rebellion"?
David Waltz wrote:
ReplyDeleteDr. Peterson also points out that the Quranic ayat need not be read/understood in an "open-ended, universal sense", but rather, can legitimately read/understand as applicable to a specific events and/or times.
How do you know that? Where in the Qur'an does it say "only for that time"? where does it say, "only after you conquer to Spain and Constantinople and India and after that, stop." ??
What valid exegesis is there from the text and historical context for that understanding?
In the Bible, we have clear principles and verses in the NT that show the change from the Old covenant under Israel to the new covenant in the churches in all the nations. The NT fulfills the law; there is no more "holy wars" and Biblical Israel is no more. We can show you texts and exegesis and historical background in the Holy Book itself.
For reforming Islam, you have to rely on modern writers or other competing "Islams" that sprang up centuries later and/or were minorities that had to submit under their violent and unjust domination.
GV19 wrote:
ReplyDeleteHow can a person who has traversed the middle east and ate with the Persians and Arabs enjoyed their warmth, hospitality, love, friendship not see that as being the product of Islam molding and shaping them?
I want to make clear that those are the aspects that I love about Middle Easterners and Muslims - their humanity, warmth, passion, poetry, hospitality, love, friendship, feeling, music (which is forbidden by many doctrinal and Sharia forms of Islam) - I love Muslims as people! They and you, my friend Grandverbalizer19, are created in the image of God and God loves you by offering the gospel of Christ to you! I did not cut off communication; you did.
Those good things come from them as people created in the image of God, and there are many good things, that Islam affirms, such as monotheism, judgment day, heaven and hell, books, prophets, revelation, angels, a basic 10 commandment morality, etc. that conservative Christians agree with - modesty, marriage, family, homosexuality is wrong and sin, etc.
But, my friend, the title of the post is about focusing on the Islamic terror problem of today - the last 30 years, lets say, and the Qur'anic and Hadith texts that Jihadists use to justify that.
So, I distinquish between Muslims, who are wonderful people; and Islam, which is a system of doctrine, law, society, cleanliness, roles of men and women, miliary, and political rules. True Islam does not separate religion from government power in military force, which you admit in your web-site, when you say changed from being a sort of libertarian separation of religion and government kind of Muslim, to now, believing some other kind of solution to politics, it honestly seems.
GV19 wrote:
ReplyDeleteSo what happens is we cheat ourselves we never once had a real friend who was a Muslim of Arab or Persian background.
Not true for me; I have many Iranian friends and some Arab friends also. Some are still Muslims in both groups. I also have Turkish and Pakistani/Indian friends also!
Can't be because in the end I'm just a dirty kafir in his eyes
Not true; I never have used that terminology about you. You are an American (born in Indiana according to your bio) Sunni Muslim, who I like to debate with. (smile)
and maybe he's practicing taqiyyah and just pretending to be my friend.
Never said that.
However, that aqideh عقیده (idea, doctrine, belief) is in the Qur'an and Islamic history, is it not?
I am talking about the doctrine, not people, and not you.
I told you many times I appreciated it when you called Muslims on the carpet for their bad behavior.
From the link you gave, David, from the Shiite cleric, pre-Khomeini. I haven't read it all yet, but Lord willing I want to read the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteInteresting, even though you say it is pre-Khomeini, ( I didn't find a date), it is published by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which means Khomeini and afterwards, 1979- today.
G- Difference between Islam and Christianity
It is said about Christianity that it has the distinction of not having any rule governing war. We, on the other hand, say that Islam has the distinction of having the law of jihad. If we look closely, we see that in Christianity there is no jihad because it has nothing at all. By which I mean that there is no Christian structure of society, no Christian legal system, and no Christian rules as to how a society is to be formed, for these to contain a law of jihad. There is no substance in Christianity; it contains no more than a few moral teachings that form a set of advice such as "tell the truth", "do not tell lies", "do not gobble up the wealth of others", and so on. Such things do not call for jihad? Islam however is a religion that sees it its duty and commitment to form an Islamic state.
Islam came to reform society and to form a nation and government. Its mandate is the reform of the whole world.
[my comments - here is the real goal of Islam, not spiritual heart religion, but it sees its purpose to force everyone else to be Muslims or at least moral in society, but no one is allowed freedom of thought or freedom to convert from Islam. The reform of the whole world is where the Dal Al Harb mentality comes from - we are going to reform the world by force, if you try and stop us, we make war on you." That is what it seems like. Evangelistic Christianity is not allowed in Muslim countries. What is allowed is just dead dhimmi Roman Catholicism and Eastern/oriental Orthodoxy and small communities of Jews who keep to themselves; that does no evangelism and they are very inward, dying communities.)]
Such a religion cannot be indifferent. It cannot be without a law of jihad. In the same way, its government cannot be without an army. While the scope of Christianity is extremely limited, that of Islam is extremely wide. While Christianity does not cross the frontiers of advice, Islam is a religion which covers all the activities of human life.
[ in other words, force, control, no fitneh, no rebellion or mischief making]
It has laws which govern the society, economic laws, and political laws. It came to organize a state [yes], to organize a government. Once this done, how can it remain without an army? How can it be without a law of jihad?
I found the date of the publication, 1985 - in the midst of the war vs. Iraq and publishers clearly celebrating the 1979 Islamic revolution.
ReplyDeleteI wonder where you can show that this is different idea than Khomeini's idea. They would not have published it if it were in conflict with it.
«And fight with them until there is no chaos, and religion is wholly for God.» (8:39)
ReplyDeleteAt least they translated fitneh فـتـنـه more accurately here. "chaos", "confusion", "tumult", "rebellion", "sedition"
The whole paper so far is pretty dark and depressing and actually confirms Islam's doctrine and purpose to rule the world by force and oppression.
They can and many times do interpret anything as a "hindrance" - for example Captialism and freedom and democracy and freedom of speech are hindrances and confusion and chaos, so they can make war against that. Evangelism is also interpreted as a hindrance and chaos and confusion and rebellion - and if Muslims freely choose to convert to Christianity is interpreted as "chaos", "confusion", "rebellion". "If anyone leaves Islam, kill him", the Sahih Al Bukhari says.
They admitted the Arab Muslims attacked Iran to free it from Rustam and the slavery and oppression of the worship of the wrong god (They called them Fire worshipers - the Zoroastrians) to the true God (Allah of Islam).
So, David, Peterson and you think this is a good form of Islam?
The only choice is for a non-evangelistic Christianity and Judaism (Zhimmi-ism or Dhimminitude = ذ مـی ( All others are Kuffar, it seems. But non-evangelism and death penalty for apostacy from Islam and penalties for evangelism means the same thing as "Convert or die"; it is just a little slower for the Christians and Jews, the people of the book.
so far, it looks dark and oppressive. But I am tired now and will the rest of it after tomorrow.
Knowing all of that, I don't see how anyone can be attracted to it. not much love there.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteMy time is limited right now, so the content of this post will be brief…
Concerning Mutahhari’s essay: I don’t know the exact date of it’s original production, but I think it is safe to assume that it predated 1979 (see this LINK). I also don’t believe that Mutahhari opposed Khomeini, but rather that Mutahhari supported the traditional Twelver position that an offensive jihad can only be called/summoned by Muhammad and one of the 12 Imams (the 12th being presently “hidden”).
Concerning your other responses: Dr. Peterson in his debate cited at least two 8th century tasfir authorities who advocated his read of Ayah 9:29 (i.e. that it IS NOT unlimited and universal). Though not the historic majority view, this should not be problematic for one such as you who rejects the historic majority view on so many Christian interpretations. For some recent interpretations of Ayah 9:29, see the side bar of my blog under “ISLAM LINKS” and click on, “Violence in Islam”, “Surah 9:29 Discussed”, and “Commonly Misquoted Verses – Surah 9:29”.
Much more to comment on, but it will have to wait until tomorrow (the Lord willing).
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteInconsistency is a signed of a failed argument.
Ken says,
"All I am saying, is that people should start with the reality of reading through the PLAIN and CLEAR and uninterpreted texts BEFORE they read a scholarly treatment of the interpretation of them" < That's very rich coming from a person who calls themselves a reformed baptist!
Did it ever occur that there could be discussion itself (within Muslim circles) on what are the PLAIN, CLEAR text?
Here is a small treatment (just a sample) of the divergence within the Islamic tradition here:
http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/11/06/clarifications-concerning-abrogation-in-the-quran-and-the-verse-of-the-sword/
Yes knowing how the Hanafi and the Maliki differ in zakat on barley, and other grains is important (to people who want to get to the bottom of things) but it's not important for people who have their hearts closed to the Noble Messenger of Allah Muhammed Ibn Abdullah (saw)!!!
I mean subhan'Allah! Imam Fakhr al-Din Razi, Zamakhshari and Imam Suyuti mash'Allah I would be honored to carry water from a well every day to their house!
The Christians who spend billions of dollars on nuclear armed submarines can't bother to translate these books into English and asses the situation?
"What about the Maliki Imam and what he said and agreement that Muslims are to first invite (da'wa) and then if they reject, fight them. ??"
Again what do you know about the Maliki madhab? Who are you again? Who have you read? What is your back ground? I'm sorry I don't want to sound elitist but some times you simply have to recognize your lack of learning and knowledge about these matters.
I asked above, "But one wonders what Islamic works has Ken (and others like him) read about the asbab ul nuzul?"
Why ignore these simple questions?
Ken says,
ReplyDelete"By which I mean that there is no Christian structure of society, no Christian legal system, and no Christian rules as to how a society is to be formed, for these to contain a law of jihad. There is no substance in Christianity; it contains no more than a few moral teachings that form a set of advice such as "tell the truth", "do not tell lies", "do not gobble up the wealth of others", and so on."
When I see you formally or informally debate Turetinfan or Gary Demar or the legion of other reformed Christians who disagree with you wholeheartedly on that issue I maybe ready to be more convinced.
Right now I see it as rhetoric.
"Evangelistic Christianity is not allowed in Muslim countries" .... So in Iran and Morocco where you pretending to be a secret Muslim?
Ken I would recommend that tonight you go and read Ecclesiastes 3:1
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven...a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace...
Or is that 'Old Israel' as well?
Ken says,
ReplyDelete"There is no substance in Christianity.." I think that is the most truthful thing you have said in a while by the power of the Holy Spirit nonetheless (smile)
David,
ReplyDeleteYou are still avoiding and not answering the question - What did Muhammad himself do? What did Muhammad himself say? What did Abu Bakr and Omar, Uthman, Muawiya do based on those texts, like Surah 9:1-29; and 8:39 - the Shiite paper clearly is in support of 8:39 and translated fitneh more correctly.
So, there is a guy in the 8th Century who Dr. Peterson quoted. But what were the Muslims in control doing in the 8th Century? (700-800s AD ?) - conquering N. Africa, Spain, Persia, trying to get Constantinople, all by aggressive war and force, etc. -
amazing how you are still not dealing with what Muhammad and the first centuries DID with the texts; and the maps of today still reflect that; except that Europe fought back and got Spain back - centuries later, and Greece and Bulgaria were later returned to those people, etc.
GV19-
The statement, "There is no substance in Christianity" is not my statement, but that is the Shiite cleric's statement about Christianity in the paper that David linked to on Jihad.
David wrote:
ReplyDeleteThough not the historic majority view, this should not be problematic for one such as you who rejects the historic majority view on so many Christian interpretations.
Yeah, I knew you were going to say that sooner or later.
The problem is, the earliest stuff in Islam is the Jihadist/aggressive warfare/conquer the world view and action carrying it out - actually doing it - 621-900s - conquered all of Middle East, Persia, parts of Turkic Central Asia, N. Africa, Spain, etc. and they are still thirsty for more.
You cannot compare that with Christianity's disagreement over justification by faith alone or baptism, (2 examples you would surely say is the minority report today, ok) because the earliest history (first century when canon is being written and is written, and earliest) shows the believer's baptism view (infant baptism doesn't become the norm until much later). I grant you that it won out as the norm from the 4th-5th Century onwards.
Justification by faith alone is in the Protestant's view the Biblical view and earliest view, that was slowly eclipsed by the convergence of many other things that crept into the church - penance rather than repentance; sacramental priests (but they are not there in the NT nor earliest Christian history); ex opere operato; treasury of merit and indulgences and prayers to dead saints (much later), purgatory (later), the struggle over sanctification and confusing justification and sanctification and the neglect of the books of Galatians and Romans on the subject, etc.
So, your comparison is like comparing apples and oranges.
On the issue of war and military and politics though, that would be a better comparison as the early church was persecuted and killed and fed to lions and burned, and beheaded for 312 years and the Christians did not much serve in the military until after that time period. (Yet, Christianity grew during persecution; ie, Tertullian's statement, "the more you mow us down the more our numbers grow, the blood of Christians is seed" Apology 50
Islam, on the other hand grew by force and sword for several centuries until stopped by defensive wars.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding; you wrote:
>>You are still avoiding and not answering the question - What did Muhammad himself do? What did Muhammad himself say? What did Abu Bakr and Omar, Uthman, Muawiya do based on those texts, like Surah 9:1-29; and 8:39 - the Shiite paper clearly is in support of 8:39 and translated fitneh more correctly.>>
Me: What is there to "avoid"? I am sure you, GV19, and most reading this thread know the basic history of the rise of Islam. What YOU are avoiding is whether or not some of the key ayat are conditional in nature. Further, there is the question of whether or not the Caliphs exceeded the Quranic limits concerning jihad. Dr. Peterson, Dr. Bonner, and the individuals I have linked to believe that they did. I too believe there is a very strong case for suggesting the any offensive jihad carried out after the death of Muhammad's Companions (who may have had direct warrant from Muhammad), exceeds the Quranic limits concerning jihad (unless you are a Twelver or Ismaili). I would add that the internal conflict/warfare among Muslims for political control (e.g. Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Ottomans, et al.) strongly suggests that selfish motives have influenced Quranic interpretation.
>>So, there is a guy in the 8th Century who Dr. Peterson quoted. But what were the Muslims in control doing in the 8th Century? (700-800s AD ?) - conquering N. Africa, Spain, Persia, trying to get Constantinople, all by aggressive war and force, etc. -
amazing how you are still not dealing with what Muhammad and the first centuries DID with the texts; and the maps of today still reflect that; except that Europe fought back and got Spain back - centuries later, and Greece and Bulgaria were later returned to those people, etc.>>
Me: Once again, I have no doubt that selfish motives affected/corrupted early Quranic interpretation. What I find so interesting is that a good number of Muslims (and Western Islamic scholars) see this too, and yet, you cannot.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello again Ken,
ReplyDeleteI grabbed some lunch but have returned for more dialogue; you posted:
>>David wrote:
Though not the historic majority view, this should not be problematic for one such as you who rejects the historic majority view on so many Christian interpretations.
Yeah, I knew you were going to say that sooner or later.
The problem is, the earliest stuff in Islam is the Jihadist/aggressive warfare/conquer the world view and action carrying it out - actually doing it - 621-900s - conquered all of Middle East, Persia, parts of Turkic Central Asia, N. Africa, Spain, etc. and they are still thirsty for more.>>
Me: I did so because it important to the discussion, and I believe that one needs to be consistent across the board when comparing paradigms. It sure seems to me that you fault Muslims (and Western Islamic scholars) who believe that a good number of the Quranic ayat concerning jihad are conditional in nature, using the argument that the majority of Muslims have not done so, interpreting the ayat as unconditional, while you, with seeming ease, have jettisoned a good number of historic Christian positions that were held for centuries. You see no inconsistency here, and that is a bit troubling to me.
And further, you brush aside centuries of church/state thought, after Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, with your Americanized reading of the relationship between the church and sate. Augustine, Calvin, Cromwell, the early Puritans, Theonomists, et al. believe your understanding of the church and state is seriously flawed.
Now, I say these things not to be mean spirited, but rather, to try and keep our discussion on equal footing.
Grace and peace,
David
David wrote:
ReplyDeleteI too believe there is a very strong case for suggesting the any offensive jihad carried out after the death of Muhammad's Companions
You don't think Abu Bakr, Omar (Under Omar, they attacked Persia and Egypt and took Jerusalem in 638), Uthman, and Ali were companions of the prophet? What did they do? Was Muawiya considered a "companion of the prophet"? So you think, the initial conquering of Persia and Egypt and the Levant/Syria/Palestine was good and ok?
(who may have had direct warrant from Muhammad), exceeds the Quranic limits concerning jihad (unless you are a Twelver or Ismaili).
Are you saying that Islamic doctrine and the whole Muslim world should go back and confess that they were wrong after the death of Ali (660)? (you tell me when the official date of all the companions of Muhammad died and if the Muslim world accepts this view. - don't the Sunnis officially call the first Caliphs "the rightly guided"? ) and give back North Africa, Persia, Turkey, Central Asia, Pakistan, etc?
That is the implication of this view that you and Dr. Peterson are saying. For the whole Muslim world to confess that would be a massive loosing of face and embarrassment and shame, (the deepest humiliation and thing that Muslims defend to the death) and so, seeing that in Muslim culture, maybe the most precious thing to them is their honor/dignity and that for them to admit that would be such an earthquake to Muslim dignity, Islamic history, etc. and thinking, that I honestly don't see it happening. that is why this is such a hard thing for most Muslims to admit. I don't think the GV19 would admit that either, even though he is western and a convert to Islam. It would be a big blow to the Muslim feeling that what proves Islam is right is that they won so many battles and conquered so many lands and peoples and cultures. That is one key reason why they get so upset over Israel and 1948; along with Spain, it is one of the few areas of loss of territory/space - it is a deep blow to their psyche - they seem to be asking and struggling with "why would Allah allow the defeat of us there for so long?"
You see no inconsistency here, and that is a bit troubling to me.
ReplyDeleteAgain, as I explained, it is not inconsistent, because I am not arguing majority in numbers, but oldest and closest to the original thing - the Bible is the earliest period - the first century, and there is no infant baptism there, nor much in the second century, and even after that, if was debated for several centuries before it became the norm. Many waited on their baptism until near death for fear of committing sin after baptism - another serious neglect of studying the Bible and having balanced teaching .
I think the first mention of it is Hippolytus, 190-235 AD ?; and that is only if he truly wrote those "apostolic constitutions" in the last 2nd Century or early third century. (also see below) right? After that, Tertullian gives the first indication of any kind of young child baptism and he is cautioning against it in "On Baptism" 18 - let them come to Christ as they are learning and able to know Christ.
"In the great compilations of ecclesiastical law that arose in the East since the 4th century, the Church Orders many canons were attributed to Hippolytus, for example in the Canons of Hippolytus or the The Constitutions through Hippolytus. How much of this material is genuinely his, how much of it worked over, and how much of it wrongly attributed to him, can no longer be determined beyond dispute even by the most learned investigation, however a great deal was incorporated into the Fetha Negest, which once served as the constitutional basis of law in Ethiopia — where he is still remembered as Abulides. During the early 20th century the work known as The Egyptian Church Order was identified as the Apostolic Tradition and attributed to Hippolytus; nowaday this attribution is hotly contested."
continued
You ignored the parallel of looking at the beginning and earliest centuries.
ReplyDeleteEarliest era of Christianity:
NT era ( 48-96 AD) - believers baptism; justification by faith alone - Galatians, Romans; 100-312 AD) rule of faith/the preaching/the tradition of the apostles - doctrinal Trinitarian summaries; all consistent with Protestant belief against Gnostics. No Roman Catholic dogmas or practices of latter centuries. And no war or political state. boom.
Earliest history of Islam (except for the Meccan period (610-621); but all agree that year 0 is the Hegira and Islam's goal was creation of a political state with military force)
Islam from 621 AD on - all out aggressive war on pagans, polytheists, Hindus, atheists; and war against Christians and Jews unless they submit and pay jizeye and be humiliated, brought low.
So, I think you are being inconsistent by ignoring the parallel of the earliest centuries, not majority of votes like a democratic election kind of thing.
David Waltz wrote:
ReplyDeleteAnd further, you brush aside centuries of church/state thought, after Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, with your Americanized reading of the relationship between the church and sate. Augustine, Calvin, Cromwell, the early Puritans, Theonomists, et al. believe your understanding of the church and state is seriously flawed.
Well, I will admit that that is a hard issue; but people like me agree with just war and fighting the Nazis and a lot of good points are in all those believers that you mention. Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN for the case for Iraq was convincing at the time. But later, it got weaker and weaker. The left and liberals then ran a truck through every mistake and scandal and set-back. I was very angry at the Abu Gharib scandal Americans who did that. they ruined the good and noble fight against evil and injustice.
GV19 at his website likes to attack Sarah Palin and Franklin Graham, just because they believe in a just war and fighting Islamic terror; they believe in self-defense of county waged by the government of US, and that is what taxes should go toward (Romans 13:1-8), not entitlement programs or education, or any art or especially liberal obscene art - like the lady that covered herself in chocolate and called it "do do" and she was naked and the crucifix immersed in urine - sick! - taxes should not be funding abortions or homosexual agendas either, but they are, unfortunately. But even the just war is not waged by the church or religion or religious leaders.
He talks bad also about Theonomists and Dominion theology, but I don’t think he realizes that most Theonomists and Dominion theology folks are more like Ron Paul and want to get out of any kind of entanglement with foreign countries and cut financial aid and be more isolationists; and focus on the moral law for our country first. That is what most of them say to me, of the ones I know.
Sarah Palin, John McCain, George W. Bush, Reagan, and Franklin Graham and even Dr. Peterson (supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) all agree with certain aspects of that just war view/tradition that you mention. ( I do also; but I don’t see it coming from what the NT itself says about the church or during the early Christian centuries. It is based on the secular power’s authority to punish evil. Romans 13:1-8 With that I agree.) The difference is that in Islam, politics/military are one unit with Islam/religion/deen/spiritual life/mosque, whereas there is a clear separation that the USA wisely returned to and understood. (Luke 20:25; Matthew 26:51-52; Ephesians 6:12; John 18:36)
The problem is that when mistakes and injustices are done (Abu Gharib prison scandal; it results in condemnation of all the good that those other brave soldiers did.)
At least the west, informed by Christianity and the Bible, confesses our sins and mistakes; and believes in real guilt; Islam does not emphasize it much; (some, but not much)
Muslims do not confess their sins to others much; Islam does not teach enough or very much or emphasize warring against the sinful attitudes of the heart.
the one Hadith verse "on the Jihad of the heart against sinful desires" is not even in any of the 6 canonical collections of the Hadith, and nothing about that in the Qur'an –
http://www.livingislam.org/n/dgjh_e.html
It is in something called, “The History of Baghdad”
Al-Khatib narrated it in Tarikh Baghdad (13:493=13:523).
David wrote:
ReplyDelete" . . . you, with seeming ease have jettisoned a good number of historic Christian positions that were held for centuries."
Because they were not there at all in the Bible, the earliest century, the first century; and only slowly came in later. No Roman Catholic particularity, practice, dogma is in the earliest period.
David.
ReplyDeleteThankyou for your visit to my humble site.
I am not a scholar, this is simply my opinion......
There seems to be a mistaken equation that Jihad = terrorism.
Robert Pape has done fact-based research on terrorism--specifically suicide terrorism. If you or Dr Perterson are interested in this phenomenon and the motivations behind it, you should read his works or look at his searchable database at the University of Chicago. The "mujahideen"---or to use the American term "freedom-fighters", were fighting to free their country from foreign invasion both Soviet and U.S. Al-Qaeda, explained that it was against the U.S. bases on Saudi soil. Other attempts at "terrorism" stem from Drone attacks by the U.S. that kill innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. (Drones are remote controlled planes that the U.S. military uses to decimate whole villages in their attempts to find "terrorists").
You can attempt to understand academic theories all you want---but if you and Dr Peterson want to understand the real world---you are going to have to face the fact that it is human beings that are the main actors---not abstract theories---and all human beings have the SAME motivations. When your family, or loved ones are attacked---you hate the attacker.
As for the modern political "Jihad" movement, It started in the 1950's (?)or so...as a reaction to the geopolitical events of the time---it has evolved since. The main fuel is the oppression of the people by corrupt, unjust governments...however, these movements have met with little success....Vali Nasr has an interesting understanding of this---the factors in the evolution from "Jihadi" activism to extremism.
As for Islam, threat or not---One could approach this from a different perspective,---In my opinion, this depends on how a person understands or misunderstands God. If we accept that there is only ONE God, then regardless of religious labels, we all worship the SAME God. On the other hand, If we claim that "Your God is different from my God"---we have accepted the proposition that there is more than one God---and thus fallen into polytheism (---unless, you were a polythiest to begin with). If a person claims that Islam is not from God but from the devil--then that person has attributed powers to the devil that are reserved for God alone---and therefore made the devil a "partner"/equal to God---which again makes you fall into polythiesm---with two entities---a Good and a Bad with equal powers.
If, on the other hand, you accept the proposition that there is only one God and our prayers reach him irrespective of the different ways we worship him---Then claiming that his Guidance is voilent (that the Quran or Bible...etc is fundamentally voilent) is also saying that the God we all worship is a voilent God. (In which case there is no God---only the Devil.)
The vast majority of human beings are not voilent, they simply want peace, prosperity and a better future for their children. If they follow a religion, it is because they feel their religion expects them to be compassionate and merciful human beings. So why are some human beings voilent?---to understand that---you have to understand the human being. The human desires and aspirations. Our geographical location or national label does not change our human essence. We are both saints and sinners in one.
Religion is one of many factors that inform our actions. thereofore the pursuit of religious knowledge is commendable, but a purely academic discourse that divorces itself from the lived human condition is flawed.
If you want to know if Muslims want to "dominate the world"--then ask a living, believing Muslim---and if you were to ask this Muslim---I'd reply---No thanks--I've got better things to do.
---and Yes, I do know my Quran and I do know my Islam.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteKen the primary focus with you seems to hinge around "Surah 9:29"
Could you please for the sake of our discussion tell us the Asbab Un Nuzul of this verse?
What works or materials have you read concerning it?
As far as your "just war" principle does the just war principle allow for defensive or offensive wars (like Iraq and Afghanistan) where the sovereignty of two nation's was not respected and they were invaded.
Does the "Just war" include tactical nuclear weapons? Does it include espionage or spying. If you were a Christian in the military would it be o.k to spy on other people?
If you worked for the CIA is it o.k to create acts of espionage in South America or Iran to further U.S interest?
Have you ever had a formal debate with the legion of Reformed Christians who differ with your (separate Christianity from the society) theme?
Why do the Quakers, Jehovah's Witness and other Christian groups take a non committal approach to war?
If I was a Christian in the U.S military and I was asked to rape an iraqi woman as part of a psyche ops on what grounds do I object?
Do I simply ask to go to another room and drink a cup of coffee, do I physically try and stop the rape from happening?
Or do I find peace with the Holy Spirit that as a Christian I have no right to question the grounds upon which my government chooses to act?
How far does Christian loyalty to a particular government or institution go? Is it total? Does it have strings attached?
Ken likes to go on about...
ReplyDelete"Muhammad himself say? What did Abu Bakr and Omar, Uthman, Muawiya..."
Ken how many wars did Muhammed (saw) participate in? Could you tell us the names and places of these particular "wars" or battles if you will.
I know you have given us quite an impressive list (Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Uthman, Muawiya, Ottomans, Abbasids, Safavids, Almorads, Moguls) you name it...
Let us just start with what is most important to me as a Muslim.
Let's start with prophet Muhammed (saw). Please do share with us since you quite keen to enlighten those who read this discussion between you, David and myself your extensive and in depth knowledge of this area.
1) Please give us a complete list of all the "wars" or battles you felt that Muhammed (saw) fought in.
2) Could you give the list in chronological sequence.
3) Could you tell us the occasion of each of these conflicts.
seems to me there are two issues that Ken should try and stay focused on if you he wants to prove himself as a person wanting dialouge and not interesting in polemic.
ReplyDelete1) What is the asbab an nuzul of Surah 9:23.
As I mentioned above.
2) 1) Please give us a complete list of all the "wars" or battles you felt that Muhammed (saw) fought in.
2) Could you give the list in chronological sequence.
3) Could you tell us the occasion of each of these conflicts.
I want to be able to take you as a serious interlocutor and not another ill formed, and ill advised Christian missionary (1 among hundreds).
Keep searching Ken, I see allot of improvement in you, and even in James. I think there is nothing wrong when admitting we are just layman and when we are not scholars.
I am not a scholar of the reformation I have no doubt that you, James White, David and just about anyone out there would completely school me on that subject. I admit my ignorance where appropriate.
Christians would get allot further if they did the same. Just a thought.
GV19
ReplyDeleteIf I was a Christian in the U.S military and I was asked to rape an iraqi woman as part of a psyche ops on what grounds do I object?
That is clearly wrong morally in any context for all time. A Christian soldier would have to object and refuse. And you could object to that also and be justified. I don't think any one has ordered that; and if they did; they sinned and it was evil. Not even the fictional character Jack Bauer in the TV series 24 ever goes that far.
I never heard of US military doing such a thing, (if they did, they are wrong; and the liberal left and secularism is good for exposing that kind of evil.) but I have heard of a lot of Muslims doing that kind of thing, and justifying it by certain principles if they are Kuffar or apostates, etc.
As far as your "just war" principle does the just war principle allow for defensive or offensive wars (like Iraq and Afghanistan) where the sovereignty of two nation's was not respected and they were invaded.
ReplyDeleteSaddam Hussein first did many evil deeds, attacking Iran, gassing two villages of Kurds, secret police brutality, people disappearing, and then attacking Kuwait unjustly, etc. Then when US defeated him and he signed a peace treaty, he kept lying and playing "cat and mouse" games for 13 years about what was going on behind the scenes and secretly. I suppose it was for external show and defending his honor (Sharaf) and looking like a clever (Makar) trickster against the US and UN inspection in the eyes of Muslims, he was respected and honored, because he basically did what Allah did in Surah 3:54 and 8:30 - Allah is the best of decievers". That quality of "outwitting the other person through trickery, deception, not telling the whole story, spinning" is respected and honored in the general culture.
Colin Powell's presentation to the UN at the time before the US went in, in 2003 was very persuasive and effective and seemed to make the case.
Afghanistan - they (The evil Taliban) allowed Al Qaedah training camps for years, protected Al Qaedah and that was wrong. They were warned and told to give him up and they did not. They had to pay the consequences of that evil.
Do you defend Saddam Hussein as an evil tyrant and dictator (many Arabs even called him "Jabbar" (tyrant, dictator; and one of the 99 names of Allah) for so many years and being so unjust to the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South?
Do you think Taliban and / or Al Qaedah are proper or valid or right interpretations of Islam?
The asbab ol nozul on Surah 9:29 is comming soon, ( I will provide the references from Muslim sources and Tafsirs)
ReplyDeleteBut here it is basically -
along with commentary (Tafsir) from Ibn Kathir and principles of abrogation - they are clear in their understanding. The preparation for the battle of Tabouk against the Byzantines, but the Byzantines fled before the Muslims arrived, intending to attack and fight and carry out Surah 9:29.
Muhammd was involved in that; but died soon after that, it was up to Abu Bakr and Omar and Uthman and the other Khalifs to carry out Surah 9:29 in its fullness; and they did!
and then subsequent history (especially the battle of Yarmouk against the Byzantines, was Omar's application of Surah 9:29 and Omar's Pact (it was developed also and became more strict later, but all the scholars point to Omar as the originator of it. (very unjust - no evangelism, no repair of church buildings, no bells, etc. and no Muslim could freely choose Christianity - Sahih Al Bukhari - "If a Muslims leaves the faith of Islam, kill him.") with the Christians was the application of Zhimmi and Jaziye principles.
That should be enough for now. I have to go do other work and hope to return with the specific reference from Ibn Kathir's commentary. You can find by google and www.answering-Islam.org
Also, according to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad participated in or ordered or sanctioned 64 battles/skirmishes/caravan raids. (still trying to find that; I know I have it somewhere or read it somewhere.) Some say 14 real big battles and that the caravan raids are not battles. Bailey gives the progression and so did Spencer and even Muslim writers all admit this. The Meccan period was different than the Medina period.
Christians argue about the true meaning of the Bible because we believe the Bible to be true. But Christians deny that the Koran is true. Christians have no basis on which to claim that the Koran is really teaching this or that. Only Muslims can reasonably propose its true meaning. For us Christians it teaches whatever different Muslims say. Clearly, a case can be made that more Muslims, influenced by who knows what, are uninclined to become murders and terrorists. It is obvious to me as a Christian that among the billion and more Muslims in the world, only a tiny percentage claim that they have learned from the Koran that God wants them to kill me for any reason.
ReplyDeleteFor Christians to claim that this majority of Muslims are misinterpreting their own Holy Book is misguided. We have no reason to impose our own perspective on it. Theirs is all that matters. It is no different than when the atheist claims that Christians must interpret the sluaghter of the Canaanites in the Bible as justification for Christians to slaughter atheists. We know how stupid and naive that makes the atheist seem to us. Do we Christians realize how we must appear to the peaceful Muslim when we insist that the Koran tells him to blow us up?
Rory
Dave, hi. I am going to turn on the game right now! Go Ducks.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
ReplyDeleteKen what a defeated little man you are.
I'll ignore your desperate attempts at provocation..."many Arabs even called him "Jabbar" (tyrant, dictator; and one of the 99 names of Allah)
(because he basically did what Allah did in Surah 3:54 and 8:30 - Allah is the best of decievers".)
I know when your waiving the white flag Ken. This is why I ignore you truly. But for the sake of others reading this let's get to the good stuff.
Ken says,
"The asbab ol nozul on Surah 9:29 is comming soon, ( I will provide the references from Muslim sources and Tafsirs)
But here it is basically -
along with commentary (Tafsir) from Ibn Kathir and principles of abrogation - they are clear in their understanding. The preparation for the battle of Tabouk against the Byzantines, but the Byzantines fled before the Muslims arrived, intending to attack and fight and carry out Surah 9:29."
Sources quotes please? I don't know about reformed Christians Ken but where I am from we QUOTE our sources.
Not only that but here you go railing on Surah 9:29 and you Don't even know the Asbab an nuzul..??? What?
So now your sweating, pacing up and down the hall way running your fingers through your hair...
Ah ha! I'll just go to to my favorite web site.. answering-islam (due to the fact that you have superficial knowledge or depth about Islam).
Sure be my guest. By the way Ken I would encourage you that if you do as you say,
"I will provide the references from Muslim sources and Tafsirs" to actually read those sources (or have read those books).
It's not enough to desperately troll the net, or use the Google machine to come up with some presupposition that fits your already flawed views of Islam.
I would strongly encourage you Ken to actually try and read books...(not 3 page articles, or small blurbs) try and read the material your quoting for a change.
Just a tip!
continued...
Ken says
ReplyDelete"The asbab ol nozul on Surah 9:29 is comming soon, ( I will provide the references from Muslim sources and Tafsirs)"
So basically folks, all this time I Ken Temple do not have the asbab an nuzul handy, and I am not even confident to recall it's descent, yet I have already made a presupposition about it.
Amazing folks! Only in Oz!
Ken says,
"Saddam Hussein first did many evil deeds, attacking Iran, gassing two villages of Kurds,"
All thanks to your tax dollars Ken! Btw I am sure the Kurds and Persians you preached the gospel to were very thankful to that.
Any way I noticed how you skirted about the question so let me try and ask you again as the good "Dr" James White says, inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
"does the just war principle allow for defensive or offensive wars?"
Do you personally Ken Temple support the doctrine of preemptive war if it entails invading another sovereign state?
Ken says,
"Also, according to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad participated in or ordered or sanctioned 64 battles/skirmishes/caravan raids. (still trying to find that; I know I have it SOME WHERE or READ IT SOME WHERE.)
Yes ma'am I heard that there is big foot in them there hills! I have it read it some where or I read it some where that mentions Big foot and his connections with U.F.Os! Yessum!
I tell you what Ken, before we start talking about Muhammed (saw) Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Muaviya,Uthman, the Ottomans etc.
and you go making yourself look bad....again
Why don't you go over to Answering-Islam and collate all that diatribe about Muhammed (saw) and his wars, get yourself a nice hot cup of coffee and let me know when your serious about discussing the matters in the video above.
I want to apologies to Rory, David or anyone else who feels that my tone with Ken maybe a bit condescending at times.
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact is that David you and the people who interact with Ken are allot more patient than I am.
Ken comes to a table with many arguments but no substance, and no knowledge.
Take for example here:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/10/god-of-old-testament-jesus-or-allah.html
Ken says,
Ken said...
David and Nabeel and others -
There needs to be a debate on the specific issue of
"The Islamic Wars against the Byzantine and Persian Empires were Unjust 632-732 AD and beyond to 1071 AD (Battle of Manzikert near Van) (Aggressive warfare; they had no right to do what they did.)
Does anyone know of good sources and history on that?
October 10, 2010 6:12 PM
"Does anyone know of good sources and history on that?"
So basically all this time he has been railing against this and that campaign by Muslim empires, and he doesn't have any good sources and history on it?
"they had no right to do what they did."...
And why did they have no right?
Ken because...I READ IT SOME WHERE.
This is not an honorable way to go about having sincere and meaningful dialog and discussion.
He is doing the exact same thing with Surah 9:29 and his diatribe against Islam.
Oh Allah surely we are your servants. Oh Allah surely we belong to you and unto you is the return of us all.
So, GV19,
ReplyDeleteYou are going to argue against Ibn Kathir - he clearly says the Asbab ol nozul اسبات النزول is the battle of Tabouk - or preparations for fighting the Byzantines at Tabouk.
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980
This is a Muslim site of Muslim commentators.
Ibn Kathir also wrote that Surah 9:1-5 and 9:29 abrogated Surah 2:190 and that Surah 9 expanded the command to fight only when first attacked to "all out conquering of the infidels and against the Christians and Jews until they are humiliated and surrender and pay the Jiziye and be dhimmis. ذ مـی (second class citizens with no rights to share their faith or evangelize.
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=4985
So you are defeated soundly in your argumentation.
The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
Allah said,
[قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَـغِرُونَ ]
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement,
[قَـتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَـبَ]
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing."
Boom. You lost that debate.
opps, I hit the wrong key on the "Asbab ol Nojul" = "the reasons for the revelation" or "occasion for the revelation that came down"
ReplyDeleteاسبات النزول
should have been
اسباب النزول
Ibn Kathir also says that Qur'an 2:256 is abrogated by Surah 9:1-5 and 9:29
ReplyDeleteLet there be no compulsion in religion
Verse 2:256
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Qur'an 2:256
Meaning of Verse 2:256
"Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion", meaning: do not force anyone to embrace Islam, because it is clear and its proofs and evidences are manifest. Whoever Allah guides and opens his heart to Islam has indeed embraced it with clear evidence. Whoever Allah misguides blinds his heart and has set a seal on his hearing and a covering on his eyes cannot embrace Islam by force...hence Allah revealed this verse. But, this verse is abrogated by the verse of "fighting...Therefore, all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed. This is the meaning of compulsion. In the Sahih, the Prophet said: "Allah wonders at those people who will enter Paradise in chains", meaning prisoners brought in chains to the Islamic state, then they embrace Islam sincerely and become righteous, and are entered among the people of Paradise."
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (unabridged)
Boom again. your arguments fall flat and hard to the ground.
GV19,
ReplyDeleteHere is another Muslim expert and scholar, from your school of Jurisprudence, the Maliki school, on the phrase about “Allah is the very best of schemers” (makr – deception, makara, deceiver, trickster, cunning person who outwits opponent by use of deception and trickery):
Qurtubi observes that some scholars have considered the words "best of schemers" to be one of God’s beautiful names. Thus one would pray, "O Best of Schemers, scheme for me!" Qurtubi also reports that the Prophet used to pray, "O God, scheme for me, and do not scheme against me!" (Qurtubi, Tafsir Al Qurtubi, IV, pp. 98-99; cf. Zamakhshari, I, p. 366). (Ibid., p. 166)
Imam Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273 AD) or Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi (Arabic: أبو عبدالله القرطبي) was a famous mufassir, (commentator) muhaddith (Hadith collector) and faqih (Legal Jurisprudence of Islam) scholar from Cordoba of Maliki origin. He is most famous for his commentary of the Quran, Tafsir al-Qurtubi.
http://www.islam.com/chronology.htm
ReplyDeleteThis chronology of Muhammad's life has him in 26 battles.
another list, including the caravan raids, is 31.
so, I will have to do more research on that and where the "64 according to Ibn Ishaq" came from.
big difference anyway -
Jesus - 0
Christians - from 33 AD - 380 AD - 0
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance form their Lord.
ReplyDeleteKen,
"Boom. You lost that debate."
Ken again,
"Boom again. your arguments fall flat and hard to the ground."
You know it gets serious when Ken Temple (the guy you need to call when you need someone to do a few goat or sheep impressions)starts to use violent imagery such as "BOOM!"
I know you took my entry of you at my web site pretty personal but just to give you a heads up.
You might not want to keep bringing up the whole Makr and Makareen issue because I dunno (shrugs shoulders) it may seem that you don't feel confident that you "scored enough points" thus you have to keep rolling it back out.
I think it's best to use it a few times against the person you feel you already made the point against otherwise it will make you look as though you lack confidence (shrugs shoulders) just some advice from an infidel.
So Ken quotes Ibn Kathir about the occasion in which the verse of Tabouk was revealed.
Very good Ken! This is a start. Now I pray thee do tell, what are the details of this battle this war that Muhammed (saw) "waged"?
How many people died that day or during the battle of Tabuk?
Further more I can give you the Muslim account of events (But you know us Muslims right, makr, al markeen wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Do you have any Byzantine accounts of the events about the Arab-Byzantine wars?
continued...
Ken says,
ReplyDelete"Ibn Kathir also says that Qur'an 2:256 is abrogated by Surah 9:1-5 and 9:29"
And John Calvin/Turetinfan says that babies are to be baptized James White/Ken Temple say to Calvin NO!(shrugs shoulders)...
Reformed Baptist (R.C Sproul Jr) believe it's o.k to have a bottle of Jack Daniels....Southern Baptist (Tim Rogers) frown on it (shrugs shoulders)...
the point being?
As far as the rabbits you asked me to chase (once again) I'll stay focused on the buffalo good guy!
The Ibn Kathir quote on the abrogation is not a rabbit trail, but the very issue of the post that David W. has given us. Ibn Kathir, one of the most respected Sunni mofasir, writter of Tafsirs, and very old, closer to the time of Muhammad than you or the modern commentators and western liberal Muslims. Ibn Kathir is perhaps the top commentator of all, agrees with what Spencer was saying in the debate.
ReplyDeleteThe "boom" is the sound of a tree falling, metaphor for your argument falling and hitting the ground hard.
it is you who have introduced rabbit trails with infant baptism and hard liquor/alcohol drinking.
How come you cannot stay focused?
the "battle of Tabouk" was not really a battle, that is why I also wrote, "or preparation" for a battle at Tabouk.
ReplyDeleteThe Byzantines fled, so there was no fighting; and Muhammad died soon after that.
But Muhammad had sent the letters to the leaders of these countries inviting them to Islam, "if you submit and embrace Islam, you will be safe" (the implication is that if you don't, we will fight you, which, since the Muslims did attack first, and fight and kill and create centuries of wars, then that PROVES that Muhammad's letters meant, "if you don't, we are going to fight you and make war against you until you submit and are brought low, feeling humiliated and pay the Jiziye and become dhimmis." the Pact of Omar also proves this. But you both still are not admitting that this was original Islam and Muhammad and his companions' Islam - the modern Jihadists and Salafis (getting back to the pioneers) are open and up front that they want to return to that Islam. - the early centuries of aggressive warfare against all non-Muslims.
But Abu Bakr (632-634 AD) carried out 9:1-5 ff and "if anyone leaves Islam, kill him."
And he began the campaigns against Persia and Byzantine, following these verse of the Qur'an disgussed here, but died after only 27 months as Khalif. Omar then took up the command of Surah 9:29
and then Omar, (634-644 AD )second Caliph, carried out 9:29 against the peoples of the book in Levent/Syria, Egypt, N. Africa, and the Zoroastrians in Persia.
I hear the sound of the tree (your argument) falling again - boom.
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteI was going to type up a new thread today concerning what is termed "The Rightly Guided Caliphs", but the following that you posted yesterday, leads into this topic, so I shall continue my reflections here; you wrote:
Ken:>> But Muhammad had sent the letters to the leaders of these countries inviting them to Islam, "if you submit and embrace Islam, you will be safe" (the implication is that if you don't, we will fight you, which, since the Muslims did attack first, and fight and kill and create centuries of wars, then that PROVES that Muhammad's letters meant, "if you don't, we are going to fight you and make war against you until you submit and are brought low, feeling humiliated and pay the Jiziye and become dhimmis." the Pact of Omar also proves this. But you both still are not admitting that this was original Islam and Muhammad and his companions' Islam - the modern Jihadists and Salafis (getting back to the pioneers) are open and up front that they want to return to that Islam. - the early centuries of aggressive warfare against all non-Muslims.>>
Me: Muhammad sent out 4 letters to certain rulers in neighboring lands before his death—e.g. Byzantium, Sassanid/Persia, Egypt, and Abyssinia/Ethiopia. The expansion of Islam into these lands has direct warrant from Muhammad, and was carried out by the 3 subsequent "Rightly Guided Caliphs". During the 'rule' of the last "Rightly Guided Caliph", Ali, civil war broke out among the Muslims, and the Caliphate was usurped by the Umayyads. These events should raise some serious questions concerning issues of authority, especially as related to physical jihad: who has the authority to call an offensive jihad? Does the Quran provide absolute, unconditional, warrant for worldwide offensive jihad, or are the important ayat conditional in nature? Muhammad's 4 letters, the actions of the 4 "Rightly Guided Caliphs", and the subsequent civil wars strongly suggest to me, that not just anyone can call an offensive jihad. Commentators like Ibn Kathir are not infallible; and when one factors in the fact that many of the better known commentators had the sword of the reigning Caliph over their heads, it comes as no surprise to me that the ambitions of post-"Rightly Guided Caliphs" were supported by the commentators under their thumbs.
With all that said, I find it very interesting that you read the Quranic ayat pertaining to jihad as the terrorist does, when there is clearly warrant for reading those ayat in a conditional sense.
Grace and peace,
David
David,
ReplyDeleteIf the Islamic terrorists/ Jihadists/ Islamic regimes of the last 30 or so years (Palestinian, Hamas, Hezbo’allah in Lebanon, the 1979 onward Iranian Regime, Saeed Qutb, Al Banna (they were objecting to the secularism of the Arab world of Nasser and the ending of the Khalifate in 1924 by Ataturk of the newly formed secular state of Turkey.) and Al Qaedah, Jama’at e Islami, and other Salafi groups, and Wahabis and the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan, AND all of the millions (even if only, say 10 percent or 20 percent, say 20 million out of over 1 Billion people, less than 20 % of all Muslims) who support some of most of these views, if they all did not have this interpretation, or something close to it; and take action on it in actually doing the terrorism, and so many other supporting them by popular street level indications, we would probably not be having this debate.
When you frame the issue like this and write, “I find it interesting that you agree with the terrorists readings the texts of Islam” - of Surah 9:1-5 and 9:29 and 8:39 and Hadith portions that I have already listed – you seem to be attempting to say “I am with the Islamic terrorists” – I find that a strange way to debate something and in fact – in many ways, it seems like a manipulation of “blaming the one seeking to expose them” - and that is what Daisy Khan and her husband Feisal Abdul Ra’uf and Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz tried to do – with or without knowing it, you put the blame on all who are seeking to be honest with the facts and expose the Islamic terrorists.
Just the phrase, "You agree with the terrorists" is a misleading and dangerous phrase and seems to be soundbite tactic of Daisy Khan and others.
You have finally, seemingly, I think, admitted that Muhammad and the first four “rightly guided Khalifs” is the original and true Islam. (Sunni) So, do you think from Muawiya on, he hijacked real Islam, and that all of Islam should confess their sins and wrongs and give back everything conquered after 660 AD? What about the injustice done to the Christians in Egypt and Levant and Persians of the first era of 622-660 ? And what about the injustice done to the Christians and Jews who were slaughtered and driven out of the Najran area, part of S. Arabia and Yemen, and Jews driven out and exterminated from Medina, Christians out of parts of what is today Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and Iraq?
So, you think Muawiya hijacked "real Islam" and that all the aggressive wars from 660 AD onward - finished conquering N. Africa, Spain, later, Anatolia, Constantinople (1453), Balkans, Greece for 500 or so years, etc. and on into other parts of Central Asia and India (the tension between Hindus and Muslims goes all the back to the unjust Jihads of aggression against the polytheist/pagan Hindus) and into other parts of Asia - Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines (Mindanao).
ReplyDeleteDo you think Muhammad and the period of the rightly guided Khalifs" is the real Islam?
It has to be, for it was Muhammad's Islam.
When you say that commentators like Ibn Kathir are not infallible – so what? – also, well, Islam has no infallibility of the Pope kind of doctrine, except maybe the “Vilayat e Faqih” ولایت فقیه or “marja’ –taqlid” مرجع تقلید of Shiite Twelver Islam.
But, the all Sunnis believe that a valid Khalif can call for a Jihad against the infidels – and that existed all the way up until 1924 when Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the secular leader of Turkey, abolished the Khalifate. Are you willing to admit that all the wars and aggressions of all those centuries were valid according to the Sunni view of the time all the way up until 1924? It is not by accident that the modern Islamic terrorists, Salafis, and Jihadists/Islamists are also calling for the re-establishment of the Khalifate, that Ataturk abolished.
David Waltz wrote:
ReplyDeleteMe: Muhammad sent out 4 letters to certain rulers in neighboring lands before his death—e.g. Byzantium, Sassanid/Persia, Egypt, and Abyssinia/Ethiopia. The expansion of Islam into these lands has direct warrant from Muhammad, and was carried out by the 3 subsequent "Rightly Guided Caliphs".
Finally! You finally admitted that at almost 70 comments on your blog! amazing that it took it too so long!
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for responding. FYI. I have jury duty this month, so if some of my responses are late, please forgive me. Yesterday, you posted:
>>When you frame the issue like this and write, “I find it interesting that you agree with the terrorists readings the texts of Islam” - of Surah 9:1-5 and 9:29 and 8:39 and Hadith portions that I have already listed – you seem to be attempting to say “I am with the Islamic terrorists” – I find that a strange way to debate something and in fact – in many ways, it seems like a manipulation of “blaming the one seeking to expose them”...>>
Me: We disagree over what needs to be 'exposed'; I SIDE with Dr. Peterson, Dr. Bonner, a couple of 8th century Muslim commentators, the 12vers, and a good number of current Sunni's who believe that the correct interpretation of the important ayat on jihad are CONDITIONAL; YOU SIDE with the ambitious Caliphs which came after the early civil wars and death of Ali, their commentators, and the terrorists who believe they are UNCONDITIONAL. Now, these are just facts, and I see no need to read more into them than which side of interpretation each of us have chosen.
>>But, the all Sunnis believe that a valid Khalif can call for a Jihad against the infidels – and that existed all the way up until 1924 when Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the secular leader of Turkey, abolished the Khalifate. Are you willing to admit that all the wars and aggressions of all those centuries were valid according to the Sunni view of the time all the way up until 1924?>>
Me: No, I am not willing to side with, "the all Sunnis believe that a valid Khalif can call for a Jihad against the infidels", and for couple of important reasons: first, it is not without good cause that ONLY the first 4 Caliphs were termed "Rightly Guided"; and second after the first major Islamic civil during the Caliphate of Ali, Muslims disagreed vehemently over just who was "the valid" Caliph. After the death of Ali, I would say that given the inherent, and continued disputes among Muslims, that a valid offensive jihad COULD NOT BE CALLED.
>>Finally! You finally admitted that at almost 70 comments on your blog! amazing that it took it too so long! >>
Me: Uhhh, Ken, I have spoken about proper warrant for offensive jihads in at least two of my previous posts in this thread; I suspect you are not reading my posts carefully. And further, perhaps more importantly, the very fact that I believe that the Quranic ayat on jihad are CONDITIONAL, means that I believe that the Quran teaches the validity of offensive jihad when certain CONDITIONS are met.
Grace and peace,
David
Me: We disagree over what needs to be 'exposed';
ReplyDeleteThe nature of real and original and true Islam, seems inherently violent, because of what Muhammad said in both the Qur'an and the Hadith and what he did and what his followers did, not only the earliest, but most all the way up until the Khalifate was abolished in 1924.
The Muslim terrorists/Jihadists/Salafi's / those that want Sharia law to be instituted over the whole earth; are the ones that you guys need to argue with, not me. They are the ones who need to be convinced to change; they are ones who are "upsetting the whole world with their actions, based on their religion. Islam is not a religion of peace and it does not peace; it means submission. There is no peace/welfare on the earth (salamati/salam سلام، سلامتی , unless there is submission to Islam, in their view. Islam is a false religion, and one of the things that needs that to be exposed is it's violent inherent nature. I am glad for the peaceful and nice Muslims; but they don't seem to be dealing with the realities of their original original.
I SIDE with Dr. Peterson, Dr. Bonner, a couple of 8th century Muslim commentators, the 12vers, and a good number of current Sunni's who believe that the correct interpretation of the important ayat on jihad are CONDITIONAL; YOU SIDE with the ambitious Caliphs
NO, I don't "side with" them at all, I am only exposing the basis of their evil actions - verses in the Qur'an and Hadith and what Muhammad said and did.
which came after the early civil wars and death of Ali, their commentators, and the terrorists who believe they are UNCONDITIONAL.
What exactly are the proper conditions for today for Surah 9:29 and 8:39 and the relevant Hadith passages to be acted up in the view that you and Dr. Peterson are advocating. I hope it wins over many Muslims; but it seems to me that they would have to admit that Muhammad was wrong to do what he did and also show in the texts where the change takes place (there is none); but they (The Jihadists/Muslim terrorists) are the ones who need to be convinced in order for the world to be safer, not me. I am just being honest with the facts of where they get the motivations for what they do.
Now, these are just facts, and I see no need to read more into them than which side of interpretation each of us have chosen.
It is your version of skewed and minority "facts" with an arbitrary line drawn at Ali's death with no textual support; admitting that they did the aggressive war(which was unjust to force the pagans in Arabia(against 2:286) [also proves there is no freedom of thought or religion or conscience in real Islam]and unjust against Christians and Jews); based on Surah 9:29 and 8:39 and the Hadith. What are the conditions? For the modern view of war against the unbelievers and the Christians and Jews in Surah 9:29 and 8:39