Islam

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
autisticdragonkin said:
https://sneed-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cf/69/24/cf6924573b39962b56ba5adaed9c670d.jpg
Click to expand...

As with most religions, whether its practitioners are decent neighbors who can be lived with or insane terrorists largely depends which scriptures they choose to follow. A lot of this has to do with whether they were assholes in the first place. Assholes tend to gravitate toward asshole scriptures.
 
Ha, "I will complain."

Reminds me of that scene from The Office where Dwight says the others must listen to him "or face the consequences," and when they ask "What consequences?" he responds with "...I will tell on you."
 
In religious studies, one common theme is that most religions go through a sort of 'holy war' puberty at some point or another. Christians had the Crusades (and a whole bunch of other garbage) Hindus had some barrage of wars back in the hella BCs, and it looks like Muslims are kind of having theirs now.
In every case, it's been a minority of the religion, being extremists and generally stupid.
 
MongyPleb said:
In religious studies, one common theme is that most religions go through a sort of 'holy war' puberty at some point or another. Christians had the Crusades (and a whole bunch of other garbage) Hindus had some barrage of wars back in the hella BCs, and it looks like Muslims are kind of having theirs now.
In every case, it's been a minority of the religion, being extremists and generally stupid.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I feel like Islam has had more than its fair share of those phases. Indeed, various Islamic holy wars tend to come and go in a kind of endless cycle, where they tend to only be at peace when they are convinced there is at least a moderate chance of losing. Islam is, in that sense, going through a "phase" in the way that Connor Bible goes through a "phase". Islam was, to some extent, always like it is now, it is just that the way it is now is finally at odds with more than a small chunk of the Earth. Islam will never stop being this way until it accepts some kind of theological reform, but unfortunately, Islam is often dogmatically against reform, even those based on the Qu'ran, the Sunnah, any hadiths considered reliable or otherwise, whatever. It's bizarre and unfortunate, but a problem that won't just sort it self out in a hundred years.
 
MarineTrainedTard said:
Man, my Persian language teacher was a, like, 90-year-old Iranian Sufi and he was the chillest, friendliest motherfucker ever.

One day we were talking about Iran and he went off on the Iranian Government. "They're not Muslims! They're not Persians! They're not even Arabs! I don't know what they are." For some reason I felt like "They're not even Arabs!" is the sickest of burns in this context.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that Persians and Arabs were ethnically distinct.
 
Corypheus said:
I was under the impression that Persians and Arabs were ethnically distinct.
Click to expand...

They are, but Arabic and Arabic culture have had a monumental influence on Persian culture, but, like most ethnic groups comparing themselves to their neighbors (See: Germans and Slavs, French and English), Perisans generally consider themselves superior to Arabs.
 
Gym Leader Elesa said:
Honestly, I feel like Islam has had more than its fair share of those phases. Indeed, various Islamic holy wars tend to come and go in a kind of endless cycle, where they tend to only be at peace when they are convinced there is at least a moderate chance of losing. Islam is, in that sense, going through a "phase" in the way that Connor Bible goes through a "phase". Islam was, to some extent, always like it is now, it is just that the way it is now is finally at odds with more than a small chunk of the Earth. Islam will never stop being this way until it accepts some kind of theological reform, but unfortunately, Islam is often dogmatically against reform, even those based on the Qu'ran, the Sunnah, any hadiths considered reliable or otherwise, whatever. It's bizarre and unfortunate, but a problem that won't just sort it self out in a hundred years.
Click to expand...

What complicates everything is that the concept of holy war is actually a huge part of Islam. Even if we take the most liberal interpretation of military jihad, which is that wars must only be fought in self-defense, it can still be misinterpreted by Islamists; in fact, most Islamic extremists actually see themselves as the victims of the "infidels" (read: the West and everyone else who hates them, including other Muslims). And the concept of jihad tells Muslims that if they feel victimized, they should fight back. It's a far cry from the message of "turn the other cheek" found in the New Testament.

I don't think there's anything wrong with telling people they should fight to protect themselves if they're in danger, but it becomes a bigger problem when that concept is enshrined in a religious text that is taken as the literal Word of God. It really bears repeating that terrorists actually do see themselves as the victims, so it's very easy for them to twist "self-defense" into blowing up innocent civilians.
 
Cosmos said:
What complicates everything is that the concept of holy war is actually a huge part of Islam. Even if we take the most liberal interpretation of military jihad...
Click to expand...
Military jihad is not a part of Islam. Jihad is, but jihad is most easily translated as "struggle for God," similar to how Israel is also translated (unless it's translated as "struggles with (i.e. against) God," (which, for the sake of clarity, is connected to the actual passage in Genesis where Jacob gets renamed and is not a translation meant to suggest that Jews are anti-God). Both are valid interpretations of the Hebrew word 'Israel' and the source texts don't make it clear which is more accurate in a given context).

Some theorize that the name Israel comes from the perception of God as a God of war in the biblical period when there was constant warfare between the peoples of the Levant region, and that it's connected to why there are so many metaphors drawn in the old testament between worshiping God and fighting in the Lord's Army etc etc etc.


Jihad is also easily equated to the Christian principle of evangelism. Jihad means you're supposed to constantly strive and struggle within life to bring both yourself and others closer to God. It's hardly any more inherently militant than the countless old and new testament passages in the Bible making all those Army/war metaphors I mentioned a second ago. I'll dig some up if you like.

Radical fundamentalist groups and Islamic nationalist movements appropriate the term jihad and interpret the war/military language to suit their needs, but it's no more inherent to the Quran than it is to the Pentateuch. The long tradition of Islam has been similar to that of Christianity and Judaism, creating modern interpretations of Biblical/Quranic warfare as metaphorical/allegorical passages. Fundamentalist Islam is a decidedly recent development that has only gained any remotely noteworthy number of followers in the past century or so.
 
norrington said:
Military jihad is not a part of Islam.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. According to Bernard Lewis, regarded as one of the West's leading scholars on the Middle East, "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and specialists in the hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense." Lewis says it best:

In the law books, elaborate rules are laid down governing the initiation, the conduct, and the termination of hostilities, and dealing with such specific questions as the treatment of prisoners and of conquered populations, the punishment of spies, the disposal of enemy assets, and the acquisition and distribution of booty. While the regulations show a clear concern for moral values and standards, it is difficult to accommodate them in a moral and spiritual interpretation of jihad as such.
Click to expand...

Why does sharia devote so much attention to the rules of warfare if warfare is not meant to be a part of Islam? Spiritual jihad is obviously a more important part of jihad but there is a ton of stuff in Islamic doctrine (especially the hadith) that justify engaging in armed conflict. It would be really nice if the spiritual interpretation of jihad was taught instead of the extremely aggressive Wahhabist version, but unfortunately the Saudis have seen to it that it's not.
 
Cosmos said:
Yes it is. According to Bernard Lewis, regarded as one of the West's leading scholars on the Middle East, "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and specialists in the hadith "understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense." Lewis says it best:



Why does sharia devote so much attention to the rules of warfare if warfare is not meant to be a part of Islam? Spiritual jihad is obviously a more important part of jihad but there is a ton of stuff in Islamic doctrine (especially the hadith) that justify engaging in armed conflict. It would be really nice if the spiritual interpretation of jihad was taught instead of the extremely aggressive Wahhabist version, but unfortunately the Saudis have seen to it that it's not.
Click to expand...

Keyword there being classical; you'll notice that the sentence immediately above that one points out how by the 1800s, the majority of Islamic scholars were interpreting Jihad metaphorically. The period of classical Islam is the 12th century CE. Saying that points to the inherently militant nature of Islam is like saying that the Crusades (the last one taking place in the late 15th century) points to the inherently militant nature of Christianity.

As to your second point, here's a helpful page pointing out all the passages in the bible that outline rules of warfare. As to Saudi Arabia, pointing to people who have twisted source material to suit their own political/military/economic agendas says nothing about the nature of the source material itself.

Here's a quote from a page analyzing military law as presented in the Torah and other Jewish holy texts:
Harming Innocent Civilians

The language of the Torah leads to the conclusion that if, in a discretionary war, the enemy does not accept the terms of surrender offered by the Israelite army, then all the men are to be killed: "But if it makes no peace with you… you shall put all its males to the sword" (Deut. 20:12–13). This is the conclusion drawn by Maimonides (Melakhim 6:4), who emphasizes the corollary that women and children are not to be killed. Maimonides does not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. This should perhaps be viewed in its historical and cultural context. In the ancient world, the enemy army comprised the entire male population, whether as direct participants in the fighting or as support. The correct translation of this rule to contemporary law might be that only combatants may be targeted, and that the innocent civilian population must not be harmed.
Click to expand...

The last two sentences make an excellent point about viewing the texts in their historical and cultural contexts; the same should apply to analysis of the Quran.

EDIT: P.S. Lewis is a blatant orientalist and a genocide denier, current academia respects him for his historiographical relevance in MENA studies but doesn't uphold him as an authority in the sense of being a viable, authoritative source because his views are dated and heavily biased from the British post-imperialist/broader western standpoint of the early-to-mid 20th century. Essentially, a historiographical relic who contributed a lot to the field, but he's not an authority within modern circles. Anyone who cited him in an academic journal today would largely be doing so in a sort of meta-analytical way of showing how the history of the Middle East has been written before now.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's a bit hazy now but IIRC from most of my Middle Eastern history classes, Bernard Lewis is only used to show how Western research into the Middle East has changed over the decades. It's generally acknowledged by most Muslims that actual warfare is lesser Jihad and the greater Jihad is to struggle with one's own shortcomings and attempt to better oneself.
 
Cosmos said:
There is no official consensus because Islam has very few official consensuses (due to lacking a central figure or organization like, say, the Catholic Church), but a very prominent Muslim cleric and Quranic scholar named Dr. Zakir Naik had this to say:

sex-with-goats.jpg


I love how it's the animal that's tainted; in other words, it's totally okay for men to rape animals, but then the animals are the ones who have to pay for it.

Also, please note that I am in no way implying that this is a common Islamic belief. It's certainly not. But it's very concerning that the man known as "an authority on comparative religion", "perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India", and "the world's leading Salafi evangelist" has and openly expresses these views to thousands of people. Oh, and Naik also
  • Advocates the death penalty for homosexuals and for apostasy from Islam
  • Supports a ban on the construction of non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim lands (he tries to justify this by saying that it would be like allowing people to teach that 2 +2 = 6; because Islam is the only TRUE AND HONEST religion, no other filthy false faiths should be allowed to prosper in Muslim-majority countries)
  • Has expressed support for Osama Bin Laden ("If Osama bin Laden is terrorizing the enemies of Islam, I am with him. If he is terrorizing America, the biggest terrorist, then I am with him.”)
  • Said "Americans swap wives at will because they eat pigs which also swap their wives" (lol wat)
  • Believes that it is required for a woman to cover herself entirely except for her face and hands up to her wrists. This is Naik’s solution to sexual assault.
  • Saudi fucking Arabia recently acknowledged Naik’s “services to Islam”, awarding him with the King Faisal International Prize. That alone tells you a lot.
The Westburo Baptist Church only has a few dozen members, but this guy is extremely popular in India and in some other countries and has a lot of fans. It's a bit scary.
Click to expand...

I personally despise Zakir Naik, but that quote is a joke attribution. He didn't actually say that, it's just a meme making fun of him.

Also, Naik isn't a "Qur'anic Scholar." He's a medical doctor (at least by Indian Subcontinent standards) who decided to become a religious debater after seeing other people debate. He doesn't speak Arabic and a lot of Islamic scholars have called him out on his general ignorance of Islamic subjects and his heterodox interpretations of things (like his saying that Allah has a physical form, or his defense of Yazid killing the Prophet's grandson).

As to the subject itself, there are authentic hadith which state that Allah curses those who commit bestiality. In Islamic law there is a difference of opinion as to whether the punishment for having sex with an animal is the death penalty or ta'zir (a punishment made at the discretion of a judge which can take the form of corporal punishment, imprisonment, or exile).

Cosmos said:
Why does sharia devote so much attention to the rules of warfare if warfare is not meant to be a part of Islam? Spiritual jihad is obviously a more important part of jihad but there is a ton of stuff in Islamic doctrine (especially the hadith) that justify engaging in armed conflict. It would be really nice if the spiritual interpretation of jihad was taught instead of the extremely aggressive Wahhabist version, but unfortunately the Saudis have seen to it that it's not.
Click to expand...

The rules of warfare in Islam (which jihadists routinely break) typically take up a relatively small chapter of most classical books on Islamic law. The bulk of writing on Islamic law concerns business transactions or personal acts of worship.

Abethedemon said:
What does everyone here think of Sufism? I think it's fascinating and also somewhat of an antidote of sorts to all of the terrorism going on.
Click to expand...

I'm a Sufi, but I have to admit that Sufism in the imagination of non-Muslims is usually really distorted. Sufis aren't hippies or lax Muslims or some kind of rare species of Pokemon. Sufism is actually the mainstream interpretation of Islam in much of the Sunni world. The Sufi shrines in places like Yemen, Morocco, Egypt, the Levant, Indonesia, and the Indian Subcontinent are extremely active and common places of pilgrimage. Even in Saudi Arabia many of the common people privately celebrate the Prophet's Birthday, even though it's officially condemned as a Sufi innovation, and Sufi figures like the Habaib of Yemen are more widely respected than the official Wahhabi ulama promoted by the state (this is what I've heard from people who lived in Saudi for extended periods of time among the general populace).

That being said, I think that many non-Muslims have a rosy picture of Sufis that is not always accurate. For example, Ramzan Kadyrov of Checnhya is a practicing Sufi. Saddam Hussein was close to the Sufi orders in Iraq. Also, Mumtaz Qadri, a bodyguard who was recently executed in Pakistan for assassinating a politician who wanted to change Pakistan's blasphemy laws, was a Sufi. As much as I wish this weren't the case, singing and dancing and practicing meditation don't always turn someone into a nice, peaceful person.
 
Last edited:
Although I sometimes jokingly say anti islamic things I have a quite high opinion of Islam. My opinion comes from Julius Evola though and is very anti liberal in its nature. I can say that part of it comes from my envy of them having a more family centric culture but I can't say that I envy them as a whole because they still have other flaws. None of this translates to a desire to help as much as a desire to outdo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom