winterinmoscow
Returning Poster
Fong said:
I don't think this is directed at me but just to clarify, I'm not playing games, I'm just confused!!!!
Britains first islamic state ?
- Thread starter The Pious Pawn
- Start date
I don't think this is directed at me but just to clarify, I'm not playing games, I'm just confused!!!!
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
winterinmoscow said:
From what I have read from what Aldebaran is saying is that because all muslims believe in one god Allah, one divinely transmitted message and one final prophet then that is the core of Islam and therefore they are all muslims.
winterinmoscow said:
Thats confusing me as well. If I was a member of the mainstream Church of England I would view the Ebeneezer Baptists or the Plymouth Bretheren as 'fundamentalists' or strict and some of the more open sects as liberal or radical. To me as an ex christian the term radical has a totally different meaning to what Aldebaran said although I can see why he / she uses it.
One question I would like to ask Aldebaran is do the Radicals as you call them or the fundamentalists as others would refer to them do they bump up the secondary writings and leaning in Islam to a higher position.
As I understand it there is a heirachy of holiness with Islamic teachings first is the Qu'ran then the Hadith then the Sharia and finally and least important custom and practice. It seems to me looking from the outside at the wahabbi's / taleban etc that they are increasing the importance of the sharia and the custom and practice from where I understand all the disgusting gender discrimination comes from (remember in Saudi women are still not allowed to drive cars).
winterinmoscow said:I don't think this is directed at me but just to clarify, I'm not playing games, I'm just confused!!!!
No it wasn't aimed at you sorry, I only quoted you to point out that you were stating pretty much exactly what I was about to state, laziness stepped in for a moment and I couldn't be bothered to type it out again so quoted your words as a quicker way of stating what I would have said.
winterinmoscow
Returning Poster
Fong said:
Ahh okay, cool. No worries
TeeJay said:
Sorry but this isn't sufficient: "deviating" is just saying that they differ from your interpretation - you in turn may be deviating from theirs. "sectarian" is just saying that they are distinct sub-group and "interpretations" again - does really say anything. Notwithstanding the things that all Muslims agree on there is a diversity within Islam, just like there is diversity within Christianity.Aldebaran said:
You reject the term "fundementalist", but as has been explained this English-language term means in effect "extremist", "conservative" or in favour of very literal interpretations of things written in the Quran.
Just to ask you again: how would you characterise the difference between a Muslim who favoured cutting off hands, stoning and so forth for relatively minor crimes, and another Muslim who didn't favour these sorts of punishments?
Can't you accept that as much as you don't like the term fundementalist, anyone arguing for cutting off hands etc based on quoting the Quran could be labelled as such in as far as that is what people mean by the term. If you don't like the term then what term would you use - and sorry but "deviating sectarian interpretations" doesn't cut it, as it could mean all sorts of things - ie it isn;t a good translation of what people here mean by the term "fundementalist", "conservative" or "extreme" interpretations of Islam.
I am not the one saying that an extreme (or moderate) Muslim is no longer a Muslim. You seem to be the one suggesting that conservative, extreme and fundementalist Msulims aren't really Muslims at all, or maybe I just can't understand what you are saying?Aldebaran said:
Am, I right in thinking you don't like the term "fundementalist Muslim" because to be a Muslim you have to agree on the 'fundementals'?
The thing is, to be a Christian you have to agree on the fundementals of Christianity - ie "Jesus is the son of god and die for our sins" etc. However, even tho' all types of Christian agree on this very basis 'fundemental' (and therefore can be properly called a "Christian") some of them are "fundementalist", "conservative" and "extreme" - typically because of their wider attitudes to society, other people, the law, lifestyles and politics.
So, you can see that exactly the same thing applies to Islam: all Muslims agree on the fundmentals - this is what makes me a "Muslim", but it is what they disagree about that and their wider attitudes to society, other people, the law, lifestyles and politics that makes them either fundementalist/conservative/extreme or moderate.
As you can see "fundmentalist" can't simply mean "believes in the fundementals" otherwise it would be a meaningless term in Christianity, a tautology, whereas it is demonstarably *not* a meaningless term as can be seen by its widespread (although contested) use.
Other than sitting there saying "no" can you tell me what exactly you disagree with in this argument and why?
The thing is, to be a Christian you have to agree on the fundementals of Christianity - ie "Jesus is the son of god and die for our sins" etc. However, even tho' all types of Christian agree on this very basis 'fundemental' (and therefore can be properly called a "Christian") some of them are "fundementalist", "conservative" and "extreme" - typically because of their wider attitudes to society, other people, the law, lifestyles and politics.
So, you can see that exactly the same thing applies to Islam: all Muslims agree on the fundmentals - this is what makes me a "Muslim", but it is what they disagree about that and their wider attitudes to society, other people, the law, lifestyles and politics that makes them either fundementalist/conservative/extreme or moderate.
As you can see "fundmentalist" can't simply mean "believes in the fundementals" otherwise it would be a meaningless term in Christianity, a tautology, whereas it is demonstarably *not* a meaningless term as can be seen by its widespread (although contested) use.
Other than sitting there saying "no" can you tell me what exactly you disagree with in this argument and why?
TeeJay said:
No, they deviate - with and because of their sectarian interpretations - from the meaning and commands of Al Qur'an.
That is *exactly* the reason of my objection to such a terminology, used because of sheer ignorance (or because of intellectual lazyness) and because it is so easy to paint everything with a Western brush even when it has nothing to do with the West.
Radicals do NOT follow the meaning and commands of Al Qur'an. They make up whatever they see fit.
I referred to the thread I posted some time ago. I am not prepared to waste my time in repeating myself endlessly.
salaam.
TeeJay said:
How many times must I repeat: NO. The word simply has no application in Islam.
No, it only makes them followers of one of the law schools or in a wider scope one of the sects, representing what is commonly seen as "mainstream" or not.
Islam as religion is all about the person and his relationship with Allah. Anyone can seek guidance from any scholar or can follow own ideas. This differs in Shia Islam where people follow a chosen religious scholar and which has a recognised form of hierarchy among them yet you still can't compare that with Christianity and its hierarchal clergy structures.
The Five Pilars of Islam are called The Five Pilars. Not The Fundaments.
salaam.
KeyboardJockey said:
Yes.
Shari'a was developped over time with as first source Al Qur'an. Yet since its texts do not provide for much clear-cut instructions when you need to construct an all-encompassing law system, the sunna (= way of life) of the Prophet and the Hadith (traditions about his life, sayings and exegeses and also including stories about his close companions and about historical facts) became the secondary and third source for establishing laws. When it comes to custom, that became part of the law systems in daily practices, to be considered or not depending case, circumstances, etc...
The diversity between the law schools and hence between directions of Shari'a and its scholars, their practice and rulings is as complex and hence also as diverse as any living law system. When it comes to Shari'a, Westerners show a weird habit to consider it a monolythic, static bloc of equalized and equalizing fix and fixed set of poorly underscored rulings. I often wonder how they imagine such a system could ever work in practice in such a variety of Islamic societies, but then, most Westerners even have no clue there *is* diversity within the "Islamic world".
There are some links in the article I posted leading to information on Wahhabism. The Taliban are a deviation inspired by the deviation that is Wahhabism.
And yes, when I am in a bad mood and hence a bit impatient I call them "hadith worshippers", which should say enough
(Although of course they do follow what they claim to be correct interpretations of Al Qur'an and my comfort is in the line every Muslim, and especially scholars, use as a mantra: "But Allah knows best")Yet although yo may call their views on women's rights "disgusting" coming from your Western point of view, remember that there are uncountable women who support this, which is no less their right, and even endlessly more, then you have the right to find it "disgusting". Would you call them "disgusting, they would be rightfully deeply insulted in their beliefs and convictions.
Like with everything, it depends on which side you stand for and how you look at things.
salaam.
So you are saying that radicals are not Muslims then?Aldebaran said:
(I am still as totally confused by what you are saying as I was when I posted this question http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4465369&postcount=69 (which you have not answered so far as I can see))
KeyboardJockey said:
Of course. They do it all the time. Since the beginning of Islamic history up to this day. It is one of the weapons the Radicals use the "defend" the murdering of other Muslims.
Such an approach is in fact not as "new" as people think it is. (I even attacked the firmly endorsed and believed "unchanged" aspect of Al Qur'an during its history as a text, but that is an other level of discussion)
There is no "neutral" gender in Arabic. A few years ago I got a link to a "gay muslim" website where they came with all sorts of mutilated pieces of Quranic texts (they even got Mary into it, if I recall well) to defend what you say here, but they are wrong.
Yet it can't be disputed that "boy love" was known during the time of Muhammed and lived on afterwards. You only have to read classical poetry and prose to become convinced of that. Possibly some influence of that can be read in certain texts if you want to find it. I'm not convinced though, but then I am not gay either
.There is a misconception about what is considered trangression of Islamic commands. It is not the fact of being homosexual. What is considered a sin is acting upon it, but I would say that love is universal and a gift of Allah to humanity. That creates the dilemma about what exactly should be understood by "love".
I would say that you are correct in stating that Allah does not create with the aim to torture. Hence everything created has to have a reason why it is created the way it is.
It is generally agreed upon that Muhammed received his first revelation in 610 AD and began to preach in 612 AD. He left Mecca in 622 AD, which got adopted as the start of the Islamic calendar.
salaam.
No, I'm sorry it isn't.Aldebaran said:
I would tend to think that the answer is "yes", based on your use of the term "radicals". But I am not convinced I am right when I look at some of your earlier posts. Is there a reason why you cannot just answer a yes or no?
They probably say exactly the same thing about you.Aldebaran said:
If I were to sit between both of you (as a Muslim) then which one should I believe and follow and why?
You would say "follow me".
They would say "follow me".
Can you give me any reason why they are deviants and you are not?
TeeJay said:
Study Al Qur'an and its history, Islam and its history, Quranic exegesis and its history, Islamic theology and its history, Islamic law and its history and you shall find out why.
Yet if you believe in God and your question only handles about sectarian deviations leading to and instructing/endorsing clear violations of Islam and its commands, you can also make it very simple:
Ask yourself the question if God would want to make the life of humans difficult and injust or easy and just.
(If you don't believe God exists, then I really don't see why you would wonder about anything.)
salaam.
detective-boy said:No, I'm sorry it isn't.
I would tend to think that the answer is "yes", based on your use of the term "radicals". But I am not convinced I am right when I look at some of your earlier posts. Is there a reason why you cannot just answer a yes or no?
In this whole thread I did nothing else then repeating over and over again that Western terminology and concepts cannot be applied to Islam.
This terminology and what it stands for is not "Westernised". It is Western in origin. In the case of "Fundamentalists" even more specific since that was invented to describe a type of US Christians.
I said there was not even a word in Arabic for it.
That means: In a language which has a religious book (Al Qur'an) as cause and root for its whole development as a written language, a word needed to be *invented* (= added = did not exist before) simply to be able to make clear to Arabic speakers what Westerners say about some of the followers of the religion in which their language is rooted (and of the religion itself too).
For people not familiar with Islam that linguistic fact should provide on its own for enough evidence that this Western concept does *not* exist in the religion and hence does *not* apply to its followers or interpretations either.
Which "earlier posts" do you refer to?
salaam.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Aldebaran said:
That sounds like a copout Aldebaran something along the lines of "if you knew what i knew - then you would understand" - It sounds like the answer one would recieve from any faith 'believer', something like "you just have to believe to 'understand' " - come on, answer the question directly put to you... Why do you think these people have choosen the 'wrong' path in thier appraoch to islam and what is 'wrong' about it from your perspective?
Aldebaran said:
I don't believe in any God precisely because I cannot put faith in some abstract entity that would be deciding we should live such difficult lives for us. or are you going to tell me we have been 'given' the 'right' to make our own choices by this 'generous' entity?
dennisr said:
They are wrong -and I said it before, repeatedly - where ever and because they transgress, deform, rewrite the commands of Islam.
How many times need I repeat the same?
How come people are even too lazy to open a link?
Once again:
I posted in this very thread a link to a thread with in its opening post a link to a post on my blog, a blog I set up solely and especially for that one thread on this particular website.
In that article you can read what "Radicals" is about and where/how they connect with Wahhabism. You can also find links to sites where "Wahhabism" gets explained.
Islam and suicidal terrorism:Analysing connections
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/sh...ad.php?t=152746
Why didn't you (and the same obviously counts for others) open that link? Why do I need to post it again? Is that a common attitude, wasting your - and my - time on asking over and over again the same while the answer is given already, only a mouseclick away? Is it too much work to click on your mouse?
1. God is not about making life difficult.
2. Yes, you have every right and capability to decide for yourself, or do you argue you don't do this by choosing not to believe in God?
3. God is not a entity.
salaam.
winterinmoscow
Returning Poster
Aldebaran I'm getting a bit lost here. I did ask for some clarification a page or so ago and can't really see an answer. I'm just getting a bit lost wading through all these posts. Perhaps you did answer it, but not to me directly. Would it be possible for you to signpost to me where I might find the answer in here?
thanks
thanks
Posts like this one.Aldebaran said:
I really think that you may be in a very small minority though, as you obviously believe that there is no place for the concept of "yes" and "no" in your version of Islam.
dennisr
the acceptable face
Aldebaran said:
You have misunderstood me Aldebaran. I am not asking if the terrorists a wrong in what they do. I am not asking you to apologise for them - i don't see you have any more reason to apologise than me. i am simply asking why you cannot say that they are not behaving as muslims according to your beliefs? and why your answar to another poster asking the same was, in effect, 'when you have read and understood all this guff - you will find your own answers'.
As for the bit about God, well - I don't really care if this God is an entity or not - given he/she/it does not exist beyond being a reflection of human being created in the image of human beings in thier attempt to understand the world they live in and given the evidence then available. Or at least it was at some point - it now seems folk just desperatly holding on to what are utterly dicredited, outmoded illusions. That is true of all religions
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Good to see Aldedabaran back doing his bit for brand protection of Islam* (anyone who does anything nasty of unpleasant claiming to be Muslim/Moslem clearly isn't, and basically the same as the disavowal of say, X brand of socialism by Y socialist sect) and neatly sidestepping the whole issue that, as with any violent bahviour based around religious belief it's an interpretation of the texts that HUMANS WROTE that drives it...anyway...
If the anarchists ever crawl out of their K-holes and manage to not seize power (see what I did there?) I'd imagine that autonomously goverened regions of the type originally under discussion would be something of a norm - at least for a while until everyone eventually gets the point about religion, realise it's a crock and stop following Gods.
*By way of explanation...there are a number of people on Urban who, as soon as 'incorrect' criticism is levelled at their specific belief system that spring to it's defence like little PR people defending their client's to a hostile press and saying 'Nonnonononono, you've got it ALL wrong. This is what the truth is...'
If the anarchists ever crawl out of their K-holes and manage to not seize power (see what I did there?) I'd imagine that autonomously goverened regions of the type originally under discussion would be something of a norm - at least for a while until everyone eventually gets the point about religion, realise it's a crock and stop following Gods.
*By way of explanation...there are a number of people on Urban who, as soon as 'incorrect' criticism is levelled at their specific belief system that spring to it's defence like little PR people defending their client's to a hostile press and saying 'Nonnonononono, you've got it ALL wrong. This is what the truth is...'
dennisr
the acceptable face
Aldebaran said:
This crude division of western and non-western concepts is funny... Do you think the language was created by the Quran then or that the Quran was itself a product of the language available at the time (ie that already existed before the writing down of what became islamic thought?
Also do you think that such language (and for that matter your beliefs, or concepts such as 'western') are static- unchanging?
One simple example in 'western' viewpoints (to use your term) would be that the concept of a 'fundamentalist' did not exist at all until recently (in the west any more than in the islamic world). In fact it is a concept that is still being argued over, imo - different people with different interests have different interpretations of the meaning of that word. Language, and its constant reconstruction, is one example of the reflection of a constant struggle by different interests within and between societies over different understandings of how the world operates. I would see the same thing occuring in your 'islamic world'
My opinion would be that language and all the concepts words describe are constantly changing - they are relative. I get the impression that you are trapped within a set of beliefs you have deemed to be unchanging (given by Allah or whatever). What am i misunderstanding here?
dennisr said:
It is not funny at all that Westerners are so irritating arrogant to claim
a) they know everything better then any Islamic scholar or Muslim would
b) Western invented words and what they mean for Westerners MUST be applyable to Islam and Muslims
c) stubbornly hold onto that although they have no clue what they talk about (and are repeatedly said that too.)
It would be the same would I start arguing with a Buddhist claiming I know everything better while the only thing I know for sure that a Buddhist believes in is that the Buddha once lived. (In reality I know a bit more, but nevertheless it is a rudamentary knowledge)
There is no "thinking" involved, it is a linguistic fact.
1. Al Qur'an was firstly noted in the language in which Muhammed preached = the Arabic of the Arabian peninsula yet strictly following the rule that whenever there was more then one possibility, the dialect of the Quraysh should be chosen since that was the dialect of Muhammed.
2. That form of written Arabic was a defective, rudamentary system which provided for what one should see as "memory support" for the reader. (no diactric signs, letters that could be used for more then one character etc..)
3. With the text of Al Qur'an as root, and in order to preserve its correct recitation and meaning, the written Arabic went through linguistic developments and evolution to provide for a fully developped written language.
4. What is now known as Modern Standard Arabic differs in aspects of grammar and vocabulary from Quranic and other forms of Classical Arabic, yet it is no less rooted and intertwined with it, hence has the same roots = the earliest Quranic texts and the linguistic developments of the language based on that text.
Hence if I say a word had to be invented in Arabic to be able to explain a Western invented word used in the West to describe Muslims, that means indeed that no such concept about Muslims exists = it is an alien concept that has no connection whatsoever with Islam and Muslims.
What you seem to fail to understand is that adding words to a language to adapt it to insertion of alien ideas or descriptions in societies is not the same as what you want to do: transfer of such an alien word and concept as if it is and always was part of the other language, its society and in this case even its views on its religion and teh believers.
(The rest of your comment makes me think you are trapped in a prejudicial approach of anything any Muslim might say.)
salaam.
Similar threads
