The Islamic State Part II

[Istakhr]

And yet, millions of them exist... strange, indeed.

Yeah, so strange that most subscribers to any ideology or religion don't accept it 100% or just reinterpret it the way they like or are not fully committed.

[Chiki]

And yet, millions of them exist... strange, indeed.

Yes, but there's still an issue here. Muslims are supposed to follow Muhammad's teachings. To reject some but accept others means that you don't fully agree with the prophet's teachings, so are you really a Muslim?

I don't disagree that moderate Muslims do exist. But this is exactly why fundamentalists today and ISIS exist. It's a little contradictory to cherrypick what you like out of the teachings and reject others: otherwise, you risk insulting the prophet. This is why ISIS forces their fundamentalism on others: because they think that moderate Islam isn't the way to go.

I think it's contradictory to cherrypick, which is what I think is strange. And surely ISIS does too.

[The Grey Wolf]

By definition, Muslims are people who believe in the teachings of the Quran. It's a little strange for there to be Muslims who cherrypick what they like out of the Quran and reject what they don't like.

If your a Muslim living in the West like me you are already doing that by living in a country that uses interest. Also, according to Islam (which makes sense if you look at the historical context), slavery is permissible, but no sane, decent Muslim today would practice or condone it today

This is a false equivalence between Islam and Christianity.

There are very very few justifications in Islam to deny the literal meanings of Quran (or literal + interpretations) and just interpret Quran the way you want.

Unlike christianity some of the most fundamentalist traditionalist views (not necessarily the radical views) are the most self consistent ones.

One of the seven problems with modern-day Islam as I see it are those fundamentalist traditionalist views.

I'd really appreciate if you could explain how you think "slay them wherever you find them" admits of another interpretation.

More detail: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/113893-the-islamic-state/?p=6120477

My knowledge of the Quran is limited but I believe that the bolded verse is preceded by the requirment that Muslims first have to be either oppressed/persecuted/attacked or driven from their homes/land/country before that is permissible and even then there are limits/requirments because elsewhere in the Quran it gives rules regulating war/violence (though how much that is actually applied is another matter), for example the Quran says that if your enemies stop fighting you, you must cease hostilities with them as well and that plants, animals, women, children, the elderly, priests, and nuns are not to be harmed amongst other things

[TrueMetis]

Yes, but there's still an issue here. Muslims are supposed to follow Muhammad's teachings. To reject some but accept others means that you don't fully agree with the prophet's teachings, so are you really a Muslim?

I don't disagree that moderate Muslims do exist. But this is exactly why fundamentalists today and ISIS exist. It's a little contradictory to cherrypick what you like out of the teachings and reject others: otherwise, you risk insulting the prophet. This is why ISIS forces their fundamentalism on others: because they think that moderate Islam isn't the way to go.

I think it's contradictory to cherrypick, which is what I think is strange. And surely ISIS does too.

And Christians are supposed to follow Christ's teachings, but few truly do. They're still Christians. It is contradictory but religious texts by their very nature are always going to contradict themselves.

Best thing to do is to support more liberal interpretations and not push them back toward more fundamentalist interpretations by calling out the contradictions which will always exist in any interpretation of any religious texts. With any luck religion will fall out of favour entirely.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Considering all the Muslim's wandering around various western countries not chopping heads off, it would appear that claims about Islam and violence are not universally applicable.

But there's a difference between claiming Islam (as a set of ideas) is violent and claiming muslims as individuals are violent

[Istakhr]

One of the seven problems with modern-day Islam as I see it are those fundamentalist traditionalist views.

The traditionalist part was exactly to differentiate them from more modern radicals like AQ or ISIS or Vali-e-Faghih Shia.

The problem I see is once you accept the priori of God, Prophet Mohammad and some hadiths and/or some Imams, then the most self consistent forms of Islam are Salafi sunni and/or the Hojjattieh Shia .

Non of these are in any shape or form consistent with being a law abiding citizen of a liberal democracy.

[Chiki]

My knowledge of the Quran is limited but I believe that the bolded verse is preceded by the requirment that Muslims first have to be either oppressed/persecuted/attacked or driven from their homes/land/country before that is permissible and even then there are limits/requirments because elsewhere in the Quran it gives rules regulating war/violence (though how much that is actually applied is another matter), for example the Quran says that if your enemies stop fighting you, you must cease hostilities with them as well and that plants, animals, women, children, the elderly, priests, and nuns are not to be harmed amongst other things

Nah. See for yourself here:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.089

And Christians are supposed to follow Christ's teachings, but few truly do. They're still Christians. It is contradictory but religious texts by their very nature are always going to contradict themselves.

Best thing to do is to support more liberal interpretations and not push them back toward more fundamentalist interpretations by calling out the contradictions which will always exist in any interpretation of any religious texts. With any luck religion will fall out of favour entirely.

I agree with this.

[The Grey Wolf]

The traditionalist part was exactly to differentiate them from more modern radicals like AQ or ISIS or Vali-e-Faghih Shia.

The problem I see is once you accept the priori of God, Prophet Mohammad and some hadiths and/or some Imams, then the most self consistent forms of Islam are Salafi sunni and/or the Hojjattieh Shia .

Non of these are in any shape or form consistent with being a law abiding citizen of a liberal democracy.

What I meant is that funadmentalist tradtitional views are so ingrained and inflexible that they stifle any attempt to support more liberal interpreations that could help modernize Islam and make it more suited for our times.

However, I do agree that democracy and religion cannot mix.

Nah. See for yourself here:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php#004.089

I beg to differ

http://muslim-responses.com/Slay_them_Wherever_you_find_them/Slay_them_Wherever_you_find_them_

http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/06/14/slay-the-polytheists-wherever-you-find-them-the-need-for-recourse-to-sound-scholarship/

[Chiki]

The first link is a completely different verse not related to apostates....

Second link:

Hence, the oft-misunderstood fifth verse of “killing the polytheists wherever you find them” refers only to those that previously broke their covenants and, moreover, after they had four months to reflect on the situation and decide if they wanted to continue with their violation or not.

That's pretty horrific.

[straits]

The first link is a completely different verse not related to apostates....

Second link:

That's pretty horrific.

And an example of a covenant is stated as:

Furthermore, by Islamic law, a Muslim government must uphold its treaties and covenants with other nations, regardless of the faith of those nations. It is unlawful to break a peace treaty with any other nation. This also applies to any Non-Muslim that is a citizen of a Muslim nation or that peacefully enters one. This is because citizenship and visitor’s visas are legally considered covenants that cannot be violated. They ensure security and protection for the citizen/visitor, and require that the citizen/visitor not break any of the nation’s laws.

And apparently the same applies to Muslims in reverse:

The same, of course, applies to a Muslim citizen of a Non-Muslim nation or a Muslim that enters a Non-Muslim nation with a visitor’s visa or the like, which again serve as covenants of mutual peace and protection.

[Chiki]

My mistake. The second link is also about a different verse, and not about apostates.

[The Grey Wolf]

This is what you wrote: I'd really appreciate if you could explain how you think "slay them wherever you find them" admits of another interpretation.

The two links I provided both speak about the bolded verse and how it does not condone what on the surface would seem to be wholesale slaughter. Furthermore, the the bolded verse does not in the context of the Surats refer to apostates. In fact, the Quran mentions no earthly punishment for apostasy. That comes from the Hadith, which isn't unaimously considered authentic.

[Chiki]

This is what you wrote: I'd really appreciate if you could explain how you think "slay them wherever you find them" admits of another interpretation.

The two links I provided both speak about the bolded verse and how it does not condone what on the surface would seem to be wholesale slaughter. Furthermore, the the bolded verse does not in the context of the Surats refer to apostates. In fact, the Quran mentions no earthly punishment for apostasy. That comes from the Hadith, which isn't unaimously considered authentic.

They do not speak about the bolded verse. The first link talks about verses from Surah 2. The second link talks about verses from Surah 9.

(Them is an indexical, meaning that its meaning changes depending on the context. In this context and surah, "them" refers to apostates. The Quran has "slay them" in multiple different locations. They do not all share the same meaning.)

This verse is from Surah 4, I think?

So this does not refer to apostates?

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

[The Grey Wolf]

First, why don’t you quote the entire passage instead of just that one line:

4: 89: And they wish that you should disbelieve like they have, then you will be equal; so take them not as your friends until they migrate in the Path of Allah. And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or helper.
4: 90: Excluding those who join a people with whom you have a peace treaty or those who approach you whilst their hearts are restrained from fighting you or fighting their people. And if Allah willed He could have imposed them over you then indeed they would fight against you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not but instead send you peace (offers) then Allah has not given you any right to fight them.

4:91: You will also find others who wish to be secure from you, and secure from their people, but who, whenever they have any opportunity to cause mischief, plunge into it headlong. If such people neither leave you alone nor offer you peace nor restrain their hands from hurting you, then seize them and slay them wherever you come upon them. It is against these that We have granted you a clear sanction.

Second, even if the two links do not speak about the specific verse you are refering to they nonetheless illustrate that in Islam violence/conduct of war has rules and regulations, which is antihetical to the notion that Muslims are to "slay them wherever [they] find them" meaning we should commit wholesale slaughter of nonMuslims

Third, here is a link discussing verse 4: 89, http://askmufti.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=585:verses-of-the-quran-ordering-killing&catid=30:answering-objections-against-islam&Itemid=30

[Serious Callers Only]

Really, so much hand wringing about how religion is shit.

[Chiki]

First, why don’t you quote the entire passage instead of just that one line:

4: 89: And they wish that you should disbelieve like they have, then you will be equal; so take them not as your friends until they migrate in the Path of Allah. And if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or helper.

4: 90: Excluding those who join a people with whom you have a peace treaty or those who approach you whilst their hearts are restrained from fighting you or fighting their people. And if Allah willed He could have imposed them over you then indeed they would fight against you. So if they withdraw from you and fight you not but instead send you peace (offers) then Allah has not given you any right to fight them.

4:91: You will also find others who wish to be secure from you, and secure from their people, but who, whenever they have any opportunity to cause mischief, plunge into it headlong. If such people neither leave you alone nor offer you peace nor restrain their hands from hurting you, then seize them and slay them wherever you come upon them. It is against these that We have granted you a clear sanction.

Second, even if the two links do not speak about the specific verse you are refering to they nonetheless illustrate that in Islam violence/conduct of war has rules and regulations, which is antihetical to the notion that Muslims are to "slay them wherever [they] find them" meaning we should commit wholesale slaughter of nonMuslims

Third, here is a link discussing verse 4: 89, http://askmufti.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=585:verses-of-the-quran-ordering-killing&catid=30:answering-objections-against-islam&Itemid=30

Excellent, now we're getting somewhere.

I'm not saying that the Quran says we should slaughter all non-Muslims, but it does say we should slaughter apostates with a couple halfassed restrictions (joining another country or something like that). Which in itself is horrific. If an apostate doesn't offer Muslims peace, then that gives Muslims the right to slay them?

I'm willing to admit that the Quran (fortunately!) at least has some restrictions on slaughtering others apart from apostates.

[Galactus]

I'm not saying that the Quran says we should slaughter all non-Muslims, but it does say we should slaughter apostates with no restrictions. Which in itself is horrific.

The thing is, the Qu'ran isn't a book of laws, nor is it a narrative really, it's a bunch of poetry from specific occasions. That leaves a lot of room up for arguing what is meant, what the context is, how broad the statement is, etc.

[Shryke]

Hopefully unlike the obvious example this one is not too incendiary:

Do you think there are nonviolent people who believe in Maoist Marxism? Do you think they are the majority of people who believe in this ideology?

Does the answer to these questions the sole determinants of goodness or evilness of this ideology?

If we are going by majority actions, then your Islam example still fails, now doesn't it?

Your problem is that you are attempting to assert facts about adherents to a set of ideas and beliefs that can be incredibly divergent. This is the issue with blanket statements about Christianity or Buddhism or the like too.

But there's a difference between claiming Islam (as a set of ideas) is violent and claiming muslims as individuals are violent

Certainly. The first is a blanket generalized statement. The other is only applicable to certain individuals and not all people who claim the title.

Unless you are claiming all Muslims are violent. In which case you are both factually wrong and making either the same claim as the first statement or a whole different claim (ie - muslims are a subset of violent people but that is not related to being muslim itself)

[Istakhr]

If we are going by majority actions, then your Islam example still fails, now doesn't it?

Your problem is that you are attempting to assert facts about adherents to a set of ideas and beliefs that can be incredibly divergent. This is the issue with blanket statements about Christianity or Buddhism or the like too.

Majority actions? As far as I know the only Maoists left today that are still killing people are in Nepal.

Are you saying we should judge ideas by how the majority of the self professed followers act in their individual lives?

[Shryke]

Majority actions? As far as I know the only Maoists left today that are still killing people are in Nepal.

Are you saying we should judge ideas by how the majority of the self professed followers act in their individual lives?

I'm not saying either way. You are the one that brought up the majority action criteria.

Do you think there are nonviolent people who believe in Maoist Marxism? Do you think they are the majority of people who believe in this ideology?

I just pointed out that by this criteria, the argument about Islam still doesn't hold any water.

So one wonders why you are trying to act like I brought up your argument now.