Though Maajid has said he will do a point by point refutation he has done nothing to date

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

1. statements about war, extermination, idol-worshippers in the OT generally are less important than those specifically in the Torah.
2. these statements are limited to members of the “7 nations” which inhabited canaan prior to the israelite conquest, i.e. the hivites, hittites, canaanites, jebusites, girgashites, amorites and ammonites (not the fossils, btw, we have nothing against any fossil). special mention is given to the amalekites who we are commanded both to blot out entirely and to always remember (the contradiction is important)
3. there is no commandment to exterminate the philistines as their territory is not included within the biblical borders of the land of israel
4. NONE OF THESE GUYS ARE AROUND ANY MORE (since sennacherib mixed up the nations during the assyrian conquests (C7 BCE) and therefore they cannot be used as a basis for action
5. the 7 nations were the only people against who we could wage an aggressive war that was a Torah commandment
6. all other wars are either optional or defensive in which case entirely different rules apply, viz taking captives, slavery etc – and slavery was not as practised as by, say, the greeks, romans, persians, muslims or anyone else. in fact, it can only really be described as a kind of indentured servitude where the “slave” had a number of legally enforceable rights
7. therefore, any jews who talk about this sort of thing nowadays are playing fast and loose with a number of Torah definitions and this is why these sentiments are largely constrained to a bunch of loony tunes in the west bank settlements and why arguably the most religious of us, the ultra-orthodox, refuse to get involved in anything to do with weapons, although they are quite happy throwing rocks at cars or having the odd punch-up.

as for the comments about jesus’s timing, the majority of classical rabbinic judaism was in the context of the roman occupation and the rebellions against them and it still turns out at least quietist, if not entirely pacifist – for this you have to understand what happened immediately after the Temple was destroyed when r. yohanan ben zakkai gained permission from titus to set up the first yeshiva at yavneh (jamnia).

in short, READ THE FECKING SOURCES before you make assumptions.

b’shalom

bananabrain

BAT – I’m not sure what your point is, precisely. You have accepted the place of violence in Islam, just criticised its application. If anything you seem to be agreeing with me?

No one has yet come up with a convincing argument why Hiz is in the wrong (apart from some chipping away around the fringes). If I was a young revolutionary (Trotsky of course being as much an inspiration to a Hizzer as the Prohphet) I wouldn’t buy your argument that Muslim leaders are entitled to rule without criticism just because they claim to be Muslims. This has never been the practice in the Islamic world. Look at the Sunnis and Shias!

Maybe so, but then it is much harder to justify rebellion in the name of Allah than in the name of Christ.

Anglo-american culture is pretty saturated with the idea of rebellion being a good thing, from Robin Hood to Washington to James Dean to Star Wars to Battlestar Galactica. I can’t think offhand of one single popular western myth where a ruler who arrested and tried some bandits was in the right.

If you have a foot in both cultures, you might assume that stuff to be unambiguously true, while rejecting the more explicitly Christian themes of pacifism, mercy, innocence and so on that allow the western world to coexist with a rebel anti-materialist religion.

I’m sorry, but it’s this kind of silliness that’s getting Muslims in a historical pickle.

What ‘boundaries’ did Mohammed proscribe at the time of war?

He allowed non-combatants to be butchered (the Jews of north Saudi), women to be raped and to be taken as booty. If these are the boundaries to which you refer, you are on dodgy ground to say the very least.

Youre adorable. More style than substance unfortunately.

“The trouble therefore is that if you challenge their interpretation of Islam, they can bat back that YOU are not an authentic Muslim. And they may, strictly speaking, be right.”

How so exactly. First, I would like to know what Islamist believe. They seem to borrow heavily from other intellectual discourses. Basically they all sound like a bunch of freshmens (first years) to me. But please explain what their generally held beliefs are.

“My concern is that theologically the facts challenge our wishful thinking: the Qu’ran DOES specifically justify religious war, and possibly even requires it, and violent Jihadists are an authentic expression of Islam.”

Violent “jihadist” arent wrong because they are violent, they are wrong in the kind of violence they met out against people. Violence isnt wrong in and of itself. Lets make that clear. However, when attacking certain people, who under most circumstances are entitled to their life and their property, than attacking them would be over stepping the boundaries prescribed by Prophet Muhammed’s Sunnah. Typically when he waged war, or battles, it wasnt customary for women, children, people who dont traditionally fight to be killed. Today, these violent “jihadist” are willing to kill anyone and anything. Also, their position on the rulers of Muslim countries is completely problematic. First, the leaders, be they corrupt or pious, have a right to rule. It is expressively forbidden to violently remove them from power. There are clear expressions in the Quran about this kind of mischeif making. For their Muslim victims, there are very few circumstances where a Muslim can be deprived of his life. Very few of the Muslims that have been killed by these “jihadis” have met those conditions. To me it seems that they have a right to kill anyone who objects to their practices, even when proofs from the Quran or authentic hadiths are used to support their position. There is no arguing with one who is convinced of his righteousness.

I think it is interesting that we have got back to the relativist argument, which wasn’t really my point – I was simply challenging the assumption that Hiz is wrong. Sadly, I have yet to see any convincing argument that theologically they are.

In fact, as much as I love the Sufis, I suspect that their more liberal interpretation of Islam is theologically less robust.

“Don’t you think there is a hint of ‘my religion can’t be violent’ or ‘violent Christians aren’t Christians’ about your statements? How would you view such from a Muslim?”

Not really. I think it is much harder to justify violence in the name of Christ than the name of Allah and I think both the practical actions of the Jesus and Mohammed, as well as their specific “instructions” bear this out. I’m not sure trying to avoid these facts is particularly helpful. There are clear differences between Islam and Christianity: Submission V Love, the separation or unification of the temporal and the spiritual realms, the emphasis on justice and forgiveness, etc. Violence is another distinction.

I believe Islam spread because it was a great unifying force (among the Arabs, for eg) and violence to demonstrate the power of submission also had the side-effect of making its adherents wealthy, a great motivator. Violence (jihad) was central to the early success of Islam, whereas Christianity, following centuries of violent oppression, was subsequently presented with a ready-made empire, ie the Roman.

Arguably Hiz et al represent a movement similar to that of Lutherism (which itself took place against a backdrop of not only allegedly “decadent” Christian practice but at a time when Islam was more or less dominant). Luther claimed to offer a more authentic form of Christianity, which was on the whole borne out by scripture. The same could be said of Islamists and their ilk.

The trouble therefore is that if you challenge their interpretation of Islam, they can bat back that YOU are not an authentic Muslim. And they may, strictly speaking, be right.

I’m not a Christian btw but a Unitarian, though I have a lot of time for Christians, and Sufis for that matter. And Taoists, Buddhists, Humanists, Athiests even… that’s the good thing about being a Unitarian, nobody can ever claim that you are not authentic.

WWII Japanese Zen Buddhism managed to find a very violent interpretation.

Although fighting battles and killing enemies would seem to violate the Buddha-dharma, specifically the Precept of the Buddha not to kill, an apparent violation that has troubled many over the years, certain samurai, and later the modern military, ultimately could see themselves as fulfilling a Buddhist purpose in what they did, even in the horrors of World War II in the Pacific.

Institutions (the Daimyo/Samurai system, Japanese military, HuT) matter a lot, texts matter little to anyone within their influence.

It may be grotesque, but should not be surprising, to have duelling divebombers from two different pacifist religions. Rebels fighting against the lawful civil order from a religion whose name means ‘submission’ are no stranger.

People do what they do because other people ask them to, expect them to, would disapprove if they didn’t. Occasions where they let books influence their actions, in even the smallest way, are statistically very rare.

I am thinking that you would call yourself a Christian right?

Don’t you think there is a hint of ‘my religion can’t be violent’ or ‘violent Christians aren’t Christians’ about your statements? How would you view such from a Muslim?

I think Christianity can very much be a violent religion – particularly when Christians pay attention to the Old Testament and conveniently sideline the New. This is increasingly apparent in some US Churches. There are alot of Christians who talk about Jesus alot and act very unlike his examples. Take for example, the vurulent hatred of homosexuality that many supposed Christians espose. Not very tolerant. And lets be honest, it takes a supreme act of arrogance to state that your god made a mistake with, what, 3-5% of the population being gay. I have never been so full of myself to think like that but then am not a sky cultist of any description.

I would definately agree that Islam had a more violent environment of evolution however.

Had Jesus lived, say, during the Jewish Revolt, cerca AD70, then I rather suspect the character of the New Testament would be very different indeed. The environment within which man creates religion is absolutely key to its content.

And lets be clear, it is man that creates religion and hence it is as flawed and as beautiful as we are as a species.

I think the argument that “all religions are violent” is not necessarily relevant. Of course all holy books (except Buddhist?!) contain violent passages, but isn’t it through the lens of the divine messenger that we should interpret them? So while Mohammed actually led military campaigns and specifically endorsed violence in certain circumstances, Jesus strictly forbade violence and instructed his followers to turn the other cheek. Furthermore while the Prophet was very strict about his verses coming directly from God, the Jesus story was told second or third hand (yet still not once did his various versions countenance violence).

Just because people who call themsellves Christians may commit violent acts does not make Christianity a religion of violence any more than peaceful Muslims mean that Islam is a religion of peace.

My concern is that theologically the facts challenge our wishful thinking: the Qu’ran DOES specifically justify religious war, and possibly even requires it, and violent Jihadists are an authentic expression of Islam. That seems to me to be the elephant in the corner, yet unless we notice it, won’t the denial, misunderstanding and cult of victimisation continue?

This was why earlier on I asked whether anyone could demonstrate precisely why Hiz and the other Islamists were wrong according to the theology. I would love them to be, but I don’t think the argument stands up.

nasty isn’t it.

I mean, in combat situations mistakes do happen and people do genuinely get caught in the cross fire but if an Army, say the US one, puts a premium on ‘force protection’ – partly due to cultural reasons but also due to their relative lack of numbers then the number of times “collateral damage” occurs tends to unfortunately go up rather alot. Its also incredibly poor counter insurgency tactics. Hearts and Minds are not won that way. I know the UK in Basra have been taken aback by how the Shia have turned on each other but upto that point the reletive lack of ‘force protection’ first tactics by the British Army lead to much better relations and far fewer civilian casualties. I know its been far from perfect but you know what I mean.

“”Nobody could realistically read the Qu’ran and come away with the impression it was advocating absolute Quaker-style pacifism”"

Yes, but neither is it a manual for a totalitarean state either but thats what the Jihadists are fighting to impose, cause they are seeing it through a particular lense or rather seeing only sparse sections and inflating their importance. Imagine if all Christians saw was Leviticus??? The effect would be the same – violent christianists fighting to impose in the name of Jesus* a state that would make Mao sigh in admiration over.

*Oh the irony

It all depends on what question you ask, what alternative understandings you are trying to choose between.

HuT do know the book well enough to ask a clever set leading questions, for example to set up a false dichotomy between supporting them and pacifism. Nobody could realistically read the Qu’ran and come away with the impression it was advocating absolute Quaker-style pacifism.

On the other hand, if you ask different questions, the answers are similarly clear.

whoever justifies killing of civilians needs their heads examined..including our very own forces who call civilians “collateral damage”

I got into an argument with an ex-military guy at work about that once. He insisted that when one’s life is on the line and you need to make split-second decisions where your very survival is at stake, you need to have a “shoot first, ask questions later” attitude purely as a defensive measure and in the spirit of self-preservation — even if you accidentally kill civilians in the crossfire, or as a result of mistaken identity, or while you’re shooting at the real enemies in their midst.

He also insisted that someone who hadn’t been in a combat situation would not understand this.

Even worse was that he extrapolated this to justify being paranoid about any Asians in the vicinity right here in Britain, thanks to the activities of our recent homegrown jihadists, and quite obviously pre-emptively regarded anyone Asian as being the “hostile enemy” by default.

Yep, ditto Christians and Jews. Only people who are borderline sociopaths anyway focus on the violent bits of any religion and who can’t absorb the fact that the conditions then (at the time of evolution) are very far from those that exist now.

I also think it does matter to what end violence is undertaken, although it is almost always wrong, there are just uses of it (E.g. the WW2 struggle against NAzism, Some aspects of the Cold War against Stalinism, the Union cause in the US Civil War, the Jamaica Slave revolts (You get my drift). Anyway, take the various violent jihadists around the world – they are struggling for more oppression not less. Makes an enormous difference all round IMHO.

But lets be clear, the Islamist justification for deliberately targeting civilians is always wrong.