Muslims that are terrorists are the real muslims

[dolphinlove]

Ahhh good to see Montalban hard at work again!!

 

[Montalban]

I am not at all sure that that is a Christian sentiment. It is better to die than to deny Christ. I am not sure that it is better to die than to live under the conditions in which most human beings have lived throughout history. That will do for the 300 Spartans, but I’m not sure Christians have a right to talk this way.
Edwin

Most humans have not lived under dhimmitude.

Contarini, let me put this as simply as I possibly can.

Montalban: It is a core belief of Islam to be supporters of Jihad
Contarini: As a non-Moslem you can’t say what really is Islamic
Montalban: How do you know?
Contarini: I know some Moslems speak of peace
Montalban: How do you know that they’re really representing Islam?
Contarini: Traditional Islam might have been violent.
Montalban: How do you know about such terms as ‘traditional Islam’ when you say I can’t determine what’s a core belief of Islam
Contarini: You just don’t get it.

 

[Montalban]

Ahhh good to see Montalban hard at work again!!

As I almost became a Moslem, I feel that I have some expertise in the religion

 

[Montalban]

No you didn’t cite any evidence, you just said it was revealed when ‘Muhammed was just starting the religion and was in a position of weakness’ without giving any reasons why that is so at all; going against what every scholar of Islam has ever said about it.

I did cite evidence. If you look to my post (#46) I gave hyperlinks to two sites.

Even if you can date this to the beginning of his Medinan period he was still in a position of weakness as Medina had not swung over to Islam - with large groups (that he’d later exterminate such as the Banu Qurayza) that were non-Moslem

 

[jack_hawkins]

The main point I’m trying to make is that Islam takes all sorts of different forms and we have no business labelling one form “real” Islam.
I wasn’t trying to, Edwin, just pointing out the reactions of Muslims
Surely not a bad thing in itself, if they freely choose to do so?
Do they freely choose? And yes, it is a bad thing IMO as it inhibits integration - it is saying veryb loudly and clearly we are separate. It turns the woman into a non-person effectively and it’s a sign of repression
That’s very scary
Wow! Very disturbing. Particularly since I think of the West Midlands in general as my homeland insofar as I have one–at least it’s the place of my earliest memories (though my dad’s folks came from Shetland and my mother’s from the U.S., and I have spent most of my life in America).
It sure is!
What makes them “real”? Internal consistency with what? Every religion has to engage in a lot of interpretive work to achieve internal consistency. I wish people would address my arguments instead of denying them. I don’t see how you can coherently claim that we who do not see the Qur’an as the Word of God can tell Muslims what the Qur’an-as-Word-of-God means.
Can you please explain this to me?
Edwin
simply that if a Muslim like ham says the Koran is the literal word of God we have every right to point out instances where the Koran either cannot be taken literally or Muslims do not take it literally
that is not denying your argument Edwin
if we take the declared rules of interpreting the Koran eg there is no abrogation and point out that cannot be true because of X and Y, what is the problem with that?

 

[Montalban]

simply that if a Muslim like ham says the Koran is the literal word of God we have every right to point out instances where the Koran either cannot be taken literally or Muslims do not take it literally

I know a Moslem lady who with her husband (also Moslem) drink beer - they’re Turkish. The fact that you can get ‘Turkish beer’ itself doesn’t negate the Koran verses against strong drink - nor that most Moslems condemn such.

 

[dolphinlove]

As I almost became a Moslem, I feel that I have some expertise in the religion

What actually stopped you from becoming a muslim?

 

[Montalban]

What actually stopped you from becoming a muslim?

My understanding of Islam at the time was that Muhammed said he ‘respected’ the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. But the Bible and Jesus’ teachings are nothing like his.

I was a member of my university’s Muslim student’s group.

I was probably heading to Islam for the wrong reasons, anyway. I was deeply moved by, of all things, a movie, and some of my reasons for leaving were wrong - insofar as my objections were based on a false understanding of Islam.

 

[jack_hawkins]

I found this titbit about the film amusing

In accordance with Muslim beliefs, Mohammed could not be depicted on screen nor could his voice be heard. This rule extended to his seven wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law.

so you have a film about Mohammed, but he isn’t in it?

 

[Montalban]

I found this titbit about the film amusingso you have a film about Mohammed, but he isn’t in it?

No, never in the film. The camera acts as Muhammed, insofar as people talk directly to it, as if they’re talking to him. It also has a little preface where it’s said to have the approval of some groups in Egypt.

It screened very late one night on tv here under the title Mohammed, Messenger of God. I remember trying to track it down for two Afghanis I knew but I couldn’t find it under that name.

It only concentrated on the positives. The bit where some Moslems have fled to Ethiopia was what really drew me in, because the Ethiopian king says that they’re so alike Christians (because they’ve just recounted the conception of Jesus to Mary - who’s still a virgin)

 

[Contarini]

Actually, it is entirely the point. He shows through evidence that over the centuries
a) Moslems have interpreted jihad as war
and as a result
b) have carried it out.

I don’t dispute that.

It shows that over the course of the life of Islam a majority of Moslem scholars have interpreted Islam differently from what you continue to suppose, and that they’re history shows this too. Against this you offer continued appeal to incredulity and an illogical approach that shows no one can ever really know Islam.

No, you persistently misrepresent me. All I have said is that we are in no position to say that one historical form of Islam is more “real” than another. You continually interpret me as saying something much more extreme than I’m saying. Since I have now explained myself over and over, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that you simply don’t want to understand me because that would deprive you of a nice straw man.

I have never challenged the fact that traditional Islamic law interprets Jihad (in part) as war, including offensive war to extend the territory of Islam.

Its irrelevant. Whether they have or not doesn’t negate that the interpretations still exist. What you’re arguing is the equivalent of someone pointing out that a Nazi party member didn’t read Mein Kampf, and as a result he actually saved some Jews,

You continually assert, in the face of the evidence, that liberal Muslims haven’t read the Qur’an. This takes away your credibility. You can only defend your position by making wild suppositions about those Muslims who take Islam in a direction that deprives you of something to hate.

When you can point to a Nazi who interpreted Mein Kampf so as to mandate the protection of Jews, then we will talk. Until then we have no parallel. Because we have Muslims (like Tariq Ramadan) who have to all appearances read the Qur’an and know their tradition and are proposing a new interpretation of it. You want to say that they are not real Muslims. Why? Meanwhile you ignore the ways in which bin Laden and other militants also depart from traditional interpretations, even though Islamic scholars have pointed out these departures repeatedly. (Traditional fiqh condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians, for instance, and has no place for suicide attacks.)

Islam is not an abstract because it is applied to the ‘practical’. Further you seem certain I am wrong, and as I’ve pointed out, this argues against your own idea about no one knowing what Islam is

I have said that we can’t talk about an abstraction called “real Islam.” We can talk about what people who call themselves Muslims believe and practice, including what they have believed and practiced in the past. That is what I mean by traditional Islam. My position is completely coherent. You simply refuse to understand it because it’s inconvenient for you to deal with it seriously.

Show me the democratic legacy of Islamic teaching.

I’m not sure how this is relevant, but in fact Marshall Hodgson (The Venture of Islam) argued that there is a strong democratic impulse in Islamic tradition. I am not going to argue the point. All I am saying is that if Muslims take their tradition in a direction that contradicts your reading of it, that does not give you the right to say that they are not “real” Muslims.

cite me the connection between these ‘modernists’, and Islamic texts that they’re basing their beliefs upon.

That’s their job, not mine. I am simply pointing out that they exist. That is enough. We can say that their views are not the same as those of traditional Islam (nor are some of the views of modern radical Muslims–note their contempt for Sufism, for instance). But that’s as far as we can go. We have no basis on which to judge them as “inauthentic” or to suppose, as you weirdly do, that they can’t possibly have read the Qur’an.

Why is it only you can determine that one form of Islam is ‘traditional’?

I have never said any such thing. You continue to refuse to understand me.

We can make observations about what people who call themselves Muslims believe and practice now, and about what they have believed and practiced in the past. We can point out that certain views have been held by a majority or have been dominant in Islamic cultures, and we can refer to these ideas as “traditional.” Find me one place where I have ever said that any of this is illegitimate.

What is illegitimate is to abstract from these observations some metaphysical reality called “Islam” which is violated by those who take non-traditional views. This is done both by the “religion of peace” people who say that bin Laden isn’t a “real Muslim” because he violates certain traditional views, and by people like you who say that liberal Muslims aren’t “real Muslims” for the same reason.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

So what is left to talk about?

The beliefs and practices of people who identify themselves as Muslims.

Ho would we know what we’re talking about really represents Islam?

Why this obsession with identifying some “real Islam”? Why not just talk about the different forms of Islam without judging which of them is real?

So far from you I get an appeal for incredulity, based on making a very practical religion something so abstract you’re not sure anyone (other than a Moslem) can know what it is, but you certainly can.

No, that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. You’re approaching the frontier between misunderstanding and deliberate falsehood. I have said over and over that I do not think that we can’t talk about Muslim beliefs and practices, yet you keep accusing me of saying that we can’t. All I am saying is that we don’t need to talk about an abstraction called “real Islam.”

but you can instantly talk about ‘traditional’ Islam.

Traditional Islam is the body of belief and practice maintained by the majority of people historically who have called themselves Muslims. We can talk about this without saying that if some modern Muslim group departs from tradition in some particular respect they are not “real” Muslims and can’t really have studied their tradition.

What is contradictory about this? All I am saying is that if many Muslims want to reinterpret their tradition, emphasizing a minority perspective, or arguing that changed circumstances mandate a new understanding, or even rejecting some things outright–then there is nothing illegitimate or deceptive or self-defeating about that. We have no basis on which to say that they are departing from some essential reality called “Islam,” because there is no such reality. Muslims believe that there is, because they think Islam is divinely revealed. You and I don’t think this. Yet for your own bizarre reasons you want to set up some entity called Islam (as if you did believe it, which you don’t) and judge “heretical” Muslims by that standard. This is both arrogant and irrational.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Kadaveri]

I did cite evidence. If you look to my post (#46) I gave hyperlinks to two sites.

Even if you can date this to the beginning of his Medinan period he was still in a position of weakness as Medina had not swung over to Islam - with large groups (that he’d later exterminate such as the Banu Qurayza) that were non-Moslem

How is it evidence when the first site you linked to says exactly what I’ve been saying (that it was revealed in Medina)?

And don’t try to shift meanings, you said that the verse was revealed when the Prophet had just started his mission and was in a position of weakness, now no matter how you try to backpeddle the fact is you knowingly said something completely false to advance your argument. No matter how you try to twist it, being the ruler of Medina is hardly a position of weakness, and that is not what you meant, you were describing the position Muhammad (saaw) was in Mecca during his first years, and you were trying to mislead people into thinking 2:256 was revealed then.

And as for it being abrogated, you’ve yet to put forward any evidence that it was. And an answeringislam article which cites such clear references as ‘some Muslim commentators said’ as evidence and repeats your lie of saying that it was a Meccan verse when it was infact a Medinan verse is not evidence.

 

[birdsong]

Of course there’s a need to identify what is real, orthodox islam, Christianity, budhism, etc. Since Contarini, thinks that there’s no need to do that, an example of a case when identifying the “validity” or the “realness” of a religion, ideology or creed is needed will be enough to refute his argument.

Obviously, I, birdsong, as a catholic, think that the fullness of Christianity is contained within the catholic church. Likewise, I am sure Contarini considers that the fullness of Christianity is within his church. Now, what if a muslim or an atheist or any non-Christian wants to convert or shows interest in Christianity? How is this non-Christian person going to decide what church he should attend and/or study? Would Contarini want this non-Christian to follow and/or be interested in a church that does not have the fullness of Christian revelation or that teaches error and downright heretical Christian doctrine?

as you can see Contarini, unless you want to answer “yes” to the last question in the preceding paragraph, your argument that we, as non-muslims have no business trying to identify real, mainstream islam is totally refuted. As the above paragraph shows, there is a clear need to identify real, mainstream teachings of all ideologies, creeds, religions, etc.

The beliefs and practices of people who identify themselves as Muslims.

Why this obsession with identifying some “real Islam”? Why not just talk about the different forms of Islam without judging which of them is real?

No, that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. You’re approaching the frontier between misunderstanding and deliberate falsehood. I have said over and over that I do not think that we can’t talk about Muslim beliefs and practices, yet you keep accusing me of saying that we can’t. All I am saying is that we don’t need to talk about an abstraction called “real Islam.”

Traditional Islam is the body of belief and practice maintained by the majority of people historically who have called themselves Muslims. We can talk about this without saying that if some modern Muslim group departs from tradition in some particular respect they are not “real” Muslims and can’t really have studied their tradition.

What is contradictory about this? All I am saying is that if many Muslims want to reinterpret their tradition, emphasizing a minority perspective, or arguing that changed circumstances mandate a new understanding, or even rejecting some things outright–then there is nothing illegitimate or deceptive or self-defeating about that. We have no basis on which to say that they are departing from some essential reality called “Islam,” because there is no such reality. Muslims believe that there is, because they think Islam is divinely revealed. You and I don’t think this. Yet for your own bizarre reasons you want to set up some entity called Islam (as if you did believe it, which you don’t) and judge “heretical” Muslims by that standard. This is both arrogant and irrational.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

How is it evidence when the first site you linked to says exactly what I’ve been saying (that it was revealed in Medina)?

And don’t try to shift meanings, you said that the verse was revealed when the Prophet had just started his mission and was in a position of weakness, now no matter how you try to backpeddle the fact is you knowingly said something completely false to advance your argument. No matter how you try to twist it, being the ruler of Medina is hardly a position of weakness, and that is not what you meant, you were describing the position Muhammad (saaw) was in Mecca during his first years, and you were trying to mislead people into thinking 2:256 was revealed then.

And as for it being abrogated, you’ve yet to put forward any evidence that it was. And an answeringislam article which cites such clear references as ‘some Muslim commentators said’ as evidence and repeats your lie of saying that it was a Meccan verse when it was infact a Medinan verse is not evidence.

The problem for you is that you like other Muslims think the Muslims had every right to attack others, but when they retaliate you claim you are being attacked.

Muhammad had the same belief - he attacked the Meccans first - by raiding their caravans and killing their caravan drivers. When the Meccans retaliated against his unprovoked aggression and banditry, he and all Muslims subsequent claimed that the Meccans were the aggressors.

Surah 2 was revealed in the first 2 years at Medina. This was abrogated by surah 9. One only has to read Islamic history to see Muslims attacking everyone else without provocation. Nobody marched against the Muslims (except the Meccans who were retaliating against Muhammad’s aggression against them). It was always Muhammad who marched against others. Every battle except the Battle of the Trench was fought in someone else’s home.

 

[Kadaveri]

And it’s abrogated because you say so…?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Surah 2 is abrogated by surah 9 because the latter does not say,

Fight those who fight you and don’t believe in Allah or the last day and if they are people of the book refuse to pay the Jizyah with humiliation.

It just says,
Fight those who don’t believe in Allah or the last day and if they are people of the book refuse to pay the Jizyah with humiliation.

The who “fight you” part is missing from the later ayat. If you read surah 9 which is the last or second last surah to be revealed you’d see no reference at all about ‘defense’. It is all about fighting non-believers for the sole reason that they aren’t Muslims.

It is also common knowledge that later ayats abrogate earlier ones if they are conflicting or superceded.

My view is backed up by Muslim scholars:

Surah 2:190;2:256 & 15:94 have all been abrogated according to Muslim scholars.(تراجع كتب الناسخ والمنسوخ لـ ابن حزم، الكرمي، ابن الجوزي، المقري، قتاده،…) (for detailed information check books under titles like The Abrogative and the Abrogated by authors like Ibn Hazem, Al-Karmi, Ibn Al-Jawzi, Al-Muqri, or Al-Nisabouri)

Suyuti in his book استنباط التنزيل (Istenbat al tanzeel) says: “Every thing in the Qur’an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5.” Al-Shawkani in his book السيل الجرار (Alsaylu Jarar 4:518-519) says: “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed. [The verses] about forgiving them are abrogated unanimously by the obligation of fighting in any case.”
danielpipes.org/comments/91013

What does, “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam or submitting and paying Jiziah (special tax paid only by Christians or Jews) or being killed.” mean?

Where does ‘if they fight you first’ come into it?

bin Baz, the Saudi Arab Mufti is also of the opinion that 2:190 has been abrogated by surah 9

answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/saudi_dialogue8.htm

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Further evidence that 2:190 has been abrogated.

islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml

The evidence comes from al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr.

Some of the verses abrogated by the verse of the Sword:

…

1. “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors” (Surah 2:190)
2. “But fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there” (Surah 2:191)
3. “But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful” (Surah 2:192).

---

So to answer your question - no, it is abrogated but not just because I say so.

 

[Montalban]

And it’s abrogated because you say so…?

Try reading the evidence. I cited it. Rodrigo Bivar’s stated it.

Here’s evidence that verses in general have been abrogated

2:106
Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof.

16:101
And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.

 

[Montalban]

How is it evidence when the first site you linked to says exactly what I’ve been saying (that it was revealed in Medina)?

Oh, so now you’ve seen the evidence

The second shows that the first was dealing in generalisations, which is what I said.

And don’t try to shift meanings, you said that the verse was revealed when the Prophet had just started his mission and was in a position of weakness, now no matter how you try to backpeddle the fact is you knowingly said something completely false to advance your argument. No matter how you try to twist it, being the ruler of Medina is hardly a position of weakness, and that is not what you meant, you were describing the position Muhammad (saaw) was in Mecca during his first years, and you were trying to mislead people into thinking 2:256 was revealed then.

I noted that it didn’t matter to your cause because when he was made ‘leader’ at Medina he was still in a position of weakness - leadership by consent is different from later when he ruled through fear.

And as for it being abrogated, you’ve yet to put forward any evidence that it was. And an answeringislam article which cites such clear references as ‘some Muslim commentators said’ as evidence and repeats your lie of saying that it was a Meccan verse when it was infact a Medinan verse is not evidence.

Actually I did. That’s the second bit that you’re not sure if you’ve read or not.