• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Salafi Islam and Why We Should Pay Attention to It

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,277
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A simple explanation of a Salafi Islamist is:

"A member of a strictly orthodox Sunni Muslim sect advocating a return to the early Islam of the Koran and Sunna. Militant Salafis object to Muslims shaving their beards. Sufis are typically more peaceful and less rigid than Salafis or Wahhabis, though there are militantly anti-Western Sufi leaders, as well."

This is probably the most severe form of Islam, as salafi practitioners view the Koran as the only source that should rule every aspect of society, worldwide. They believe that women should cover themselves from head to toe, and only leave home if their husband or father says she can. Safafis often beat women who are seen in public without being accompanied by a male.

Salafi muslims also believe in Sharia Law, with no exceptions permitted.

50 million Salafi muslims exist in the world. Isis members are Salafi Islamists.

I believe we need to know more about this, and be educated in order to know what trends await us in the coming years.

Thoughts?
Comments?
 
Last edited:

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,277
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Salafists are not terrorist killers by default.

ISIS of course is comprised of killers.

Salafi

Salafi Jihadism
Hi Chagos. I quoted you here because the last thread was getting too heated. If you want to discuss, we can here.


"It is often reported from various sources, including the German domestic intelligence service (Bundesnachrichtendienst), that Salafism is the fastest-growing Islamic movement in the world."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Salafism is, relatively a speaking, a new movement within the Islamic faith. It first emerged in the second half of the 19th century, and shares a lot in common with Wahhabism, the brand generally advanced by Saudi financing and government. Until the emergence of Al Qaeda (for Wahhabism) or ISIS (for Salafism), they were generally isolated pockets within more dominant Muslim sects (although ones that may have been at least partly sympathetic to their views).

I'm not sure where you got your "there's 50 million Salafi Muslims" figure from, but I'm sure you'll tell us.
 

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,277
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Salafism is, relatively a speaking, a new movement within the Islamic faith. It first emerged in the second half of the 19th century, and shares a lot in common with Wahhabism, the brand generally advanced by Saudi financing and government. Until the emergence of Al Qaeda (for Wahhabism) or ISIS (for Salafism), they were generally isolated pockets within more dominant Muslim sects (although ones that may have been at least partly sympathetic to their views).

I'm not sure where you got your "there's 50 million Salafi Muslims" figure from, but I'm sure you'll tell us.

Worldwide there are roughly 50 million Salafists,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement
Dr. Patrick M. Cronin | Center for a New American Security
 

Chagos

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
30,067
Reaction score
8,141
Location
in expatria
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Distinction between Salafi and Wahhabi are made primarily by Salafi who shun the term Wahhabism. Seeing how it's named after a radical preacher that didn't walk this earth until the 1700s, it's deemed a derogatory term by Salafis. Basically because they wish to associate their particular interpretation of faith with the original teachings of 1400 years ago, rather than with what could be considered an upstart Bedouin preacher from times more recent. Salaf pertaining to the first generations of Muslims.

Most Sunni Muslims (the vast majority) that do not adhere to the movement (under whatever name), however consider the terms to be synonymous. Distinction without difference so to speak.

Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar university in Cairo (the most prominent and most respected camp of theology within Islam) have named the whole direction as being "satanic".

That Shi'ites don't adhere to it goes without saying, seeing how they consider all Sunnis to be infidels anyway (works both ways).

One should not broad-brush Salafists into the same color as its smallest sub-section, Salafist jihadism. Small as that may be within the movement, it is however also by now the most infamous. Born from (by) internationalist Muslim fighters in Afghanistan (against the godless Soviets), it's a hybrid of religion and political ideology and thus relatively new. Even where its (many) fathers are of course older, the Muslim brotherhood being probably the most prominent.

IS is salafist-jihadist.
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It's never a surprise to see a person with your political views rush to defend Islamists.

Please link to where I "defended Islamists." Go ahead, I'll wait.
 

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,277
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
One should not broad-brush Salafists into the same color as its smallest sub-section, Salafist jihadism. Small as that may be within the movement, it is however also by now the most infamous. Born from (by) internationalist Muslim fighters in Afghanistan (against the godless Soviets), it's a hybrid of religion and political ideology and thus relatively new. Even where its (many) fathers are of course older, the Muslim brotherhood being probably th
IS is salafist-jihadist.

When you read the writings of Salafi Muslim imams and scholars, they are constantly referring to the "enemy". Most of these writers don't condone jihad, at least the jihad that we're accustomed to seeing, but who is this " enemy " that they're constantly referring to? Non-muslims? Non Salafi Muslims?

They don't verbally object to killing people for jihad, they say that the proper authorities aren't being consulted first before the killing takes place, and that's why they object.
------------

Do you think that Salafi, or any Muslim who wants Sharia Law instituted in Europe, is a proper fit for living in Europe?
 

Chagos

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
30,067
Reaction score
8,141
Location
in expatria
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
When you read the writings of Salafi Muslim imams and scholars, they are constantly referring to the "enemy". Most of these writers don't condone jihad, at least the jihad that we're accustomed to seeing, but who is this " enemy " that they're constantly referring to? Non-muslims? Non Salafi Muslims?
........all those considered a peril (threat) to the faith. That, of course, provides conveniently broad opportunity of interpretation and the more radical elements love it. Daesh is, as we can see, having a field day with the possibilities, declaring anyone not of their persuasion to be "enemy". That would include original acolytes of proven "loyalty" that are meanwhile having qualms about the whole thing and want to leave.

They don't verbally object to killing people for jihad, they say that the proper authorities aren't being consulted first before the killing takes place, and that's why they object.
------------
Those saying that and not being part of Daesh are invoking due process of law. In other words that not just anyone can take the law into their own hands.

Do you think that Salafi, or any Muslim who wants Sharia Law instituted in Europe, is a proper fit for living in Europe?
By the principles of freedom of speech, even where they are not the same as in the US, he's allowed to hold that desire. When he (or she) starts making moves to lord it over everyone, I'm all for cutting out the tongue. :mrgreen:

Okay, exaggerations for comical benefit aside, I oppose ANY religious or ideological (or both) stance to supersede the law of the land.

One of the reasons I'm dead against diocesan courts and Jewish courts (Beth Din) as well. Not simply because I'm irreligious. I know and have known plenty of people from all the above persuasions that were and are equally critical of secular law being thus undermined.
 

stevecanuck

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
5,740
Reaction score
1,405
Location
Canada / Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
When you read the writings of Salafi Muslim imams and scholars, they are constantly referring to the "enemy". Most of these writers don't condone jihad, at least the jihad that we're accustomed to seeing, but who is this " enemy " that they're constantly referring to? Non-muslims? Non Salafi Muslims?

They don't verbally object to killing people for jihad, they say that the proper authorities aren't being consulted first before the killing takes place, and that's why they object.
------------

Do you think that Salafi, or any Muslim who wants Sharia Law instituted in Europe, is a proper fit for living in Europe?

For Muslims, defining "the enemy" was a lot easier 1400 years ago. Then there were only Muslims and non-Muslims, and "God" made crystal clear that infidels were the enemy. Verse 4:101 says, "infidels are unto you open enemies", and 2:98 says, "God is the enemy of infidels". Not a lot of wiggle room there. If you examine the context of those quotes you'll find that in sura 4, starting with 4:94, God is exhorting people to "go forth in the cause of allah" (in other words, fight). He then defines the enemy. Us. In sura 2 "God" has just finished slagging the Jews (again), then punctuates his hatred for them with 2:98.


Now with about 74 sects of Islam, the program has become more crowded with new players, and quite honestly I'm not interested in sorting that mess out for them. Suffice it to say that nothing has changed in terms of you and me still being on the "wrong" side.
 

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,277
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
........all those considered a peril (threat) to the faith. That, of course, provides conveniently broad opportunity of interpretation and the more radical elements love it.

Considering that Salafis see Shi'a and Jews to be the greatest peril to the faith, how are they supposed to live in peace with these groups when they find themselves in a melting pot like Europe and the United States? There have been skirmishes between muslims and Jews in France in the past few years, and an attack at the Seattle Jewish Federation in Seattle, by a Muslim American from a comfortable background.

Daesh is, as we can see, having a field day with the possibilities, declaring anyone not of their persuasion to be "enemy". That would include original acolytes of proven "loyalty" that are meanwhile having qualms about the whole thing and want to leave.

One Russian Isis recruit who defected, said that he witnessed Isis committing the worst atrocities on Christians, which is really saying something, considering the animalistic behavior that Isis has displayed. He said that some mercy would be shown towards captured muslims on occasion, but captured Christians were never spared.

I've seen the reports of Isis members who we caught trying to defect, they're branded as "spies" and executed.

Those saying that and not being part of Daesh are invoking due process of law. In other words that not just anyone can take the law into their own hands.

Believing that religious leaders or government officials have a right and obligation to imprison and kill supposed "enemies" of Islam, goes completely contrary to Europe's culture of allowing people to worship who they wish. Whether its Isis doing the killing, or a cleric giving death orders, Europe needs to beware of those who support Sharia and religious killings, and not allow that kind of hate.

Okay, exaggerations for comical benefit aside, I oppose ANY religious or ideological (or both) stance to supersede the law of the land.

Then you are a peril to the faith! Me too! :cheers:

One of the reasons I'm dead against diocesan courts and Jewish courts (Beth Din) as well. Not simply because I'm irreligious. I know and have known plenty of people from all the above persuasions that were and are equally critical of secular law being thus undermined.

As far as I'm aware, no significant movement exists outside of Israel that want Beth Din used for determining law. Maybe I'm mistaken, I'm not a European resident. Even if there are, I'm sure that they don't represent any growing concern like Sharia supporters in parts of the UK, who want to abolish English traditions in favor of their own.
 

Coldwine

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
120
Reaction score
61
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Distinction between Salafi and Wahhabi are made primarily by Salafi who shun the term Wahhabism. Seeing how it's named after a radical preacher that didn't walk this earth until the 1700s, it's deemed a derogatory term by Salafis. Basically because they wish to associate their particular interpretation of faith with the original teachings of 1400 years ago, rather than with what could be considered an upstart Bedouin preacher from times more recent. Salaf pertaining to the first generations of Muslims.

Most Sunni Muslims (the vast majority) that do not adhere to the movement (under whatever name), however consider the terms to be synonymous. Distinction without difference so to speak.

Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar university in Cairo (the most prominent and most respected camp of theology within Islam) have named the whole direction as being "satanic".

That Shi'ites don't adhere to it goes without saying, seeing how they consider all Sunnis to be infidels anyway (works both ways).

That's not really 100% true. In Islam, it is generally considered very bad to declare another Muslim to be a non-believer (called takfir). Generally, this could only be done by a body of legal scholars, and while Shia and Sunni Muslims disagree on a lot, they don't disagree to that point. The only relevant historical Muslim group which did this on a large-scale, and based on doctrinal deviations, were the Khawarij, a radical group which played a role in the first Fitnah, and they were denounced by both Shia and Sunni clerics, and were actually formally declared to be kafir for engaging in spurious takfir. While the two groups did use the word 'kafir' to refer to one another on a regular basis, this was just polemical and not legally binding in the way that a declaration of takfir was.

Salafists/Wahhabists, however, take after that Khawarij in some respects. This is how a lot of Salafi groups justify their tactics; al-Wahhab declared people who pray to or ask intercession from the dead to be unbelievers. This is a huge deal, because the vast majority of the Muslim world does this, so people who follow his teachings basically consider most Muslims to be non-Muslims. It's how they justify their tactics; if you can declare that people who don't belong to your sect are not Muslims, then things like bombings can be justified by classifying most of the Muslim world as enemy combatants. It also helps that they dispense with most of the intricate Islamic jurisprudence which protects non-believer non-combatants in their quest for 'doctrinal purity'. Whereas under classical Islamic law, there is no way in hell that setting off a bomb in a civilian center could ever be justified.

A reason that most mainstream sects loath Salafism is also tied into a historical aspect of this. Because al-Wahhab had such a huge problem with this reverence of dead people, his followers, when they gained control of the Hejaz, destroyed centuries old tombs of the Prophet's companions, wives, and extended family, and even came close to destroying the tomb of Muhammad himself before they were stopped by public outcry. This was absolutely abhorrent to most of the Islamic world, and is a point of much resentment. It's also behind ISIL's iconoclasm.

One should not broad-brush Salafists into the same color as its smallest sub-section, Salafist jihadism. Small as that may be within the movement, it is however also by now the most infamous. Born from (by) internationalist Muslim fighters in Afghanistan (against the godless Soviets), it's a hybrid of religion and political ideology and thus relatively new. Even where its (many) fathers are of course older, the Muslim brotherhood being probably the most prominent.

IS is salafist-jihadist.

The Taliban do have ties to Salafists, but they are largely Deobandi, another revivalist sect which lacks the takfiri elements of Salafism.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's not really 100% true. In Islam, it is generally considered very bad to declare another Muslim to be a non-believer (called takfir). Generally, this could only be done by a body of legal scholars, and while Shia and Sunni Muslims disagree on a lot, they don't disagree to that point. The only relevant historical Muslim group which did this on a large-scale, and based on doctrinal deviations, were the Khawarij, a radical group which played a role in the first Fitnah, and they were denounced by both Shia and Sunni clerics, and were actually formally declared to be kafir for engaging in spurious takfir. While the two groups did use the word 'kafir' to refer to one another on a regular basis, this was just polemical and not legally binding in the way that a declaration of takfir was.

Salafists/Wahhabists, however, take after that Khawarij in some respects. This is how a lot of Salafi groups justify their tactics; al-Wahhab declared people who pray to or ask intercession from the dead to be unbelievers. This is a huge deal, because the vast majority of the Muslim world does this, so people who follow his teachings basically consider most Muslims to be non-Muslims. It's how they justify their tactics; if you can declare that people who don't belong to your sect are not Muslims, then things like bombings can be justified by classifying most of the Muslim world as enemy combatants. It also helps that they dispense with most of the intricate Islamic jurisprudence which protects non-believer non-combatants in their quest for 'doctrinal purity'. Whereas under classical Islamic law, there is no way in hell that setting off a bomb in a civilian center could ever be justified.

A reason that most mainstream sects loath Salafism is also tied into a historical aspect of this. Because al-Wahhab had such a huge problem with this reverence of dead people, his followers, when they gained control of the Hejaz, destroyed centuries old tombs of the Prophet's companions, wives, and extended family, and even came close to destroying the tomb of Muhammad himself before they were stopped by public outcry. This was absolutely abhorrent to most of the Islamic world, and is a point of much resentment. It's also behind ISIL's iconoclasm.



The Taliban do have ties to Salafists, but they are largely Deobandi, another revivalist sect which lacks the takfiri elements of Salafism.

History of why and what still trace back to the original inspirations of the Koran and Hadiths. This literature lays out common goals for every sect of Islam. Replete with obligations and punishments or rewards.

And people say there is a public outcry from Muslims about terrorism, why is it not enough to stop it?
 

Coldwine

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
120
Reaction score
61
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
History of why and what still trace back to the original inspirations of the Koran and Hadiths. This literature lays out common goals for every sect of Islam. Replete with obligations and punishments or rewards.

And people say there is a public outcry from Muslims about terrorism, why is it not enough to stop it?

Like all things, it's open to interpretation. For centuries, the Islamic world has built up an intricate system of jurisprudence which put these laws into a social context, an education system to cultivate a scholarly class, and a political system which lived alongside religious jurisprudence. The biggest problem happened with the Arab revolt. Afterwards, the more moderate, traditional leader (Sharif Hussein of the Hashemites) was ousted because he was not pliable to Western interests, and they threw their lot in with the House of Saud instead. The West also launced a misguided Westernization campaign which destroyed the old education infrastructure, and destabilized the existing scholarly class. Now what happened next isn't the West's fault, it was fairly unpredictable. The House of Saud struck oil big time and then WWII hit, and they sold it like nobody's business. The money that they gained went into spreading their form of Islam, Salafism, which up until this point had been a fringe, borderline heretical sect isolated in the Najd area of the Arabian peninsula. Their aggressive evangelism meant that Salafi mosques sprung up all over the Middle East. Where the scholarly class and traditional schools of thought were strong they suppressed, censured, and ridiculed Salafism. But where it was weak, Salafism established itself.

Then the West played with fire, and tried to use Salafism as a weapon against the Soviets in the Cold War, creating al-Qaeda and the Taliban (this was also an attempt to relieve pressure on Israel by redirecting attention to the godless commies). Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, played a quiet game. They allied with the West in theory, but their longterm goal was (and is) the destabilization of the Middle East, the spread of Salafism into those power vacuums, and the undermining of their biggest rivals: Ba'athism, Shi'a Islam, and Western style democracy. Ba'athism died in Syria and Iraq, the Saudis are currently waging a shadow war on Iran, and Turkey is slowly crumbling as a bastion of Western Republicanism. The problem is that the West's main priority in the Middle East is to pursue its own short-term interests, that the long-term interests of the Saudis involve the perpetuation of religious extremism to undermine geopolitical rivals, and that moderate Muslims are seen as a hostile force in their bid for dominance. Frankly, the people who run the West don't care if the Middle East is destabilized with radicalism because as long as they are all fighting each other it make power projection easier. Moderate Muslims obviously hate what is happening, but they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The powers that be on the world stage see them as pawns at best, and as fodder at worst, the Salafists see their children as fresh recruitment material, and realize that the more miserable moderate Muslims are, the more amenable their children are to radicalism. And the people who do care about their well-being are so frantically trying to staunch the river of blood that they are running a little ragged at this point. And on top of this all is a game of geopolitical chess between Russia, Europe, and America. The entire thing is a nightmare situation, and it's now bleeding into the West with the refugee crisis. The best thing that we could do, for the Middle East, would be to put the women, children, and elderly refugees in temporary camps, ship the young men back to Syria, and partner with Russia to restore stability. But we won't, because America ultimately sees Syria as a battlefield with Russia, not as a country to fix. Hopefully this will change if Trump is elected.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Like all things, it's open to interpretation. For centuries, the Islamic world has built up an intricate system of jurisprudence which put these laws into a social context, an education system to cultivate a scholarly class, and a political system which lived alongside religious jurisprudence. The biggest problem happened with the Arab revolt. Afterwards, the more moderate, traditional leader (Sharif Hussein of the Hashemites) was ousted because he was not pliable to Western interests, and they threw their lot in with the House of Saud instead. The West also launced a misguided Westernization campaign which destroyed the old education infrastructure, and destabilized the existing scholarly class. Now what happened next isn't the West's fault, it was fairly unpredictable. The House of Saud struck oil big time and then WWII hit, and they sold it like nobody's business. The money that they gained went into spreading their form of Islam, Salafism, which up until this point had been a fringe, borderline heretical sect isolated in the Najd area of the Arabian peninsula. Their aggressive evangelism meant that Salafi mosques sprung up all over the Middle East. Where the scholarly class and traditional schools of thought were strong they suppressed, censured, and ridiculed Salafism. But where it was weak, Salafism established itself.

Then the West played with fire, and tried to use Salafism as a weapon against the Soviets in the Cold War, creating al-Qaeda and the Taliban (this was also an attempt to relieve pressure on Israel by redirecting attention to the godless commies). Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, played a quiet game. They allied with the West in theory, but their longterm goal was (and is) the destabilization of the Middle East, the spread of Salafism into those power vacuums, and the undermining of their biggest rivals: Ba'athism, Shi'a Islam, and Western style democracy. Ba'athism died in Syria and Iraq, the Saudis are currently waging a shadow war on Iran, and Turkey is slowly crumbling as a bastion of Western Republicanism. The problem is that the West's main priority in the Middle East is to pursue its own short-term interests, that the long-term interests of the Saudis involve the perpetuation of religious extremism to undermine geopolitical rivals, and that moderate Muslims are seen as a hostile force in their bid for dominance. Frankly, the people who run the West don't care if the Middle East is destabilized with radicalism because as long as they are all fighting each other it make power projection easier. Moderate Muslims obviously hate what is happening, but they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The powers that be on the world stage see them as pawns at best, and as fodder at worst, the Salafists see their children as fresh recruitment material, and realize that the more miserable moderate Muslims are, the more amenable their children are to radicalism. And the people who do care about their well-being are so frantically trying to staunch the river of blood that they are running a little ragged at this point. And on top of this all is a game of geopolitical chess between Russia, Europe, and America. The entire thing is a nightmare situation, and it's now bleeding into the West with the refugee crisis. The best thing that we could do, for the Middle East, would be to put the women, children, and elderly refugees in temporary camps, ship the young men back to Syria, and partner with Russia to restore stability. But we won't, because America ultimately sees Syria as a battlefield with Russia, not as a country to fix. Hopefully this will change if Trump is elected.

It is not open to interpretation. The Koran is to be interpreted literally and says so itself. Islam as Mohammad and his sock puppet Allah dictated is Islam. And after abrogation you are left with a violent supremacist ideology obligated to dominate the world by any means possible.
 

Coldwine

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
120
Reaction score
61
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It is not open to interpretation. The Koran is to be interpreted literally and says so itself. Islam as Mohammad and his sock puppet Allah dictated is Islam. And after abrogation you are left with a violent supremacist ideology obligated to dominate the world by any means possible.

Well, I guess I'll just take your word for it...

I'm not saying that the Koran is lovey-dovey, Kumbaya, lets all hold hands and sing about peace and understanding. I'm saying that interpretation is an important part of every religion. Your assertion that literalism is the only possible path is, well, just flat-out wrong. All of human history stands testament to that. Religion is always moderated by practical concerns and the social conditions of each age.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, I guess I'll just take your word for it...

I'm not saying that the Koran is lovey-dovey, Kumbaya, lets all hold hands and sing about peace and understanding. I'm saying that interpretation is an important part of every religion. Your assertion that literalism is the only possible path is, well, just flat-out wrong. All of human history stands testament to that. Religion is always moderated by practical concerns and the social conditions of each age.

Wrong.
He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

Qur'an 3:7
 

Coldwine

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
120
Reaction score
61
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

I don't see why you think that that verse proves me wrong. It's one of the more esoteric ones. It says that there are both vague (allegorical) and specific (decisive) verses in the Quran, and that attempting to interpret the allegorical points can cause confusion because only God knows their true meaning.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't see why you think that that verse proves me wrong. It's one of the more esoteric ones. It says that there are both vague (allegorical) and specific (decisive) verses in the Quran, and that attempting to interpret the allegorical points can cause confusion because only God knows their true meaning.


When the Koran says kill it is not allegorical. When the Koran says rocks talk that is allegory.
 

Coldwine

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
120
Reaction score
61
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When the Koran says kill it is not allegorical. When the Koran says rocks talk that is allegory.

When the Quran references killing it is usually in a wider context which those quoting it completely ignore.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When the Quran references killing it is usually in a wider context which those quoting it completely ignore.

Context is the last refuge of most apologists. Are you telling me non-believers are not to be killed or subdued? That message is one of the clearest obligations in the Koran.
 

Coldwine

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
120
Reaction score
61
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Context is the last refuge of most apologists. Are you telling me non-believers are not to be killed or subdued? That message is one of the clearest obligations in the Koran.

That first line is pretty priceless. As if taking context into account is somehow irrational, as opposed to ignoring it.

Are you actually going to quote anything?

The Quran puts an immense weight on treaty. Either a body of non-believers are under treaty with the Muslims, or they are at war. The form of those treaties has varied widely throughout history, and characterize them all as an attempt to subdue is gross oversimplification. Just look at the Treaty of Tripoli for an example of a treaty in which the non-believer was never subdued.
 

coldjoint

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
14,235
Reaction score
1,453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That first line is pretty priceless. As if taking context into account is somehow irrational, as opposed to ignoring it.

Are you actually going to quote anything?

The Quran puts an immense weight on treaty. Either a body of non-believers are under treaty with the Muslims, or they are at war. The form of those treaties has varied widely throughout history, and characterize them all as an attempt to subdue is gross oversimplification. Just look at the Treaty of Tripoli for an example of a treaty in which the non-believer was never subdued.

What is gross is the over thinking of the problem we have with an intolerant culture that refuses to assimilate to host countries and engages in jihad(terror, rape, intimidation, mob action) And genocide when possible, as Christians in Africa and the ME could tell you.

Also it is clear the popular influences are radical or Islamist, not a peaceful Islam which is a myth anyway. Peace is not attained until Islam dominates the world.
 
Top Bottom