Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 24, 2017, 12:55:53 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
105894 Posts in 2395 Topics by 1094 Members
Latest Member: Ice Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Islam - Education, Rebuttals and Counter-Terror
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Islam - Education, Rebuttals and Counter-Terror  (Read 4077 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2016, 09:10:54 PM »

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/213767/euripides-mao-and-qutb
Logged
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2016, 09:09:58 AM »


Excellent! This is a great article with much food for thought. Like during the 60s where MLK lost and Malcolm X won, the Islamic rationalists lost the debate and the current orthodoxy became entrenched. I think there is hope for black America, but I'm not willing to speculate easily on the future of Islamic thought.

I've started looking deeper into this aspect of Islamic theology by means of comparative religion. Nabeel Qureshi has written a fantastic book comparing Christian and Islamic theology, with fascinating insights into the history of Islam and the forces that shape(d) its thinking. The early chapter on the Islamic Inquisition is an eye opener for me. The book is No God But One - Allah or Jesus?
Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #52 on: September 22, 2016, 11:00:31 AM »

Something that has influenced my thinking greatly is "evolutionary psychology" in general and the writings of Konrad Lorenz in particular (after whom my son Conrad is named btw).

One of his most important books is "On Aggression".  Speaking quite simplistically about a subtle book, Lorenz says aggression (defined as intra and not inter species) has three purposes:  Territory; Hierarchy; and Reproduction.

In my own thinking in the case of humans I have added Predation.  Normally predatory behavior is inter species and thus outside the definition of aggression, but in the case of humans, much criminal behavior is predatory in nature (e.g. the money stolen is a form of food)

But I digress , , , 

In one of his final books, "The Waning of Humanness" Lorenz spoke of particular dynamic that he called "collective militant enthusiasm" in which a group whips itself into a frenzy for collective action against "the other".

Lenin-Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Islamic Fascism can all be seen as manifestations of this dynamic.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15346


« Reply #53 on: September 22, 2016, 11:02:04 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2016/09/21/deadliest-lie-without-lone-wolf-lie-u-s-could-have-stopped-nearly-every-attack/?singlepage=true

DEADLIEST LIE: Without 'Lone Wolf' Lie, U.S. Could Have Stopped Nearly EVERY ATTACK
By Andrew C. McCarthy September 21, 2016
chat 137 comments

Some time ago, the invaluable Patrick Poole coined the term “known wolf,” sharply shredding the conventional Washington wisdom that “lone wolf” terrorism is a major domestic threat.

Pat has tracked the phenomenon for years, right up to the jihadist attacks this weekend in both the New York metropolitan area and St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Virtually every time a terror attack has occurred, the actor initially portrayed as a solo plotter lurking under the government’s radar turns out to be -- after not much digging – an already known (sometimes even, notorious) Islamic extremist.

As amply demonstrated by Poole’s reporting, catalogued here by PJ Media, "lone wolves" --virtually every single one -- end up having actually had extensive connections to other Islamic extremists, radical mosques, and (on not rare occasions) jihadist training facilities.
Sponsored

The overarching point I have been trying to make is fortified by Pat’s factual reporting. It is this: There are, and can be, no lone wolves.

The very concept is inane, and only stems from a willfully blind aversion to the ideological foundation of jihadist terror: Islamic supremacism.

The global, scripturally rooted movement to impose sharia -- in the West, to incrementally supersede our culture of reason, liberty, and equality with the repressive, discriminatory norms of classical Islamic law -- is a pack. The wolves are members of the pack, and that’s why they are the antithesis of “lone” actors. And, indeed, they always turn out to be “known” precisely because their association with the pack, with components of the global movement, is what ought to have alerted us to the danger they portended before they struck.

This is willful blindness, because of the restrictions we have gratuitously imposed on ourselves.

The U.S. government refuses to acknowledge the ideology that drives the movement until after some violent action is either too imminent to be ignored or, sadly more often, until after the Islamic supremacist has acted out the savagery his ideology commands.

The U.S. government consciously avoids the ideology because it is rooted in a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of Islam. Though it is but one of many ways to construe that religion, the remorseless fact is that it is a mainstream construction, adhered to by tens of millions of Muslims and supported by centuries of scholarship.

I say “the U.S. government” is at fault here because, contrary to Republican campaign rhetoric that is apparently seized by amnesia, this is not merely an Obama administration dereliction -- however much the president and his former secretary of State (and would-be successor) Hillary Clinton have exacerbated the problem.

Since the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, the bipartisan Beltway cognoscenti have “reasoned” (a euphemism for “reckless self-delusion”) that conceding the Islamic doctrinal roots of jihadist terror -- which would implicitly concede the vast Islamist (sharia-supremacist) support system without which the global jihadist onslaught would be impossible -- is impractical.
Sponsored

But how could acknowledging the truth be impractical?

Especially given that national security hinges on an accurate assessment of threats?

Obama Press Sec.: 'This is Actually Just a War of Narratives' Against ISIS

Bipartisan Washington “reasons” that telling the truth would portray the United States as “at war with Islam.” To be blunt, this conventional wisdom can only be described as sheer idiocy.

We know that tens of millions of Muslims worldwide, and what appears to be a preponderance (though perhaps a diminishing one) of Muslims in the West, reject Islamic supremacism and its sharia-encroachment agenda. We know that, by a large percentage, Muslims are the most common victims of jihadist terror. We know that Muslim reformers are courageously working to undermine and reinterpret the scriptural roots of Islamic supremacism -- a crucial battle our default from makes far more difficult for them to win. We know that Muslims, particularly those assimilated into the West, have been working with our law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies for decades to gather intelligence, infiltrate jihadist cells, thwart jihadist attacks, and fight jihadist militias.

None of those Muslims -- who are not only our allies, but are in fact us -- believes that America is at war with Islam.

So why does Washington base crucial, life-and-death policy on nonsense?

Because it is in the thrall of the enemy. The “war on Islam” propaganda is manufactured by Islamist groups, particularly those tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

While we resist study of our enemies’ ideology, they go to school on us. They thus grasp three key things:

    (1) Washington is so bloated and dysfunctional, it will leap on any excuse to refrain from strong action;

    (2) the American tradition of religious liberty can be exploited to paralyze our government if national defense against a totalitarian political ideology can be framed as hostility and persecution against an entire religious faith; and

    (3) because Washington has so much difficulty taking action, it welcomes claims (or, to be faddish, “narratives”) that minimize the scope and depth of the threat. Topping the “narrative” list is the fantasy that the Islamist ideological support system that nurtures jihadism (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood and its tentacles) is better seen as a “moderate,” “non-violent” partner with whom we can work, than as what it actually is: the enemy’s most effective agent. The stealth operative that exploits the atmosphere of intimidation created by the jihadists.

In other words, in proceeding from the premise that we must do nothing to convey the notion that we are “at war with Islam” -- or, in Obama-Clinton parlance, in proceeding from the premise that we need a good “narrative” rather than a truth-based strategy -- we have internalized the enemy’s worldview, a view that is actually rejected by our actual Islamic allies and the vast majority of Americans.

The delusion comes into sharp relief if one listens to Hillary Clinton’s campaign bombast. Robert Spencer incisively quoted it earlier this week:

    [W]e know that a lot of the rhetoric we’ve heard from Donald Trump has been seized on by terrorists, in particular ISIS, because they are looking to make this into a war against Islam, rather than a war against jihadists, violent terrorists, people who number maybe in the maybe tens of thousands, not the tens of millions, they want to use that to recruit more fighters to their cause, by turning it into a religious conflict. That’s why I’ve been very clear. We’re going after the bad guys and we’re going to get them, but we’re not going to go after an entire religion and give ISIS exactly what it’s wanting in order for them to enhance their position.

Sheer idiocy.

Our enemy is not the mere “tens of thousands” of jihadists. (She’s probably low-balling the number of jihadists worldwide, but let’s indulge her.) It is not merely ISIS, nor merely ISIS and al-Qaeda -- an organization Mrs. Clinton conveniently omits mentioning, since it has replenished, thanks to Obama-Clinton governance and despite Obama-Clinton claims to have defeated it, to the point that it is now at least as much a threat as it was on the eve of 9/11.

ISIS and al-Qaeda are not the sources of the threat against us. They are the inevitable results of that threat.

The actual threat, the source, is Islamic supremacism and its sharia imposition agenda.

The support system, which the threat needs to thrive, does indeed include tens of millions of Islamists, some small percentage of whom will inexorably become violent jihadists, but the rest of whom will nurture the ideological aggression and push the radical sharia agenda -- in the media, on the campus, in the courts, and in the policy councils of government that they have so successfully influenced and infiltrated.

Obviously, to acknowledge that we are at war with this movement, at war with Islamic supremacism, is not remotely to be “at war with Islam.” After all, Islamic supremacism seeks conquest over all of Islam, too, and on a much more rapid schedule than its long-term pursuit of conquest over the West. Islamic supremacism is not a fringe movement; it is large and, at the moment, a juggernaut. But too much of Islam opposes Islamic supremacism to be confused with it.

Moreover, even if being at war with Islamic supremacists could be persuasively spun as being “at war with Islam” -- i.e., even if we were too incompetent to refute our enemies’ propaganda convincingly -- it would make no difference.

The war would still be being prosecuted against us. We have to fight it against the actual enemy, and we lose if we allow enemies to dupe us into thinking they are allies. We have to act on reality, even if Washington is too tongue-tied to find the right words for describing reality.

The enemy is in our heads and has shaped our perception of the conflict, to the enemy’s great advantage. That’s how you end up with inanities like “lone wolf.”
Logged
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2016, 06:23:24 AM »

Something that has influenced my thinking greatly is "evolutionary psychology" in general and the writings of Konrad Lorenz in particular (after whom my son Conrad is named btw).
In my own thinking in the case of humans I have added Predation.  Normally predatory behavior is inter species and thus outside the definition of aggression, but in the case of humans, much criminal behavior is predatory in nature (e.g. the money stolen is a form of food)
In one of his final books, "The Waning of Humanness" Lorenz spoke of particular dynamic that he called "collective militant enthusiasm" in which a group whips itself into a frenzy for collective action against "the other".
Lenin-Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Islamic Fascism can all be seen as manifestations of this dynamic.

Hi Crafty

That's an analysis I can agree with. Ideas can be predatory, and seek to destroy other ideas that challenge them - supremacist ideologies are predatory ideas.
There's something about the persistence of these particularly pernicious ideas that says a lot about our innate human nature with its potential for evil.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2016, 12:43:53 PM by Martel » Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2016, 11:20:55 AM »

Of the Ten Commandments, only one is against a thought-- "Thou shall not covet , , , "

Maybe God was trying to tell us something.
Logged
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2016, 08:06:31 AM »

Imagine this hypothetical scenario. It is World War 2, and the American government has instructed its military and intelligence services that they are not to use the words "Nazi", "SS", Hitler", "Third Reich", "Final Solution", "Mein Kampf" and other 'ideological' terms. The US also decides not to declare the Nazis an outlawed organisation.

The army and intelligence services will dismiss their experts on Europe, Germany, the Nazis, German speakers. Instead, euphemistic neutral terms must be employed. Next, a group of "moderate" Nazis (who are to remain anonymous) will consult with the army and intelligence services to draft policy and future plans on combating the enemy who must not be named, using only language which will not be offensive to Nazis.

As the report below indicates, this is precisely what the US government did in regard to the threat of Islamist terror. Since then, under President Obama, we have seen a rapid escalation of terror attacks worldwide, with marked escalation in Europe and America,  and the spectacular growth of ISIS.

“Our job is to change the Constitution of America.”
~ Sayyid Syeed, PhD
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
43rd Annual Conference, Rosemont, IL. Labor Day, 2006

ISNA is a known Muslim Brotherhood front.

"Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us ... We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country.
~ MPAC founder Salam al-Marayati, at an Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference in Dallas, 2005.

To quote various passages from the attached document:

In June 2013, as a result of its lawsuit, Judicial Watch obtained and released hundreds of pages of FBI records revealing that, in 2012, the agency purged its anti-terrorism training curricula of material determined by a group of “Subject Matter Experts” to be “offensive” to Muslims.

The FBI refused to disclose the identities of these “Subject Matter Experts.”  The excised material included references linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism, tying al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center and Khobar Towers bombings, and suggesting that “young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance ... may fit the terrorist profile best.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) instituted a purge similar to the FBI’s.  On April 24, 2012, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin E. Dempsey ordered the entire U.S. military to “review” its educational and training classes, files, and rosters of instructors to ensure that no members of the armed services were studying material “disrespectful of the Islamic religion.”

Controlling language is essential for effective influence operations, as part of a broader active measures campaign.  An example of the radical purging of certain terms and phrases from government lexicons can be found by comparing language used in the 9/11 Commission Report to that used in both the 2009 National Intelligence Estimate and the 2008 FBI Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon.

In an October 6, 2011 press release, CAIR Director Nihad Awad thanked “Director Mueller for his pledge to perform a ‘top to bottom’ review of FBI counterterrorism training.”

The Explanatory Memorandum documents how Islamists are waging Jihad on the West by a variety of means and on a number of fronts. There is nothing new about the Jihad phenomenon – it has been carried out to one degree or another since AD 632, although its current politicized manifestation traces its roots to the first half of the 20th century.  

The Koran demands Jihad.  We ignore that fact at our peril. Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, an expert in jihadist ideology and a Visiting Professor at the Defence Academy of the UK, has stated, “Islamism has replaced communism as the most significant ideological opponent of the Western liberal world order.  Radical Islamist movements have declared war on the West as wellas on other Muslims."

Current jihadist operations are conducted under the umbrella, direction and coordination of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the MB, as well as al Qaeda (AQ) and its affiliates.  The MB’s motto provides perspective on their ideology and operations: "Allah is our objective; the Koran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and dying in the way of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."

The arsenal of jihad includes the weapons of terrorism and acts of war, as well as influence campaigns, propaganda and active measures.


The Judicial Watch report:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/JWSRGovtPurgeAndActiveMeasures5Dec2013.pdf

Homeland Security Advisory Council - Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee Interim Report and Recommendations June 2016:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/HSAC/HSAC%20CVE%20Final%20Interim%20Report%20June%209%202016%20508%20compliant.pdf

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE· COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION COUNTERRORISM ANALYTICAL LEXICON:
https://cryptome.org/fbi-ct-lexicon.pdf
« Last Edit: September 24, 2016, 10:13:19 AM by Martel » Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2016, 08:09:58 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyvXe2HJg14

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #58 on: October 14, 2016, 08:59:53 PM »

http://www.meforum.org/6322/islamist-violence-will-steer-europes-destiny
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7628


« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2017, 03:15:20 PM »

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prestigious-swarthmore-college-offers-class-asking-is-god-a-white-supremacist/

My answer to Tariq is no.  God is a murderous butcher named Allah.  How would he appreciate that ?
Logged
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #60 on: October 02, 2017, 01:12:00 PM »

An article I published elsewhere that may be useful reading...

Understanding Islam’s core religious texts

There’s something different about Islam. Many of us realise this is the case, many have an undefined feeling that there is something ‘wrong’ with it that is at odds with our Western values, but are unable to articulate it.

Perhaps my extensive learning and experience in the subject of Islam after more than a decade working in the Middle East may be of value to those who have found themselves browbeaten by Islamic apologists and wished they had good rebuttals, for those interested in Christian outreach to Muslims, or people that just want to understand Islam.

Discussion about Islam is surrounded by a great deal of ignorance, assumptions and emotion – however these only cloud the issue. The way to truth is through facts.

My intention is that the information that I share will be useful to any who want discuss the subject of Islam and the recent major Jihad attacks intelligently, to rebut often dishonest or misguided arguments, and understand the threat of supremacist political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the ultimate motivation and methodology behind Jihad. It is easy to spot where a bomb went off, it’s harder to trace networks and subtle, subversive political and social infiltration.

Recently I participated in a university forum dedicated to counter-terrorism. The particular discussion topic was ‘religious terror’, however we were explicitly advised by moderators to leave any discussion of religion out of the subject of ‘religious terror’. Though of course if Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism were discussed or even criticised this was allowed without objection.

There was, of course, one religion that when mentioned, even in the most respectful and scholarly fashion with detailed references, even when referencing the public quotations, publications or documents from terror groups and their leaders, would receive almost immediate objection and accusations of the dreaded ‘Islamophobia’.

Any comments relating to the recent major acts of terror by Muslims in Europe and America were met with i) “This has nothing to do with Islam” and ii) “You’re an Islamophobic racist if you want to discuss a connection between terrorists shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ (Allah is greater! [than your God]) while murdering Westerners and Islam”. These claims were made by Muslim housewives, graphic artists and clerical workers who seemed to be on the forum purely to police any discussion of Islam and complain vehemently to the moderators about how offended they were.

No genuine discussion of the motives and doctrine of the terrorists was allowed by the university staff. Both our next and current generation of academics, terror analysts and policy makers seem required to bury their heads in the sand and remain in denial.

Detailed references to the most authentic Islamic sources will be invaluable for those wanting factual informationon Islam, its political and social aims in the West, its ideology, common arguments and methods.

Much ignorance exists among Western policy makers, researchers and the otherwise educated, it is also surprising to me how Christians and Westerners are apologists for Islam and defend those expressing an ideology that intends to subjugate them.

For the record, I have good Muslim friends. From my interactions I realised that I know more about the doctrine and history of Islam than they do, and the Muslims I have (carefully and respectfully) spoken to on the subject. I have visited nearly every country in the Middle East multiple times working in a sensitive role.

Let me set a foundation.

I will cite only the most authentic, credible Islamic sources to present the theology, ideology and doctrine of Islam. A simple rule is that Islam is what is found in the Quran and the sayings and actions of Mohammed. If it is found there it is Islamic, no matter what your neighbour or colleague says or feels.

Islamic doctrine is found in 3 works of literature

  • Quran
  • Hadith (A collection of reports describing the words, actions, or habits of Mohammed)
  • Sira (Mohammed’s biography, first collected together by Ibn Ishaq).


These works are listed in order of their relative importance.

There are strong and weak Hadith. The most authentic or sound collection of Hadith is considered to be that written by Bukhari followed by Muslim, referred to as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Sahih means ‘sound’, denoting good, reliable, strong or trustworthy.

The Quran contains a little bit more than 150 000 words, it is roughly the length of the New Testament.
The Sira is a little bit over 290 000 words.The Hadith of Bukhari is a little over 640 000 words, containing several thousand reports.
The Hadith + Sira = the Sunnah of Mohammed. The Sunnah + Quran = the primary sources for i) Islamic theology and ii) Shariah, Islamic Sacred Law.
The Sunnah are the record of the teachings, deeds and sayings, permissions and disapprovals of Mohammed, as well as reports about his companions. Sunnah is also defined as a path, a way, a manner of life (thus making Islam a social order as well); the Sunnah contains the traditions and practices of Mohammed that have become the ideal model to be followed by Muslims, since Mohammed is regarded as the perfect Muslim.

Often the “You’re quoting that out of context!” argument is used to deligitimise the use of uncomfortable passages from the Quran, and it is true that the Quran makes statements that often lack context. The Hadith collections and the Sira provide that context.

Then there are the Tafsir, commentaries on the by Quran by revered scholars of Islam. Literally, Tafsir means ‘interpretation’ and is the equivalent of Christian exegesis. Tafsir deals with linguistics, jurisprudence (law) and theology – and the Tafsir often provide detailed additional context for verses in the Quran.

One of the best online resources for searching and comparing the Quran, Hadith and Tafsir is http://www.quranx.com

For example, use Quranx to compare Q4.34 (Quran Chapter 4, Verse 34): “As for women of whom you fear rebellion, admonish them, and remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.”
See http://quranx.com/4.34.

Select the Arberry and Maududi translations and observe the differences and similarities in the various translations. (Note, the verse does not refer to women who have rebelled, it refers to women from whom you fear rebellion.)

Next we refer to the Tafsir for clarity on the verse. I’ll select 3 from Quranx.

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn
http://quranx.com/Tafsir/Jalal/4.34
Tafsir Ibn Al Kathir
http://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/4.34
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi – Tafhim al-Qur’an
http://quranx.com/Tafsir/Maududi/4.34

Now, let’s examine the Hadith. These are best searched with Google to find relevant references, after which they can be viewed on Quranx.

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn Abu Dhubab reported the Messenger of Allah as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Messenger of Allah and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them.
http://quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/DarusSalam/Hadith-2146

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife. http://quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/DarusSalam/Hadith-2147

Finally, let us examine Islamic Sacred Law (Sharia) for its ruling. From the highly respected Sharia manual, The Reliance of the Traveller:

M10.11: Dealing with a Rebellious Wife When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz, dis: p42) (O: whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (O: without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, “Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me, ” or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me [def: (3) below] is religiously obligatory”).  If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (O: and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,) break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (O: It is unlawful to strike another’s face).   He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.

(c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her.

I believe this will suffice to get you started on the road to critical examination of Islam.

Back to the Quran. Passages about Allah, based on textual analysis of the Quran, are 14% of the total content. The remaining 86% is about the life, sayings and deeds of Mohammed.

It is a fundamental principle of Islam that a Muslim is to follow the example of Mohammed, the ideal pattern of conduct. This is stated in the Quran 91 times. These commands take two forms — historical examples and direct commands. Mohammed is ultimately the ideal moral example for all Muslims to follow.

Finally, the Quran has an early period and a late period, often referred to as the Meccan Quran and Medinan Quran. They have wildly contradictory peaceful and violent verses. The Law of Abrogation (Naskh) tells us that a chronologically later verse is theologically better than an older one. However both verses stand as true, since the Western concept of unitary logic and disqualification does not apply for theological reasons.

(Note, the Quranic progression is from peaceful to violent, which is the direct opposite of the Biblical progression).

Q2.106: And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything? http://quranx.com/2.106
Q16:101: And when We substitute a verse in place of a verse – and Allah is most knowing of what He sends down – they say, “You, [O Muhammad], are but an inventor [of lies].” But most of them do not know. http://quranx.com/16.101

The same process of consulting the Hadith, Tafsir, Sira and The Reliance applies to these verses for context and clarity.

Approximately 225 verses are abrogated by later verses. 71 of the 114 chapters of the Quran have abrogations, cancelling the previous verses.

Further confusion arises because the Quran is arranged by length of chapter, it is not in chronological order.
Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2017, 03:48:34 AM »

Very good to have you with us again Martel.
Logged
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #62 on: October 03, 2017, 02:12:56 PM »

Very good to have you with us again Martel.


Thank you, Crafty. Never underestimate the good you do in the world by providing this discussion forum.

Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #63 on: October 03, 2017, 02:16:27 PM »

This question arises often enough to be worthy of examination. The short answer is of course 'no'.

Can Islam be reformed?

Q5.3 "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."

It would seem contradictory to reform what is deemed perfect.

Reform is a crime in Islam, in that it may contradict Sharia Law. To quote highly regarded Islamic scholars in the Hadith:

  • The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said: "Every innovation is misguidance and going astray" Reported by Abu Daawood (no. 4607), at-Tirmidhee (no. 2676)
  • And he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) also said: "… and every innovation is misguidance and all misguidance is in the Hellfire." Reported by an-Nasaa'ee (1/224) from Jaabir bin Abdullaah and it is saheeh as declared by Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo' ul-Fataawaa (3/58)

To quote from the highly respected and authoritative manual of Sharia Law, The Reliance of the Traveller:

Reliance B7.2: Scholarly Consensus Is Legally Binding (see B7.1 for definition of 'Concensus')

When the four necessary integrals of consensus exist, the ruling agreed upon is an authoritative part of Sacred Law that is obligatory to obey and not lawful to disobey. Nor can mujtahids of a succeeding era make the thing an object of new ijtihadm because the ruling on it, verified by scholarly consensus, is an absolute legal ruling which does not admit of being contravened or annulled.

It is not possible within Islam to redefine what has been codified in law, since the the previous definitions and conclusions within Islam have legislative authority:
Imaam al-Shatibee in his excellent work, al-I'tisaam, has provided the most comprehensive, concise and definitive legislative definition of al-bid'ah

The common name for the desire to introduce change or reinterpret Islam is Bid'ah (innovation), which means 'a newly invented matter'.
Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #64 on: October 03, 2017, 10:45:16 PM »

"Thank you, Crafty. Never underestimate the good you do in the world by providing this discussion forum."

Tail wags for your kind words.

I confess to being rather proud of our crew here and our collective effort.  Very glad to have you aboard.
Logged
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2017, 02:33:52 PM »

So I did some reading from an organisation called the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and found this handy guide to Jihad. They're an offshoot of the Muslim Students Association of America (MSA).

According to their web site:
Purpose:To seek the pleasure of Allah through the struggle of Iqamat-ud-Deen [establishment of the Islamic system of life] as spelled out in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of [Muhammad]

Let's have a look at their manual, perhaps we will be educated as their adherents are. I especially loved their definition of Jihad at 113, below. 


Islamic Circle of North America - Tarbiyah Guide

Overemphasizing certain conspicuous works, even to the point of going against the Sunnah: Some people become fixated on a certain type of work to the point where Satan can incite them on account of it to go against the Sunnah or to violate Islamic law. Take jihad for instance, since some of our young people today have become very interested in it. No doubt it is a great act of devotion. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “There are one hundred levels in Paradise that Allah has prepared for those who engage in jihad for the cause of Allah. The distance between any two levels is like the distance between the sky and the Earth.”111 

He also said that the pinnacle of Islam is jihad in the way of Allah.112 Allah makes jihad the greatest of works when he says: “Do you consider the giving of drink to the pilgrims or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to the service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive113 with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not equal in the sight of Allah; and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe and emigrate and strive with might and main in Allah’s cause with their wealth and their lives have the highest rank in the sight of Allah. They are the people who shall achieve success. Their Lord gives them glad tidings of mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of Gardens for them wherein are delights that endure. They will dwell therein forever. Verily with Allah is a great reward.” 
[Sûrah al-Tawbah: 19-22]. 
                                            
110 Ibn al-Jawzî, Talbîs Iblîs (280-283). Al-Minbariyyah Publishers. 
111 Sahîh al-Bukhârî (2790). 
112 Musnad Ahmad (21542). Sunan al-Tirmidhî (2616). Sunan Ibn Mâjah (3973). 
113 The word Allah used in Arabic is: wa Jaahada Fee Sabeelillah - meaning: made Jihad in the path of Allah. It is incorrect to translate the word Jihad to mean strive/striving because Jihad is a legal terminology with a specific meaning, and that is, fighting in the path of Allah and the struggle therein. Translating the word Jihad to mean 'Striving' is misleading as it gives a meaning different to the intending meaning in the verse. Unfortunately, this error has become a common practice amongst the translators, so let them be careful from falling into such errors. 
Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15346


« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2017, 02:39:09 PM »

ICNA and MSA both are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.


https://www.investigativeproject.org/2581/fbi-chief-muslim-brotherhood-supports-terrorism

The scope of the Brotherhood's vision for the United States was spelled out in a 1991 document called the "Explanatory Memorandum." In that memo, which federal prosecutors introduced as evidence in two trials of the now-defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, Brotherhood leaders said they planned to create an Islamic state in the United States.

In that document, the Brotherhood's stated goal was "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The memo also listed 29 organizations working in the United States to further the Brotherhood's goals. They include the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) and the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP). The IAP and the Holy Land Foundation shared many members and directors, including those who founded the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).


So I did some reading from an organisation called the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and found this handy guide to Jihad. They're an offshoot of the Muslim Students Association of America (MSA).

According to their web site:
Purpose:To seek the pleasure of Allah through the struggle of Iqamat-ud-Deen [establishment of the Islamic system of life] as spelled out in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of [Muhammad]

Let's have a look at their manual, perhaps we will be educated as their adherents are. I especially loved their definition of Jihad at 113, below. 


Islamic Circle of North America - Tarbiyah Guide

Overemphasizing certain conspicuous works, even to the point of going against the Sunnah: Some people become fixated on a certain type of work to the point where Satan can incite them on account of it to go against the Sunnah or to violate Islamic law. Take jihad for instance, since some of our young people today have become very interested in it. No doubt it is a great act of devotion. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “There are one hundred levels in Paradise that Allah has prepared for those who engage in jihad for the cause of Allah. The distance between any two levels is like the distance between the sky and the Earth.”111 

He also said that the pinnacle of Islam is jihad in the way of Allah.112 Allah makes jihad the greatest of works when he says: “Do you consider the giving of drink to the pilgrims or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to the service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive113 with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not equal in the sight of Allah; and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe and emigrate and strive with might and main in Allah’s cause with their wealth and their lives have the highest rank in the sight of Allah. They are the people who shall achieve success. Their Lord gives them glad tidings of mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of Gardens for them wherein are delights that endure. They will dwell therein forever. Verily with Allah is a great reward.” 
[Sûrah al-Tawbah: 19-22]. 
                                            
110 Ibn al-Jawzî, Talbîs Iblîs (280-283). Al-Minbariyyah Publishers. 
111 Sahîh al-Bukhârî (2790). 
112 Musnad Ahmad (21542). Sunan al-Tirmidhî (2616). Sunan Ibn Mâjah (3973). 
113 The word Allah used in Arabic is: wa Jaahada Fee Sabeelillah - meaning: made Jihad in the path of Allah. It is incorrect to translate the word Jihad to mean strive/striving because Jihad is a legal terminology with a specific meaning, and that is, fighting in the path of Allah and the struggle therein. Translating the word Jihad to mean 'Striving' is misleading as it gives a meaning different to the intending meaning in the verse. Unfortunately, this error has become a common practice amongst the translators, so let them be careful from falling into such errors. 
Logged
Martel
Newbie
*
Posts: 49


« Reply #67 on: October 11, 2017, 02:42:45 PM »

These people can't be more blatant about their intentions. Why are they still operating?

More about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Circle_of_North_America

The full document quoted above: https://app.box.com/s/fh3amyj26qvkemz94aa052yols7p88co
Logged

My freedom is more important than your good idea.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15346


« Reply #68 on: October 11, 2017, 02:52:17 PM »

These people can't be more blatant about their intentions. Why are they still operating?

More about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Circle_of_North_America

The full document quoted above: https://app.box.com/s/fh3amyj26qvkemz94aa052yols7p88co


Because the power structure in the west is ok with it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41622


« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2017, 01:27:06 PM »

Have not watched this yet, but this promises to be interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=RbsEiYKi-2Y
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!