Britains first islamic state ?

[KeyboardJockey]

Rubbish.

There are moderates right?

Those who have a more progressive view of Islam and don't adhere to the more extreme ends of Islamic law? Because if they exist, then so do Fundamentalists, you may not like the term, but that isn't really the issue, they may not like the term, but that also isn't the issue.

The issue is whether the term fits, and those that want to stick to the more extreme and 'fundamental' parts of Islam, those parts that were written several centuries ago and are considered out of date by the more moderate Muslims, are Fundamentalists, because they want to stick to the fundamental laws and writings of Islam.

Like the term or not, is irrelevent, you can't just dismiss it and say that there is no such thing, it is possibly a corrupted latin term, but it is a term used in English to describe a certain type of religous person. Whether they are muslim or christian.

If the shoe fits.

I can see Albaran's point about the word Fundamentalism as it was a term conjoured up in the US in the 19th by christians to counter stuff that was going on in academe such as the textual analysis of the bible which tells us that a lot o fthe old testament was the work of many more writers than christian tradition holds and also that a lot of the New Testament writers were more influenced by the politics of the time than the traditional protestant christians were comfortable with. To them the bible was the whole word of god and could not be challenged by detailed study even though it patently can.

It is for this reason that I can accept Aldbarans distinction between the word Fundamentalism and Radicalism.

 

[frogwoman]

the people who whine on about "dhimmitude" and england becoming an islamic state are batshit insane, and its telling that most of them seem to come from the us and have never visited the uk in their lives ...

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you saying that because people are frightened of Islam (which may be because of historical stuff) this is pushing some muslims into being more isolated and separatist?

In that process are more then just these factors involved.I explain that (and the term "Radical") in this thread

Islam and suicidal terrorism:Analysing connections

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=152746

Islam did Islam spread thoughout North Africa / Middle East in the 7th to 12th Centuries CE by conquest or as in Al Andalus was it chosen because it was seen as more fair minded than the Catholic Church.

Conquest does not equal conversion or forcible conversion. The conversion of people who came under Muslim rule was in general a rather slow process, often even deliberately halted or almost prevented for reasons of state economics. (dhimmi who are no longer dhimmi don't pay the dhimmi taxes, to name one). Of course, and since we speak about centuries, cases of forcible conversions occured (in spite of this violating clear commands and instructions in Al Qur'an).

I know from recent reading that Catharism was popularily chosen in France, Spain and Northern Italy because it was not as oppressive as Catholicism?

I think there is also a wrong view on Catholicism present here. It was only "oppressive" in so far that there were periods in which pure (and very time-bound) dogma overruled even the instructions of what Catholics see as the example of Jesus Christ. You must link that with politics and economics of the time using the religion as a tool for power and controling the masses.
There is nothing really new in that field of human history. It is in many aspects a self-repeating cycle.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Rubbish.There are moderates right?

No. That is only an other Western invention (to helplessly describe what they have no clue about).

As for the rest of your post: I think to be in a position to say that I know more about my religion then you. You are always welcome to try to prove that I am wrong in making such a claim.

If the shoe fits.

I have no idea what is meant by this. Can you refrase this for the English illiterate? Thank you.

salaam.

 

[jæd]

As for the rest of your post: I think to be in a position to say that I know more about my religion then you.

Thats as maybe... But some of us have more experience of Muslims in various parts of the world. And the great majority of Muslims I've met have been either moderate in their views.

Strangely enough, so are the majorty of all people in all religions... Shocker, innit...?

 

[jæd]

I have no idea what is meant by this. Can you refrase this for the English illiterate? Thank you.

If the shoe fits, then you should wear it. I think the meaning is pretty clear.

 

[Aldebaran]

Thats as maybe... But some of us have more experience of Muslims in various parts of the world.

Do you always take things for truth while having no idea about it? Possibly I saw more of "the world" then you (and most certainly I know more Muslims then you, unless you live in an Islamic country... and even then it is very questionable if you come in contact with the same amount of people as I do).

And the great majority of Muslims I've met have been either moderate in their views.

No. They are just Muslims, being Muslims. There is no Western invented terminology needed to "describe" them.

Strangely enough, so are the majorty of all people in all religions... Shocker, innit...?

So you speak all the time of "moderate" Christians, "moderate" Wiccans, "moderate Hindus, "moderate" Buddhists, "moderate" Satanists, "moderate"... whatever? (That must be time consuming and after a while very boring).

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

If the shoe fits, then you should wear it. I think the meaning is pretty clear.

No it isn't unless you have an English proverb dictionary at hand - which I don't at the moment - and it is most certainly not clear in context of that post.

salaam.

 

[detective-boy]

No. They are just Muslims, being Muslims. There is no Western invented terminology needed to "describe" them.

I'm confused. Are you saying that all Muslims have an identical approach to their religion and how it interacts with everything else in the world? Or are you saying that different Muslims do approach their religion in different ways but the westernised concepts of "moderate" and "fundamentalist" are not the appropriate way to categorise them?

And the shoe thing - it didn't help that it was only mentioned in abbreviated form initially. "If the shoe fits, wear it" (or, alternatively, "If the hat (or cap) fits, wear it") is used to suggest that someone shoould recognise themselves for what they are. For instance, if someone said to me as I walked towards them "Has the sun gone in?" and I responded "Are you saying I'm fat or something?" they may well respond "If the shoe/hat/cap fits, wear it" meaning that if I think I'm fat then admit it or accept it. Not too good at explaining (somewhat bizarre) UK proverbs but hope that helps!

 

[TeeJay]

No. They are just Muslims, being Muslims. There is no Western invented terminology needed to "describe" them.

Sorry but this is bollocks - unless you are going to stop talking to people here using the English langauge (chock full of "Western invented terminology").

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Objections to the use of the term "fundementalist":

Christian fundamentalists, who generally consider the term to be positive when used to refer to themselves, often strongly object to the placement of themselves and Islamist groups into a single category, and resent being labeled together with factions that use kidnapping, murder, and terrorist acts to achieve their ends. They feel that characteristics based on the new definition are wrongly projected back onto Christian fundamentalists by their critics. There is however no objection to the term fundamentalist when used to describe only Christian groups, and objections to the term Muslim fundamentalist are much less strong.

Many Muslims protest the use of the term when referring to Islamist groups, because all Muslims believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Qur'an, and western writers only use the term to refer to extremist groups. Furthermore, many Muslims strongly object to being placed in the same category as Christian fundamentalists, whom they see as being religiously incorrect. Unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamist groups do not use the term fundamentalist to refer to themselves. However, in the Islamic world, Wahhabis are overwhelmingly considered to be fundamentalists; Shiite groups which are considered fundamentalist in the western world are not considered such in the Islamic world.

The Associated Press stylebook recommends that the term fundamentalist not be used for any group that does not apply the term to itself. This would generally mean that some Christian groups can be described as fundamentalist, but Islamist groups can not be. This recommendation is not universally followed by news writers, however.

Are you seriously trying to say that all Muslims believe exactly the same things and live the same lifestyles?

What about Wahhabis or the Taliban?

Or do you just object to the term "moderate" and "fundementalist", because they are English words? Fine - then how would you translate their menaing into terms that would mean somethiung in the Muslim world? How would you translate Muslim terms to describe these people and ideas (Wahhabis, the Taliban) into English/western terms?

Talking about "Muslims, being Muslims" makes a nonsense of tha vast amount of bloodshed and conflict that is going on between Muslims often over their different beliefs.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

It may not be the most popular piece of leglislation in mainstream newspapers but any 'Islamic city' Taliban stylee would fall foul of the Human Rights Act. There is no way in law any city could be turned over to any extreme religious group in that manner.

I remember watching David Starkey on question time and he had several of these types of questions thrown at him - mainly along the lines of 'Do liberals allow people to do anything they like even if it leads to overpopulation, environmental degradation and global armageddon?' kind of thing. In response he gave the most passionate defence of what being a liberal is - basically saying that anyone who tolerates forms of oppression is not a liberal as liberalism is fundamentally opposed to it. It was nice to see a liberal on TV with some backbone.

But coming back to the point, extreme religion and the Human Rights Act are incompatible. (That's not to say all followers of religion are extremists: They're not.)

 

[jæd]

No it isn't unless you have an English proverb dictionary at hand - which I don't at the moment - and it is most certainly not clear in context of that post.

salaam.

Well... If we do search on Google we get to here .

Are you going to tell me that using Google is too hard for you..? Will you need mean to explain "The poster doth protest too much, methinks...?"...

 

[jæd]

Do you always take things for truth while having no idea about it?

No. They are just Muslims, being Muslims. There is no Western invented terminology needed to "describe" them.

Ho-hum... Guess what "moderate" means. As you'll no-doubt tell me you don't know the word and have no access to a dictionary it means:

In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who holds an intermediate position between those generally classified as being left-wing or liberal and those seen as being right-wing, conservative, or fundamentalist. The word "moderate" can also be used as an adjective describing such a position.

Which, on average, has been my expereince of *most* people... And this includes Muslims. Btw, if you use a western-bulletin board then most of the terms we use might just be western...

 

[Aldebaran]

Btw, if you use a western-bulletin board then most of the terms we use might just be western...

I might escape you, but I'm not arguing the fact that Westerners use Western terminology.

I said - and say again - that "fundamentalist" and "moderate" are not applyable in context of Islam hence not for Muslims either.
You could at least show the common decency to accept that, since coming from an Arab, Muslim, Islamic scholar who accidentaly has also Western roots since his mother was Western.

salaam.

 

[jæd]

I might escape you, but I'm not arguing the fact that Westerners use Western terminology.

I said - and say again - that "fundamentalist" and "moderate" are not applyable in context of Islam hence not for Muslims either.
You could at least show the common decency to accept that, since coming from an Arab, Muslim, Islamic scholar who accidentaly has also Western roots since his mother was Western.

So... When talking to a western person, such a myself, using the Engish language, how would you describe a Muslim who has conservative religious beliefs...?

And how do you describe an individual who holds an intermediate position between two extreme or radical viewpoints. Again using English words and terms a westerner would understand and use...

 

[jæd]

You could at least show the common decency to accept that, since coming from an Arab, Muslim, Islamic scholar who accidentaly has also Western roots since his mother was Western.

Plese post up links to your published works and papers and then I'll take you seriously...

 

[Aldebaran]

Are you seriously trying to say that all Muslims believe exactly the same things and live the same lifestyles?

What has that to do with anything I said?

What about Wahhabis or the Taliban?

Sectarian interpretations that are in many aspects in clear oppostion with with Islamic commands are not "fundamentalist". The mere fact that their interpretations and practices are in conflict with Quranic commands rules the use of that word out, even when looking at them through Western glasses.

Or do you just object to the term "moderate" and "fundementalist", because they are English words?

A rather silly questuion, don't you think? Do you have some idea that my brain is malfunctioning(or non-functioning)?
If I say a terminology does not it should be obvious to the casual reader that this means: it does not apply, no matter the language such words would be translated to. In fact, the word meaning "fundamentalist" had to be invented in Arabic = It didn't even EXIST. Yet you claim it nevertheless should be appliable to Islamic contexts. How strange.

How would you translate Muslim terms to describe these people and ideas (Wahhabis, the Taliban) into English/western terms?

Deviating sectarian interpretations.

Talking about "Muslims, being Muslims" makes a nonsense of tha vast amount of bloodshed and conflict that is going on between Muslims often over their different beliefs.

All of them believe in Allah, in Al Qur'an and in Muhammed being the Prophet of Allah. That makes them all Muslims. Rivalry, disagreement, bloodshed has no effect on being yes or no Muslim. It has merely to do with being foolish, uninformed or arrogant humans (or all of at at the same time.)

Do you claim that Christians targetting other Christians in whatever manner are not Christians? Then what are they? And who *is* Christian in your view and who is not?
Can you explain that also for Jewish people and for those of other religions?
Can you explain it for people of the same race or ethnicy targetting others of the same race or ethnicy? Of the same country? They all of a sudden fall outside their group?

salaam.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Sectarian interpretations that are in many aspects in clear oppostion with with Islamic commands are not "fundamentalist". The mere fact that many of their dogma and practices are in conflict with Quranic commands rules the use of that word out, even when looking at them through Western glasses..

So what word would you use to describe the wahabbi'st tendency, the taliban etc?

All of them believe in Allah, in Al Qur'an and in Muhammed being the Prophet of Allah. That makes them all Muslims. Rivalry, disagreement, bloodshed has no effect on being yes or no Muslim. It has merely to do with being foolish, uninformed or arrogant humans (or all of at at the same time.) salaam.

Correct me if I'm wrong I understand what you say that all Muslims believe in Allah, the Qur'an and the prophet but isn't there a similar 'your not a real Muslim because your a sufi/suna/shia/ismaili' etc etc? Similar to how fundamentalist protestants believe that Catholics are not 'real christians' because of their allegience to the Pope, intercession of priests, the cult of Mary and accusations of idolatory because of the use of icons and images. See the Ian Paisley website for detailed info about this. When I was hanging around with evangelical Xtian nutjobs hyperprotestant anti catholicism was quite a popular discussion point and I saw this anticatholicist stuff used as part of evangalism 'you don't want to go to the catholics they follow the antichrist' etc etc.

 

[Aldebaran]

Plese post up links to your published works and papers and then I'll take you seriously...

While we are at it, why not posting a demand that I post on a worldwide acessable message board my birth certificate, my dental records, my DNA records, my phone numbers, my private addresses and copies of my diplomas too?

I'm surely going to have a sleepless night that an anonymous poster on a UK based message board - posting such idiotic "demands" at that - is "not taking me serious".
I must take a rest now... the shock... you surely understand.


salaam.

 

[jæd]

While we are at it, why not posting a demand that I post on a worldwide acessable message board my birth certificate, my dental records, my DNA records, my phone numbers, my private addresses and copies of my diplomas too?

I'm surely going to have a sleepless night that an anonymous poster on a UK based message board - posting such idiotic "demands" at that - is "not taking me serious".
I must take a rest now... the shock... you surely understand.

Oh... So you mean you aren't a noted Arabic/Islam scholar. Just some random fruitloop nutjob...?

 

[jæd]

If I say a terminology does not it should be obvious to the casual reader that this means...

YOU'RE ALL SO STUPID. I HATE YOU ITS SO UNFAIR...!

 

[Fong]

What has that to do with anything I said?

Well you have suggested that the terms "moderates" and "fundamentalists" do not apply as all Muslims believe exactly the same thing.

Which is clearly and demonstratably incorrect. Hence some Muslims wanting the death penalty for any Muslim that converts to Christianity and other Muslims not.

There is a difference in both interpretation and implementation of the 'rules' of Islam.

Hence there are different types of Muslims.

Hence some are moderates and some are fundamentalists.

You are basically saying, that you can't apply a word like 'Tall' to describe Muslim people because there is no such concept in the Muslim world, they are all 'the right height' therefore meaning there can be no 'tall' and no 'short' as that implies that there is some correct height which you can be taller then or shorter then.

It is a muslim concept and has no bearing on the world outside of Muslims. We will still correctly refer to people as being tall or short, because that is the western concept and that is the way in which we work.

Don't like it, not a lot we can do about it, but to claim all of a sudden that there are no tall or short people and that we are wrong, is actually incorrect, there may be no terminology within Islam for that concept, but then we are not in the world of Islam and our terminology fits perfectly.

 

[Aldebaran]

So what word would you use to describe the wahabbi'st tendency, the taliban etc?

Deviating sectarian interpretations generally based on the teachings of the madhab of ibn Hanbal and with influence of the teachings of ibn taymiyya.

Correct me if I'm wrong I understand what you say that all Muslims believe in Allah, the Qur'an and the prophet but isn't there a similar 'your not a real Muslim because your a sufi/suna/shia/ismaili' etc etc?

There is a difference with what people say - or genuinely believe - that other people are, and what those people are.

Similar to how fundamentalist protestants believe that Catholics are not 'real christians' because of their allegience to the Pope, intercession of priests, the cult of Mary and accusations of idolatory because of the use of icons and images.

The cause behind differences within Islam and hence among Muslims is not in the fundamental Islamic teachings.
To give the example of the most known and most important, the sunni/shia, this was instigated by differences about who was to succeed the Prophet in leading the Islamic community after the death of the third caliph, and the subsequent disputes and battle of Siffin (658AD).
Of course in the course of history the sections went through different stages of evolution and development of their ideas and the development of sects from within.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh... So you mean you aren't a noted Arabic/Islam scholar. Just some random fruitloop nutjob...?

Who is now putting a child posing for an adult on "ignore".
Bye.

salaam.

 

[ZAMB]

Oh... So you mean you aren't a noted Arabic/Islam scholar. Just some random fruitloop nutjob...?

Aldebaran is just refusing to post things that would reveal his identity. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask him to post things that would reveal his identity when you are so careful to keep your own details hidden? [I had a look at your profile and it contains no personal information]

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Deviating sectarian interpretations generally based on the teachings of the madhab of ibn Hanbal and with influence of the teachings of ibn taymiyya.

thanks. I'll look into those writers.

There is a difference with what people say - or genuinely believe - that other people are, and what those people are.

That doesn't really answer my question. As I have said before a protestant and a catholic are both christians inthier fundamental areas but are anathama to each other. Is there as is my understanding of the situation a case where one group of muslims believes that another group are not proper muslims?

The cause behind differences within Islam and hence among Muslims is not in the fundamental Islamic teachings.

Hmmm. I understand that at the present time there are progressive muslims who say that the Qu'ran it self cannot be changed but the Hadith which is a part of fundamental islamic knowledge can be re interpreted in the light of later knowledge. I have very little knowledge of the arabic language but I understand that qu'ranic arabic admits a neuter gender description which is found in both the qu'ran and the hadith which is how some muslim transexuals have read an acceptance of transexuality. Also some gay muslims say tht allah cannot create anything bad and therefore their sexuality cannot be said to be islamicly bad. Which is very similar to the liberal interpretaton of the bible which says we are all 'children of god' and the quaker interpretation which says 'there is that of god in everyone'.

To give the example of the most known and most important, the sunni/shia, this was instigated by differences about who was to succeed the Prophet in leading the Islamic community after the death of the third caliph, and the subsequent disputes and battle of Siffin (658AD).

That was very soon after the establishment of Islam wasn't it?

Of course in the course of history the sections went through different stages of evolution and development of their ideas and the development of sects from within.

salaam.

But as I have asked before do each of these sects treat those of different sects as not proper muslims?

 

[jæd]

Aldebaran is just refusing to post things that would reveal his identity. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to ask him to post things that would reveal his identity when you are so careful to keep your own details hidden? [I had a look at your profile and it contains no personal information]

Um... Am I the one who claims he is a Arabic/Islamic scholar...? Nope. If you claim to be something expect to be called up on it.

There are people on this board who don't hide their identity. I'm suprised to find a scholar that is. Most of the ones I know like having their research published and being associated with it. Which makes Aldebaran claims to be a scholar a bit odd...

 

[Aldebaran]

What has that to do with anything I said?

Well you have suggested that the terms "moderates" and "fundamentalists" do not apply as all Muslims believe exactly the same thing.

They do.

Which is clearly and demonstratably incorrect. Hence some Muslims wanting the death penalty for any Muslim that converts to Christianity and other Muslims not.

That has nothing to see with being Muslim. It has everything to see with the madhab (=law school) and all that comes to it that gets applied and in shia islam the situation is not less complex and entirely different at that.

there are different types of Muslims.

No. There are different laws schools and different applications thereof and there are different interpretations.

Hence some are moderates and some are fundamentalists.

You can repeat that until you are exhausted and your hands fall off, but the answer stays NO all the same.

because that is the western concept and that is the way in which we work.

I said: Western concepts are Western concepts = they are NOT Islamic concepts and hence do NOT apply in context of Islam. What makes this so utterly difficult to be understood by you? Common sense?

salaam.

 

[winterinmoscow]

I do not want to add fuel to the flames here but I am genuinely interested.

Aldebaran from reading your last post it seems that you argue that there are different types of interpretations but not different types of Muslims. Can you explain this a bit more because I really don't understand how this works.

I have read where you say that Western contexts do not apply in Islam but I don't really see how this is a particularly Western concept. You acknowledge that there are different interpretations but seem to say it amounts to the same... I am really lost.

Please forgive me if I am just being blind.

 

[Fong]

I do not want to add fuel to the flames here but I am genuinely interested.

Aldebaran from reading your last post it seems that you argue that there are different types of interpretations but not different types of Muslims. Can you explain this a bit more because I really don't understand how this works.

I have read where you say that Western contexts do not apply in Islam but I don't really see how this is a particularly Western concept. You acknowledge that there are different interpretations but seem to say it amounts to the same... I am really lost.

Please forgive me if I am just being blind.

I was just about to say the same thing.

No. There are different laws schools and different applications thereof and there are different interpretations.

Yes and those that follow one 'law school and application' are different to those that follow a different law school and interpretation.

You are just playing semantic games to get around the fact that some muslims interpret the 'laws' differently to others and that we can quite correctly label them with terms we have invented for different religons.

The same game could easily be played with christian beliefs and interpretations but we don't bother cause we know the terms fit. This is a pointless excercise in language manipulation when the terms fit perfectly well.

You just don't like them.