Yes, but these rules are very much up to interpretation. Most major religions creates a huge spectrum of different interpretations. You might disagree with someone’s interpretation, but you can’t deny how he actually sees himself. Tolerant people usually accept the identity of other people. This is one of the fundamental consequences modern values that identify people as equal individuals with agency.
Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge
- Thread starter Untied
- Start date
Yes, but these rules are very much up to interpretation. Most major religions creates a huge spectrum of different interpretations. You might disagree with someone’s interpretation, but you can’t deny how he actually sees himself. Tolerant people usually accept the identity of other people. This is one of the fundamental consequences modern values that identify people as equal individuals with agency.
Then you have no reason to bring up that you hear non native speakers try telling native speakers the meaning of a word. The only reason you have to bring it up is if you think they have less weight to their opinion as a non native speaker otherwise there's no need for you to , thus my reason to mention it to you was correct. You wrote those words, so perhaps you phrased it poorly since you apparently don't mean the words you wrote, or wrote them for no reason at all because you don't believe the implication behind them.
I agree with this statement completely, but whether a person is a native speaker or a non-native speaker has absolutely nothing to do with this and so I'm really not sure what you're confused about me bringing up. It's irrelevant, yet you still mentioned it in the first place.
No, you're just being obtuse. You brought up native and non native, you specifically mentioned those two groups for no reason at all seemingly and now keep telling me you in fact agree with me. Not sure what's so difficult about this but glad to put it to bed. It's getting tedious on this end too considering I quoted about 2 lines and you then sent me back a thesis in response.
Not all the rules are up to interpretation for example Christians are baptised and confirmed, you have to be baptised and confirmed, that's your adoption by God, that's your engagement.
The idea that orthodoxy and heterodoxy are self-evident realities in any given religious tradition is not something the majority of scholars of religion accept anymore. The generally accepted understanding today is that orthodoxy is defined by relations of power. In the Islamic context, ill quote Talal Asad:
"Orthodoxy is crucial to all Islamic traditions. But the sense in which I use this term must be distinguished from the sense given it by most Orientalists and anthropologists. Anthropologists like El Zein, who wish to deny any special significance to orthodoxy, and those like Gellner, who see it as a specific set of doctrines "at the heart of Islam," both are missing something vital: that orthodoxy is not a mere body of opinion but a distinctive relationship - a relationship of power to truth. Wherever Muslims have the power to regulate, uphold, require, or adjust correct practices, and to condemn, exclude, undermine, or replace incorrect ones, there is the domain of orthodoxy. The way these powers are exercised, the conditions that make them possible (social, political, economic, etcetera), and the resistances they encounter (from Muslims and non-Muslims) are equally the concern of an anthropology of Islam, regardless of whether its direct object of research is in the city or in the countryside, in the present or in the past. Argument and conflict over the form and significance of practices are therefore a natural part of any Islamic tradition."
Whats your point exactly? You can construct scenarios that confirm your argument in theory, but are irrelevant in reality. Not all Christian Confessions fully agree what baptism mean/how it should be done. Consequently the rituals can be quite different. So they are able to have some disagreement about one of the most fundamental parts of Christianity. When someone claims to be Muslim, while burning a Koran, I’d get suspicious, but that has nothing to do with these cases. These people “merely” follow a different interpretation of their religion; interpretations, that are not completely outlandish, if you follow a literal interpretation, while cherry-picking (sth. all interpretations do) the wrong parts. It is a dangerous to deny someone’s right to choose their own identity. That’s the basis for intolerance and ultimately violence as well.
Last edited:
As to your actual point, I don't know about Qur'an-burning, but some of the greatest Muslims in history have been enthusiastic wine-drinkers, writers of homoerotic poetry, etc. There have been Sufi orders who believed in deliberately flouting the shari'ah as a means of engaging with God. Pre-modern Islamic history is full of this stuff.
Are Quakers not Christians then? They don't adhere to some of the ritualistic practices prevalent in mainstream Christianity, baptism* being the most relevant in this case.
The diagram posted on the last page displays the issues with trying to typify a religion, the sheer breadth of competing organisations brought under a single umbrella such as "Christianity" will encompass vast amounts of variance/diversity and often contradictory stances.
Edit *In the sense that one can be baptised by the church.
Yes. That is kind of my point. It is a mistake to get bogged down in detailed theological arguments to identify specific characteristics that any believer has to follow. Usually only fanatics are getting caught up in this line of argument and that is not specific to religion. It is the same with other social or political ideologies that create identity. That’s why we should just accept someone’s self-declared identity/motives. We are almost at the point, where people accept that someone can identify as the other gender. Accepting religious identities shouldn’t be so hard.
Oh, and please don’t burn Koreans.
I agree with that but I don't think that it goes against what I said, Islam can and should evolve but those evolutions are supposed to come from the communities not from an individual who would make rules for himself, those changes are supposed to make sense beyond an individual.
If I'm not mistaken some Quackers don't believe in god, other believe that they are member of several religion, others are atheist. So I don't know what to think other than Quackers are Quackers and they add what they want on it.
Last edited:
There are different structures of authority within all religions. What you write there about communities could be interpreted as kind of analogous with the Islamic concept of 'ijma, which refers to the consensus of the scholars and the idea that something they are all agreed upon is binding in the law. 'Ijma is one of the four sources used by the Sunni schools to interpret and construct Islamic law.
However Salafis encourage a more individualist approach to interpretation, while Twelver Shi'a for example give greater weight to the authority and intellectual and charismatic qualities of their twelve imams and renowned ulama (clergy). Beyond these, there are dozens of Islamic sectarian movements which give various degrees of emphasis to whatever focus of authority they deem valid. There is, however, no institutional centre of authority in Islam such as the Church.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Fixed that for you
On a serious note: That is kind of the point, different offshoots (the Quakers emerged from the Anglican branch) adopt differing levels of adherence or introduce entirely new ideas. If religion was only about the original incarnation then we could easily argue 99% of those that profess Christianity aren't actually Christian. The canonisation under Roman Catholicism picked the elements of the religion most fitting the prevailing culture of the time (and the whims of those codifying it), the Anglican church did the same (originally to better mesh with the Celtic cultural influences and more radically when Henry VIII decided to break all ties with Rome). Every religion has that pragmatism, it wouldn't have prospered without it.
But here we have a problem, while a salafi can interpret Islam individually, that particular encouragement is extended to his community whether they are salafi or not, he has to respect the interpretation of the communities around him or the interpretation of the individuals around him. Indirectly that's a rule that he has to respect and that rule should prevent him from imposing his own interpretation by way of terrorism.
Maybe it's me but wherever I look, I see people that don't respect their own rules.
JPRouve sums up my belief on the issue below.
I agree completely.
There's bending rules, then there is outright breaking them. Terrorists do the latter.
Let me use the example of UK Muslims. Because most of them have their origins in the Indian subcontinent, most of them have a heritage in the Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence. The Hanafi school for example has historically accepted that Muslims living under non-Muslim rule are required to accept the law of the land peacefully, so long as they're allowed to practice their religion and proselytise. I'm less familiar with how the other three schools approach this subject but I presume it's along similar lines.
Salafis reject the practice of referring automatically to these schools of interpretation, as they believe doing so carries with it a danger of innovation (bida'a), as the laws of each school were formulated over a century after the time of Muhammad. Still, most Salafis would accept that political authority must be respected as long as it is not used to oppress Muslims. However given the individualism of interpretation for Salafis, there are some who would interpret something like the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a breaking of the pact they believe exists with their non-Muslim rulers, and a license to strike back in some way. Salafism contains no institutional check on such an interpretation, since the role of 'Ijma (consensus) is not accepted by them as binding.
The first paragraph is what I know about Islam and the second is what perplexes me. Most of post 2003's victims have been muslims. How do they justify that?
So how did Christians get from "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" to the inquisition ? Was Paisley right, the Pope is not a true Christian ?
That line (from John John 7:53-8:11) got removed as scholars found it was put in at a later date. Not really related to your point (which I fully understand) but for the sake of accuracy, I thought I would chime in
Last edited:
Wow, that's quite a lot of history to wipe out !
By portraying those they target as hypocrites and apostates. These people (I'm referring specifically to Salafi-Jihadi types) are immersed in the idea that they're re-living the first few decades of Islamic history. For someone with that mindset (and of course shaped by the brutality of modern life in places like Iraq), such enemies will appear everywhere. The first few decades of Islamic history are portrayed in the histories as full of violence, betrayals, etc., e.g. after Muhammad's death many of the Arabs who had converted to Islam during his life reverted to their previous practices. The first caliph Abu Bakr (who al-Baghdadi of ISIS consciously models himself on) waged the so-called Ridda Wars to bring these tribes back into the fold.
Three of the first four caliphs were murdered, and then of course there were numerous revolts led by a sect called the Khawarij (kharijites) who rejected the authority of the caliphs, not to mention the conflicts that produced the Shi'a-Sunni divide. Look at a figure such as Khalid ibn al-Walid (there is an ISIS faction fighting in southern Syria named after him); as an example of a violent man of action his story provides a lot of material.
The schools of jurisprudence were formed later on, when the Muslims had established a successful global empire which was at that time the apex of human civilisation and had incorporated different peoples with different cultures, languages, and interests. That situation demanded pragmatism and flexibility in determining a normative standard of Islam which would appeal to people from Africa to China, and the schools (along with the Sufi orders) were able to provide that.
Thanks for that post.
@2cents - great posts man. Learned some good stuff from you there
That is absurdly incorrect.
Language is also dependent on cultural context, so has many nuances depending on where its spoken. Of course a native speaker speaking his language in the land of that language will have greater appreciation for its meaning.
Eg: English words can have very different meanings inside UK than for example in India or USA.
I don't know how you think thats controversial.
Last edited:
Neither of which form the basis of the 5 fundamental pillars of Islam (1 God with Muhammed (pbuh) as his last messenger, 5 prayers a day, observe Ramadan, give Charity, perform Hajj). There is no debate whatsoever over this.
After these core principles, there are several secondary and many tertiary rituals, recommended abstoinances and behaviours that help one followers attain 'peace'.
Scholars and practitioners are divided on the relative importance of these in terms of satisfying Gods requirements. Hence why you are likely to find differing levels of adoption over history and in the present day.
Last edited:
Yes, that was kind of the point I was making.
They believe the Muslims being attacked are either misguided or accept it as collateral damage.
eg: ISIS believe non ISIS Iraqi Muslims are 'corrupted' so therefore expendable in their quest to create their own state.
Brilliantly succinct synopsis. Thanks!
@2cents @Sultan
Have you read this book https://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Prophet-Story-Shia-Sunni-Split/dp/0385523947
It explains the schisms in Islam immediate after the death of Muhammed (pbuh) and the foundational history between sunni, Shia and Wahabi. You already seem to understand this schism very well, but if not, you should read it. The author writes in an exciting style, so it reads like a page turning thriller:
Also, pls can you recommend any other foundational essays on the first 50-100 years of Islam, that is relatively easy to read? I don't mind different interpretations or heavy criticism.
It isn't absurdly incorrect at all. On a daily basis you encounter people who don't understand what words in their own language mean. They've never heard them or think they mean the wrong thing. They use words incorrectly and in the wrong context. The point I was making was a simple one, a native speaker has a higher probability of knowing but doesn't inherently know. There are English speakers who cannot use their, there and they're correctly and Spanish speakers who can. The fact that you may be a native speaker of a language does not mean that inherently you know more than somebody else about something, that's an absurd statement to make. It may be more probable that you do but that's all. An English speaker is not by default correct on something relating to the English language when arguing with a Russian for example simply because they're English, that would be retarded. The person is only correct if what they are saying is actually correct, which it may not be. It's pretty simple. A mathmetician who says 2+2=4 is not correct because he's a mathmetician, he's correct because what he says stands up on its own merits, it's simply more probably that he knows that as a result of being a mathemetician and the same applies here. To make a statement like 'a non Muslim can't tell a Muslim what their word means' is a stupid statement to make. It assumes that one starts off at a disadvantage based on no evience at all. For all you know the Muslim misunderstands the word just as an Englishman may not understand the correct use of there, their, they're and the non Muslim in this sense understands the word perfectly having studied it. It's a simple concept. Far too often people look for bullshit ways like this to discredit somebody and reduce their argument. It's a stupid thing to fall back on to say 'well what do you know, how can you tell him X, Y or Z. He obviously knows more than you because [insert fallacy of reason here].'
Ever heard of paragraphs?! Or perhaps the wall of text is meant to bamboozle me?
Anyways you're arguing extremities and within that, semantics.
Im not out to win any argument, simply to experiment with points of view and learn others. Regardless, you're entitled to your opinion, so lets leave it there.
Last edited:
It's pretty easy to read as it is to be honest. I'm sorry if you struggle with it or if it bamboozle's you.
so agressive, drink some milk man!
I drink a litre daily.
I haven't read that book, no.
A book I always recommend on Islamic history for anyone who wants to learn the most in the fewest amount of pages is called The Formation of Islam by Jonathan Berkey - it has an academic style but is easy enough to get through, and it takes you all the way from the pre-Islamic Middle East to the Ottoman conquests (and a bit beyond). The period up to the Abbasid Revolution (128 Gregorian years after Hijra) is covered in 100 pages. However given that the main argument of the book is that the formation of Islam (as a civilization) as we know it today wasn't really completed until a later period, there's a lot of value in getting to the end (it's about 270 in total).
There are other scholars I could mention (such as Fred Donner and Patricia Crone, whose article on jihad I posted earlier today) who are specialists on the early period, but whose books are heavily dense, academic studies of particular questions.
Just to quickly get back to this issue, here a Muslim scholar called Shahab Ahmad highlights the complex issues even the shahadah has raised for Muslims in history:
"To witness that "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God," is...not a settled end in itself; rather, it is the prelude to asking a number of fundamental questions: What is God? What is His Message? What does it mean to live according to His wise purpose? (Also, the Shi'i shahadah contains the further asseveration, "I witness that 'Ali is the Deputed One [wali] of God" - which is a statement that hardly leaves unaffected the meaning of the term "Messenger [rasul]" as applied to Muhammad in the first part of the shahadah)...
...the mere act of declaring one's islam - that is, to declare that "There is no God but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God" - is to submit oneself to rich possibilities of interpretive disagreement about God, His Messenger, and the meaning and constitution of the object of the act of submission: that is to say, the meaning and constitution of Islam."
...the mere act of declaring one's islam - that is, to declare that "There is no God but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God" - is to submit oneself to rich possibilities of interpretive disagreement about God, His Messenger, and the meaning and constitution of the object of the act of submission: that is to say, the meaning and constitution of Islam."
If you want to enter the Catholic Church, a previous Trinitarian baptism (baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is considered valid. This is because for us, baptism can only happen once.