Separating Islam from "All Muslims".

[Sherman123]

Was Al-andulus a region full of tyranny?

Cities of Light: The Rise and Fall of Islamic Spain - Intro - YouTube

No it wasn't, at least not compared to its contemporaries. But that doesn't obviate what Goshin said in the slightest. The Emirate of Corduba, and the entirety of al-Andalus, was still governed as a polity adhering to Islamic law. That it's liberality waxed and waned according to the era doesn't alter the point that was made.

 

[Sherman123]

And out of 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, only 20,000 or so have joined Daesh's path to oblivion.

Firstly let's be accurate, its more than 20,000. According to the CIA at least 30,000 foreign fighters alone have entered Syria to join the Islamic State and its paramilitary affiliates, or if not the Islamic State its contemporaries in groups like Jabhat al-Nusra. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/w...yria-to-join-isis-despite-global-efforts.html).

Secondly it misses the point. The problem with Islamism isn't just the hundreds of thousands of fighters who have taken up arms across the planet, it is the cultural and communal support which makes it possible for these groups to metastasize and more importantly to rule the areas they manage to conquer. Is it a majority? No. Is it a plurality? No. But is it a significant and powerful minority? Yes. Even in some regions it is arguably stronger than even that.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

No it wasn't, at least not compared to its contemporaries. But that doesn't obviate what Goshin said in the slightest. The Emirate of Corduba, and the entirety of al-Andalus, was still governed as a polity adhering to Islamic law. That it's liberality waxed and waned according to the era doesn't alter the point that was made.

But the muslim rulers of al Andalus allowed Christians and Jews to coexist alongside Muslims. It was nothing like the twisted vision deash tries to force upon the world.

 

[Sherman123]

But the muslim rulers of al Andalus allowed Christians and Jews to coexist alongside Muslims. It was nothing like the twisted vision deash tries to force upon the world.

They also executed people for apostasy, adultery, disobedience, slave flight, etc, etc. They were comparatively generous and liberal but still tethered to the tenants of Islamic Law. They were superior to ISIS, no question, but that isn't an argument for the basic acceptability of a state hewing to Shariah.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Firstly let's be accurate, its more than 20,000. According to the CIA at least 30,000 foreign fighters alone have entered Syria to join the Islamic State and its paramilitary affiliates, or if not the Islamic State its contemporaries in groups like Jabhat al-Nusra. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/w...yria-to-join-isis-despite-global-efforts.html).

Secondly it misses the point. The problem with Islamism isn't just the hundreds of thousands of fighters who have taken up arms across the planet, it is the cultural and communal support which makes it possible for these groups to metastasize and more importantly to rule the areas they manage to conquer. Is it a majority? No. Is it a plurality? No. But is it a significant and powerful minority? Yes. Even in some regions it is arguably stronger than even that.

Then why not keep Daesh in that minority and don't give them the opportunity to frame their psychotic war of self-destruction as a war between Islam and the western world. Do not give deash the opportunity to bring every Muslim to their banner.

 

[Orly?]

Then why not keep Daesh in that minority and don't give them the opportunity to frame their psychotic war of self-destruction as a war between Islam and the western world. Do not give deash the opportunity to bring every Muslim to their banner.

Well then tell the other muslims they better start really doing something about it...

 

[Unitedwestand13]

They also executed people for apostasy, adultery, disobedience, slave flight, etc, etc. They were comparatively generous and liberal but still tethered to the tenants of Islamic Law. They were superior to ISIS, no question, but that isn't an argument for the basic acceptability of a state hewing to Shariah.

But it also does not condem every Muslim as a sympathetic supporter of Daesh.

 

[HonestJoe]

1400 years ago there was a "singular agreed definition of what Islam actually is". Mohamed made it abundantly clear, and that's the Islam ISIS is trying to recreate. That's why we need to know the Qur'an and hadiths.

We don’t know exactly what Mohammed really thought and said and the Koran (like most religious texts) is very much open to interpretation. The Sunni/Shia schism happened fairly early on the basis of fundamental differences in interpretation and leadership after all.

Regardless, there certainly isn’t a singular agreed definition of Islam today as the various sects and groupings have continued to develop and different directions, largely due to different environments.

 

[Kobie]

Well then tell the other muslims they better start really doing something about it...

Yeah, because there's no Muslims fighting against ISIS.

The vast majority of Muslims, just like the vast majority of anybody, just want to live their lives and provide for their families. You're demanding that they "do something" about a very well-funded, well-armed group, propped up by several governments, even though dissent is the fastest way to being dead.

What, exactly, is some cabbie from Baghdad supposed to do about Daesh?

 

[Chagos]

1400 years ago there was a "singular agreed definition of what Islam actually is". Mohamed made it abundantly clear, and that's the Islam ISIS is trying to recreate. That's why we need to know the Qur'an and hadiths.

You might want to brush up on history more and go more easy on the (convenient to some) soundbites of today.

What Daesh is trying to impose right now is an 18th century version that's called Wahhabism. And they're not above corrupting even that.

And BTW, knowing the qur'an and the hadiths, where certainly useful, a scholar steeped in theology doth not make.

 

[Orly?]

What, exactly, is some cabbie from Baghdad supposed to do about Daesh?

Join the resistance..

 

[stevecanuck]

We don’t know exactly what Mohammed really thought and said

Actually we know quite a lot about what Mohamed said and thought. Every word in the Qur'an came out of his mouth*, and the hadiths** are verbatim accounts of conversations he had.

* There's always going to be debate over whether it's been transcribed correctly, but that's a moot point because Muslims believe it has been.
** Same as above. Both the Qur'an and hadiths were compiled well after Mohamed's death, but they're considered to be correct.

and the Koran (like most religious texts) is very much open to interpretation.

No it isn't. It's believed to be a verbatim sermon from god, and as such is much less open to interpretation. It's full of absolute commands and proclamations.

The Sunni/Shia schism happened fairly early on the basis of fundamental differences in interpretation and leadership after all.

Nope, it was just leadership. All the other differences have came since then. The Origins Of The Shiite-Sunni Split : Parallels : NPR

"Shia believed that leadership should stay within the family of the prophet," notes Gregory Gause, professor of Middle East politics at the University of Vermont. "And thus they were the partisans of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law. Sunnis believed that leadership should fall to the person who was deemed by the elite of the community to be best able to lead the community. And it was fundamentally that political division that began the Sunni-Shia split."

Regardless, there certainly isn’t a singular agreed definition of Islam today as the various sects and groupings have continued to develop and different directions, largely due to different environments.

Yes and no. There was only "Islam" in the day of Mohamed, but now there are about 74 sects, so you have a point. But, if you look and numbers, you'll see that most of those sects account for little more than round-off error compared to the number of Sunni and 12er Shia (Iranians). Sunnis are somewhere around 80 percent of the total, and they're the ones who populate ISIS etc.

 

[stevecanuck]

You might want to brush up on history more and go more easy on the (convenient to some) soundbites of today.

What Daesh is trying to impose right now is an 18th century version that's called Wahhabism. And they're not above corrupting even that.

And Wahabism is (note the bold underlined phrase).........

Explainer: what is Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia?

What is Wahhabism?

Wahhabism is an Arabian form of Salafism, the movement within Islam aimed at its “purification” and the return to the Islam of the Prophet Mohammed and the three successive generations of followers.

And BTW, knowing the qur'an and the hadiths, where certainly useful, a scholar steeped in theology doth not make.

And knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't make one a mathematician, but the answer is still 4. Please correct me if you see me making any errors.

 

[Chagos]

.................... Please correct me if you see me making any errors.

I wouldn't go so far as to see errors, my point that remains is that Wahhabism is not the Islam of 632, it did not arise as an interpretation until Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb formulated it in the 18th century.

It came to prominence only via Wahhab's alliance with the Saud tribe and before that played no role in Islamic governance anywhere. Not in the caliphates and not in the (later) to follow Ottoman Sultanate.

Although sharing common concepts and often feeding off each other, Salafists are not by default Wahhabites and Wahhabites not by default Salafists. Where some of either will claim the distinction to be moot, there are just as many in either camp insisting on that distinction.

By the early 1900s the reformative currents of modernisation in Islam were actually called Salafiyya. Nevertheless the 6 day war (with Israel) and the Iranian revolution caused inner factions today best described as neo-fundmentalist to wash to the top virtually everywhere except in Saudi. Saudi having already been what one may unkindly term stone age Islam ever since its kingdom was founded, respectively the tribe conquered the peninsula.

What by now both (separate or one as part of the other) share is the design to reject centuries of theological development in Islam, ultimately wishing to return to the fundamental roots (no dispute from me there).

To hold them, in their return to the backwardness of fundamentalism, as representing Islam overall would however be incorrect.

That Islam, thruout the centuries, has always been open to interpretation and current attempts by fundamentalists to eradicate that quality are nothing new in its overall history.

So black and white it ain't.

P.S. to apply the term Salafist to all wanting to return to the 7th century is a misleading generalization. Wahhabists are quite a different matter.

 

[coldjoint]

I wouldn't go so far as to see errors, my point that remains is that Wahhabism is not the Islam of 632, it did not arise as an interpretation until Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb formulated it in the 18th century.

It came to prominence only via Wahhab's alliance with the Saud tribe and before that played no role in Islamic governance anywhere. Not in the caliphates and not in the (later) to follow Ottoman Sultanate.

Although sharing common concepts and often feeding off each other, Salafists are not by default Wahhabites and Wahhabites not by default Salafists. Where some of either will claim the distinction to be moot, there are just as many in either camp insisting on that distinction.

By the early 1900s the reformative currents of modernisation in Islam were actually called Salafiyya. Nevertheless the 6 day war (with Israel) and the Iranian revolution caused inner factions today best described as neo-fundmentalist to wash to the top virtually everywhere except in Saudi. Saudi having already been what one may unkindly term stone age Islam ever since its kingdom was founded, respectively the tribe conquered the peninsula.

What by now both (separate or one as part of the other) share is the design to reject centuries of theological development in Islam, ultimately wishing to return to the fundamental roots (no dispute from me there).

To hold them, in their return to the backwardness of fundamentalism, as representing Islam overall would however be incorrect.

That Islam, thruout the centuries, has always been open to interpretation and current attempts by fundamentalists to eradicate that quality are nothing new in its overall history.

So black and white it ain't.

P.S. to apply the term Salafist to all wanting to return to the 7th century is a misleading generalization. Wahhabists are quite a different matter.

That is because there are to be no changes in Islam. You can pick and choose who is the most backwards or violent, but it does not change what Islam obligates to adherents. One religion. World dominance. Islamic law.

And as in the beginning, by any means possible.

 

[Chagos]

That is because there are to be no changes in Islam. You can pick and choose who is the most backwards or violent, but it does not change what Islam obligates to adherents. One religion. World dominance. Islamic law.

And as in the beginning, by any means possible.

Yeah, well, wrong.

But stick with it by all means. It requires no study, no research, in short no need to seek education.

Pre-gurgitated soundbites also have the advantage of not even requiring all that much chewing anymore.

Ah, the bliss one finds in simplicity. If Ivan Petrovich had only known that he needn't have bothered with dogs.

 

[coldjoint]

Yeah, well, wrong.

But stick with it by all means. It requires no study, no research, in short no need to seek education.

Pre-gurgitated soundbites also have the advantage of not even requiring all that much chewing anymore.

Ah, the bliss one finds in simplicity. If Ivan Petrovich had only known that he needn't have bothered with dogs.

What would you like to know about Islam? Or do wish to explain it to me?

 

[Chagos]

What would you like to know about Islam? Or do wish to explain it to me?

Okay, that made me laugh and I don't care who you are.:mrgreen:

When I feel the need, I'll ask somebody who knows and should I wish to explain, I'll do it to those with a mind.

Open mind, I should add.

Cheers.

 

[coldjoint]

Okay, that made me laugh and I don't care who you are.:mrgreen:

When I feel the need, I'll ask somebody who knows and should I wish to explain, I'll do it to those with a mind.

Open mind, I should add.

Cheers.

You are not supposed to insult(or try to insult) people here. If you wish to argue how Islam got this way you are wasting your time, and everyone elses.

The Koran is set in stone. Those three things I named are the objective. Again everything has a beginning, but perfection like the Koran is eternal(in the eyes of the devout). Or do deny any of that?

If you wish to make excuses and complicate a very simple concept to grasp by a perponderance of evidence, please spare us.

 

[HonestJoe]

Actually we know quite a lot about what Mohamed said and thought. Every word in the Qur'an came out of his mouth*, and the hadiths** are verbatim accounts of conversations he had.

(Most) Muslims believe that to be the case but that doesn’t mean it is. It’s also wrapping in a lot of poetic language which opens it to different direct interpretations and translations before anyone starts thinking about what is actually meant.

No it isn't. It's believed to be a verbatim sermon from god, and as such is much less open to interpretation. It's full of absolute commands and proclamations.

Demonstrably false given the massive range of beliefs and practices of Muslims across the world. The pretty much all believe in the absolute teachings of the Koran, they just disagree what it absolutely says and means.

Nope, it was just leadership. All the other differences have came since then.

The disagreement on leadership was about the fundamental nature of Mohammed and thus whether his role should be inherited or appointed.

Yes and no. There was only "Islam" in the day of Mohamed, but now there are about 74 sects, so you have a point. But, if you look and numbers, you'll see that most of those sects account for little more than round-off error compared to the number of Sunni and 12er Shia (Iranians). Sunnis are somewhere around 80 percent of the total, and they're the ones who populate ISIS etc.

It’s less about the number of sects and more about the number of Muslims. Even different Sunnis have significant divergent believes and live in different ways. After all, it remains a minority who are actively engaged in any way in the violent terrorism and IS is opposed by other Sunnis (if only on political grounds).

The bottom line is that in the same way it’s wrong to attack all Muslims on the basis of the words and actions of some, it’s wrong to attack all Islam on the teachings and practices of some. Since Muslim just means someone who practices Islam, these two points are really interchangeable in this context. Individual Muslims should be treated on their merits and flaws, just like anyone else.

 

[Chagos]

You are not supposed to insult(or try to insult) people here. If you wish to argue how Islam got this way you are wasting your time, and everyone elses.

The Koran is set in stone. Those three things I named are the objective. Again everything has a beginning, but perfection like the Koran is eternal(in the eyes of the devout). Or do deny any of that?

If you wish to make excuses and complicate a very simple concept to grasp by a perponderance of evidence, please spare us.

Cheers means bye.

 

[D_NATURED]

This moronic deflection onto Christianity every time islam gets brought up is ridiculous..

This thread is about the difference between islam and all muslims, you guys with your christian bashing are way off topic..

Sure, the invisible CHRISTIAN sky man is sooooo different from the Muslim version. Why are you unable to see the common ground between them?

 

[stevecanuck]

Sure, the invisible CHRISTIAN sky man is sooooo different from the Muslim version. Why are you unable to see the common ground between them?

They're VERY different. The Christian version went from OT bad ass to relatively nice guy (for no apparent reason). Christians take their name from Christ. NT guy. Very nice fictional man according to all accounts. The Muslim god just got more bad ass with each passing day. His final word on warfare and spreading Islam was verse 9:29. Again, VERY different.

 

[stevecanuck]

The following is in response to HonestJoe.

Quote Originally Posted by stevecanuck View Post
Actually we know quite a lot about what Mohamed said and thought. Every word in the Qur'an came out of his mouth*, and the hadiths** are verbatim accounts of conversations he had.

(Most) Muslims believe that to be the case but that doesn’t mean it is.

True, but how does that matter? They think they're listening to god and they act accordingly. The fact that you and I know Mohamed was just making 5h!t up as he went along is irrelevant.

It’s also wrapping in a lot of poetic language which opens it to different direct interpretations and translations before anyone starts thinking about what is actually meant.

No. It says what it says. There is simply no way of making "allah la yeheb al kafareen" mean anything other than "God does not love infidels", no matter what language you speak.

Quote Originally Posted by stevecanuck View Post
No it isn't. It's believed to be a verbatim sermon from god, and as such is much less open to interpretation. It's full of absolute commands and proclamations.

Demonstrably false given the massive range of beliefs and practices of Muslims across the world. The pretty much all believe in the absolute teachings of the Koran, they just disagree what it absolutely says and means.

Again, no. The Qur'an is probably the only constant that all Muslim sects have in common. All sectarian differences are post-Qur'an, and therefore post-Mohamed. Many of the sects have done the forbidden, which is to add to what was "revealed" to Mohamed. Some have added saints and ceremonies unheard of during Mohamed's lifetime, while others have taken additional prophets.

The fact that Mohamed's Islam has been corrupted by some doesn't mean the Qur'an isn't, as I said, "full of absolute commands and proclamations"

Quote Originally Posted by stevecanuck View Post
Nope, it was just leadership. All the other differences have came since then.

The disagreement on leadership was about the fundamental nature of Mohammed and thus whether his role should be inherited or appointed.

Correct. Shia say inherited, Sunnis say appointed. This schism was the best thing to ever happen for the rest of us. Imagine the 5h!t that would be happening if Islam were as united today as it was 1400 years ago.

Quote Originally Posted by stevecanuck View Post
Yes and no. There was only "Islam" in the day of Mohamed, but now there are about 74 sects, so you have a point. But, if you look and numbers, you'll see that most of those sects account for little more than round-off error compared to the number of Sunni and 12er Shia (Iranians). Sunnis are somewhere around 80 percent of the total, and they're the ones who populate ISIS etc.

It’s less about the number of sects and more about the number of Muslims. Even different Sunnis have significant divergent believes and live in different ways. After all, it remains a minority who are actively engaged in any way in the violent terrorism and IS is opposed by other Sunnis (if only on political grounds).

The bottom line is that in the same way it’s wrong to attack all Muslims on the basis of the words and actions of some, it’s wrong to attack all Islam on the teachings and practices of some. Since Muslim just means someone who practices Islam, these two points are really interchangeable in this context. Individual Muslims should be treated on their merits and flaws, just like anyone else.

The underlined part is the whole point of this thread.

However, just because we're not going to blame a person just for being Muslim, that does not mean we shouldn't examine, and criticize where appropriate, Islamic scripture and history.

 

[stevecanuck]

I wouldn't go so far as to see errors, my point that remains is that Wahhabism is not the Islam of 632, it did not arise as an interpretation until Muhammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb formulated it in the 18th century.

It came to prominence only via Wahhab's alliance with the Saud tribe and before that played no role in Islamic governance anywhere. Not in the caliphates and not in the (later) to follow Ottoman Sultanate.

Although sharing common concepts and often feeding off each other, Salafists are not by default Wahhabites and Wahhabites not by default Salafists. Where some of either will claim the distinction to be moot, there are just as many in either camp insisting on that distinction.

By the early 1900s the reformative currents of modernisation in Islam were actually called Salafiyya. Nevertheless the 6 day war (with Israel) and the Iranian revolution caused inner factions today best described as neo-fundmentalist to wash to the top virtually everywhere except in Saudi. Saudi having already been what one may unkindly term stone age Islam ever since its kingdom was founded, respectively the tribe conquered the peninsula.

What by now both (separate or one as part of the other) share is the design to reject centuries of theological development in Islam, ultimately wishing to return to the fundamental roots (no dispute from me there).

To hold them, in their return to the backwardness of fundamentalism, as representing Islam overall would however be incorrect.

That Islam, thruout the centuries, has always been open to interpretation and current attempts by fundamentalists to eradicate that quality are nothing new in its overall history.

So black and white it ain't.

P.S. to apply the term Salafist to all wanting to return to the 7th century is a misleading generalization. Wahhabists are quite a different matter.

I don't see much, if any, difference between Islam as taught and practiced by Mohamed, Wahabism and the desires of ISIS. Not all Muslims, or even all Sunnis for that matter, support them, but it's painfully obvious that more than enough do for them to be a huge problem.

I don't think anyone can deny that Islam (particularly the violent Sunni brand) is on the rise after a few centuries of being beaten down. It's only going to get worse, so it's well past time to kick political correctness to the curb and start telling it like it is. ISIS is Islamic in every sense of the word, so let's at least start by recognizing that simple fact.