You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 12:59:26 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.  (Read 35138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sabre

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #250 on: February 24, 2015, 01:16:44 PM »
People who kill in the name of Allah or Islam or Quran have nothing to do with their religion and should therefore not be called Muslims. If I kill somebody in the name of Jesus Christ, I'm a murderer. My religion or nationality should be completely irrelevant.

There are two dangers: First, those so excommunicated will reject such moves, as we have done when Jihadists call others false Muslims. It only empowers their claims to be the one true faith, as those who were once straddling the borders now pick sides. Their challenge to the world is more than mere identity, it is theological. Thus, second, the theologies that defined and cultivated such a movement will remain unchallenged, as they have been since the chaos of the 13th century, and only lay dormant until geopolitics contrives another scenario which revives such a movement all over again.

Edit: A third danger: Those we give the power to define who is and who is not Muslim may instead promote their own Islam as the true Islam, to the detriment of all other Islams in the world. This is what Jihadis already do, to disastrous result, and in place of them we may only hand our religion over to non-violent Islamists claiming to represent Muslims as one group, and one creed, in opposition to an enemy that couldn't be a better villain if they tried (and they do, daily).
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 01:22:11 PM by Sabre »

Offline Dashenka

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #251 on: February 24, 2015, 01:54:35 PM »
They claim it's the one true faith. And what do 'we' do... say the entire Islam is a bad religion and that ALL terrorists are Muslims.

Why is it so relevant which religion they have or where they are from? They kill people. Period. That should be the main issue. Their religious or political motives are completely irrelevant and I think only used to drive an ever increasing wedge between 'the west' and the Islam.

The people who kill in the name of their God are just as much murderers as anybody else. If a dad kills his wife and two kids, is it relevant what his religion was? Or where he was born? I don't think so. So why is it relevant why people behead others? They are simple murderers. They say they do it for a holy crusade and fuck knows what. If 'we' (media, the western countries, everybody) take their idiotic and false believes away from them, they will still murder and terrorize because these people are delusional but at least the vast majority of the Muslim people would no longer have to apologize for their religion or have to be afraid to be terrorised out of spite by the west.

The simple fact that we are discussing terrorism in a topic named 'Islam, A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective' says it all. The link between the Islam and terrorism is very quickly being made and not just by those terrorists, also by the media and the people who cannot think for themselves and believe everything that is being said to them.

Politicians are too busy with 'the war on terrorism' that they fail to see that the way they are doing it, is causing them to terrorise the 100's of millions of perfectly decent Muslims by causing hate and fear.


Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #252 on: February 24, 2015, 02:10:37 PM »
There are two dangers: First, those so excommunicated will reject such moves, as we have done when Jihadists call others false Muslims. It only empowers their claims to be the one true faith, as those who were once straddling the borders now pick sides. Their challenge to the world is more than mere identity, it is theological. Thus, second, the theologies that defined and cultivated such a movement will remain unchallenged, as they have been since the chaos of the 13th century, and only lay dormant until geopolitics contrives another scenario which revives such a movement all over again.

Edit: A third danger: Those we give the power to define who is and who is not Muslim may instead promote their own Islam as the true Islam, to the detriment of all other Islams in the world. This is what Jihadis already do, to disastrous result, and in place of them we may only hand our religion over to non-violent Islamists claiming to represent Muslims as one group, and one creed, in opposition to an enemy that couldn't be a better villain if they tried (and they do, daily).

Yup.  Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.  Whether that spade is plastic or aluminum or iron doesn't make it any more or less a spade.

This is why the best correction to this situation is by redefining a movement by its methods rather than its banner.

Every religion/faith/culture has its own inner conflicts , which to an outsider's view shouldn't be any different. But when one branch of said religion/faith/culture becomes a hindrance and a reason of exile towards the rest of the world , then its up to the rest of the branches to disown that branch , and the world following in that direction.

But this isn't happening. And that is why I am rather anal about it. It can't be changed so easily , yet being named as one of them becomes an easier task , when we're worlds apart from being the same.

Offline Sabre

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #253 on: February 24, 2015, 02:21:32 PM »
Whether ISIS are Muslims or not is something Western media and politicians are not qualified to generally handle. All that should be required of the West and its leadership is to identify correctly the ideologies that are currently threatening Muslims and non-Muslims in their own countries and abroad. It's up to us Muslims to challenge movements like ISIS as a theology, but to turn their own weapon against them is more harmful to us than good. ISIS is not Islam, but it is Islamic. What they say is irrelevant when it comes to the paramount mission of stopping them from murdering and displacing thousands and subjugating and persecuting millions. But what they say is an absolute threat to vulnerable Muslims all over the world who are seduced by the religious wrappings they adorn themselves with. In denying their Islam, we do secure our own. But we also hand off to them thousands of our youth, as we already have, who are not ready to believe as we believe in a peaceful faith, who see the logic, however terrifying and contrived, of their theology.

The West needn't engage ISIS on it's terms. Groups like ISIS want recognition for their claims to be the vanguard of religion, which they can only get by having the West fulfill its role in their narrative and then watch the cards fall. Formless is correct that deviant sects like this should be discarded, but this refuse is one we should handle with care. It's torn through enough bags and spilled over too many places to do otherwise.

Offline Dashenka

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #254 on: February 24, 2015, 02:25:51 PM »
Whether ISIS are Muslims or not is


... completely irrelevant. They're murderers and terrorists. Nothing more.

Offline Blythe

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #255 on: February 24, 2015, 02:33:20 PM »
I had a question. It's completely unrelated to the above discussion about terrorists and whatnot. I'd also like to apologize if this has been asked up-thread already; it's sometimes hard for me to find things in longer threads sometimes.  :-[

I've seen mention of daily prayers/multiple kinds of prayers in Islam, Formless? How many kinds of specific prayer are there, and could you talk about the significance of each? It's probably a very newb sort of question for me to ask and something probably very easily explained (and if it was mentioned up-thread, linking me to that would be fine!), but I had wanted to ask while I was thinking about it.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #256 on: February 24, 2015, 03:02:49 PM »
You're always welcomed to ask anything you want , Blythe. ;D

Prayers , the second pillar of Islam and what makes a muslim ... a muslim.

The best way to describe the act is ... Its a ritual performed 5 times a day. These times are pre-determined and cannot be altered. But we'll get to that shortly.

First what is a Prayer? ( In arabic we call it , Salat )

Now forgive my lack of vocabulary in this section but I'll do my best to describe it.

A prayer consists of certain positions a muslim do in a specific pattern while chanting prayers to communicate with god.

It starts with everyone standing still with their hands on their chests. Followed by a bow. Then standing up again , then kneeling , then sitting , kneeling again , and then standing up again. This is called a Rak'ah. Which is what prayers consists of. ( Though every even numbered Rak'ah has a second sitting following the second kneeling. )

Each prayer has a different number of Raka'ahs required.

The first prayer of the day which should be done during Dawn ( When the first dim light from the east shows until the sunrises. ) And this one consists of two Rak'ahs.

The second prayer of the day should be done in the afternoon. ( When your shadow falls right beneath you , until your shadow is as tall as you are. ) And this one consists of four Rak'ahs.

The third prayer of the day should be done before evening. ( When your shadow becomes as long as you , till its twice as long as you are. ) And this one also consists of four Rak'ahs.

The fourth prayer of the day should be done when the sun sits , until the last light of day fades from the west. ) And this one consists of three Rak'ahs.

The fifth prayer of the day and the last one must be done from the fading of the day's last light , till midnight. ) And it consists of four Rak'ahs.

The times mentioned with each Prayer are mandatory , and a Muslim must perform his prayer within the time given or else he's a sinner. Though he must still do the prayer even if the time passes , but it still counts as a sin. ( Though in some verses in Qur'an it is mentioned that God will forgive as he see fit. )

Its hard to put a specific time for each prayer , as the difference between day and night across the world differs from one region to another. But the signs given to measure the time still applies everywhere ... well mostly.

In most countries once the mark for each prayer is reached , they'll call for prayer and everyone will gather at mosques to perform the prayer. However , contrary to most belief , it is alright to do it one minute away from the time allowed. But I guess most people just want to be safe and also get done with it immediately.

This video will easily describe the physical aspect of the prayer. Though its in arabic.

Hope this answers your question. :-)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 03:05:13 PM by Formless »

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #257 on: February 24, 2015, 03:05:00 PM »
@Skynet : Regarding your earlier question as to why , Christians and Jews are called ' People of the book ' in singular.

I could not find any answer to it. I believe it is only a form of a literally expression , but nothing of significance that I know of.

Offline Wajin

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #258 on: February 24, 2015, 03:42:14 PM »
@Skynet : Regarding your earlier question as to why , Christians and Jews are called ' People of the book ' in singular.

I could not find any answer to it. I believe it is only a form of a literally expression , but nothing of significance that I know of.

I seem to remember having been told by a very wise old man in my life, that "the book" part refer to the Old testament as it is what the Abrahamic religions all have in common, however I am in no way sure he is right

Offline Sabre

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #259 on: February 24, 2015, 03:46:39 PM »
It's a peculiarity of Arabic grammar. Terms like People of the Book are somewhat literal translations of the phrase 'Ahl al-____' in which 'Ahl is a noun referring to a people - a tribe, a class, a community, a school, a family - and al-___ is a noun used here as a prepositional adjective to describe the 'Ahl. So People of the Book is 'Ahl al-Kitab, and is an ad hoc term used to refer to those with a revealed divine text in the Prophet Muhammad's lifetime.

Other ways to use the phrase are 'Ahl al-Bayt, to refer to a person's household and usually the Prophet Muhammad's family, 'Ahl al-Kufa, to refer to the Kufic school of grammar, and so on and so forth.

Offline Blythe

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #260 on: February 24, 2015, 03:48:41 PM »
Ah, thank you, Formless!  :-) That was really informative, and I'm glad I asked--it seems very crucial to being a Muslim. Your answer clarified a lot of what I had thought of asking as follow-up questions! While the video was in Arabic, it did still do a very nice job of showing me the different positions. If I think of any more questions, I shall ask them.  ;D

Offline AndyZ

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #261 on: February 24, 2015, 03:54:45 PM »
Islam is the word for the religion, Muslim is the word for a person who follows the religion of Islam. Much like Christianity and Christian respectively.

For example "John is a Muslim, John practices Islam." vs. "Billy is a Christian, Billy practices Christianity."

Thank you.

If I missed anyone else's post to me, please let me know.



So, people have asked why it's important to call them something other than just terrorists, and I wanted to try to chime in on that one.

I want to clarify again that I fully recognize the difference between the terrorists and Muslims, just in case that's in contention.

Quote from: Sun Tzu
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."

Quote from: Attributed to Glooscap in Native American legends
"Always remember the best way to catch a weasel is to think like a weasel, and the best way to trap a snake is to think like a snake."

There is value, even if we don't agree with someone, in recognizing them as a distinct group and understanding how they think.  There's a show Criminal Minds, and I've only seen a few shows, but it goes into the idea of criminal profiling and finding out what makes people tick.  Better known examples are in things like the Hannibal Lecter books and movies.

Conversely, to simply mark them as "terrorists" is to set them into so diverse a category as to never possibly be fully enmeshed.

Now, certainly we can agree that these terrorists are not following principles of Islam in the same way that Hannibal Lecter...okay, the analogy breaks down because I don't know why he was eating people.  Whatever reason there was, it wasn't good.

There's obviously some connection between Al Qaeda, ISIS, and any other groups that share said connection.  I would hypothesize that America totally missed this connection, went after Al Qaeda, ignored ISIS, and ended up with the same type of problem that you get when you stop taking an antibiotic before an illness is fully out of your system.

That's why it's important to have some kind of word that links them all together as a unit but doesn't include others.  For example, Guy Fawkes was a terrorist (by my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong), and he wasn't Muslim either (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong), but he also didn't believe whatever non-Muslim thing that these particular terrorists believe.

Thus why it's helpful to have a particular word - even if it's a total nonsense word like favajabbers - or a phrase that provides a good description without providing offense.

So far it seems like apostate terrorist is the best I've seen so far.

Offline Sabre

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #262 on: February 24, 2015, 04:05:55 PM »
Apostate terrorists does not describe what they are, however. It's vague and does not connect these related groups meaningfully while separating them from any other kind of apostate terrorism - such as a hypothetical atheist ex-Muslim terrorist who would clearly not belong in the same group as Al Qaeda.

In the Middle East, these groups are already called things like takfiris or jihadis or radical salafis/Islamists, to describe their ideology as distinct from other Muslims. These terms have survived for decades in places and among other Muslims most affected by their violence and heresy.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #263 on: February 24, 2015, 04:06:27 PM »
For example, Guy Fawkes was a terrorist (by my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong), and he wasn't Muslim either (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong), but he also didn't believe whatever non-Muslim thing that these particular terrorists believe.

Actually of all examples Guy Fawkes is surprisingly close. He was a religiously motivated terrorist. He was attempting to blow up the parliament as part of an attempt to bring a Catholic monarch to the throne of England. His attempts to increase Catholic Christendom was somewhat analogous to these groups' attempts to create an Islamic State.

Offline Valerian

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #264 on: February 25, 2015, 08:49:56 AM »
Well, Fawkes was a staunch Roman Catholic, yes, and he believed that the cause he joined was right, but he was also a hired hand / mercenary, in it for the money as well as his faith.  He also wasn't the main driving force behind the plot -- that was a nobleman named Robert Catesby.  Fawkes was chosen partly because he hadn't been in England for years at the time of the plot and wasn't likely to be recognized as a Catholic agitator.  He got all the infamy since he was the one actually on the scene to light the fuse.  But overall it's a decent parallel, yes -- the plotters wanted to save English Catholics from oppression by Protestant monarchs and felt the only way to accomplish that was to kill James I and his sons and set his young daughter up as a puppet ruler, to be controlled behind the scenes by loyal Catholic lords.

</derailment>

Offline AndyZ

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #265 on: February 25, 2015, 09:29:16 AM »
Apostate terrorists does not describe what they are, however. It's vague and does not connect these related groups meaningfully while separating them from any other kind of apostate terrorism - such as a hypothetical atheist ex-Muslim terrorist who would clearly not belong in the same group as Al Qaeda.

In the Middle East, these groups are already called things like takfiris or jihadis or radical salafis/Islamists, to describe their ideology as distinct from other Muslims. These terms have survived for decades in places and among other Muslims most affected by their violence and heresy.

So, I'm reading this over and getting that quasi-deja vu buzzing in the back of my mind where I feel like I read this before and it just didn't commit to long-term memory.  If you already posted this, I want to apologize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir

Reading over Takfir on Wikipedia, it seems to suggest that Takfir is just the Arabic word for apostate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

Salafi...I don't really understand without reading in significant detail, and I won't pretend to be an expert.  Formless, are the Salafis considered to be Islamic by you and yours?

Actually of all examples Guy Fawkes is surprisingly close. He was a religiously motivated terrorist. He was attempting to blow up the parliament as part of an attempt to bring a Catholic monarch to the throne of England. His attempts to increase Catholic Christendom was somewhat analogous to these groups' attempts to create an Islamic State.

Well, Fawkes was a staunch Roman Catholic, yes, and he believed that the cause he joined was right, but he was also a hired hand / mercenary, in it for the money as well as his faith.  He also wasn't the main driving force behind the plot -- that was a nobleman named Robert Catesby.  Fawkes was chosen partly because he hadn't been in England for years at the time of the plot and wasn't likely to be recognized as a Catholic agitator.  He got all the infamy since he was the one actually on the scene to light the fuse.  But overall it's a decent parallel, yes -- the plotters wanted to save English Catholics from oppression by Protestant monarchs and felt the only way to accomplish that was to kill James I and his sons and set his young daughter up as a puppet ruler, to be controlled behind the scenes by loyal Catholic lords.

</derailment>

I was actually trying to think of a terrorist with no religious ties.  Let's go with Bill Ayers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/11/books/no-regrets-for-love-explosives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html

Granted that I doubt the Pope would have recognized Guy Fawkes' actions, but better to just say that terrorism is such a vast word that it can happen completely outside of religion, and these particular terrorists seem to believe a perverted version of Islam.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #266 on: February 25, 2015, 09:46:25 AM »
but better to just say that terrorism is such a vast word that it can happen completely outside of religion

Terrorism is simply a set of tactics, most commonly employed within asymmetric warfare in which military action is taken for the purpose of demoralizing and terrifying your opponent rather than in pursuit of strategic military objectives. It has no link whatsoever with religion, with the exception that asymmetric warfare often occurs between a state and a minority group in which frequently religion remains a rallying point of cultural identity amongst the minority group.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #267 on: February 25, 2015, 09:57:36 AM »
So, I'm reading this over and getting that quasi-deja vu buzzing in the back of my mind where I feel like I read this before and it just didn't commit to long-term memory.  If you already posted this, I want to apologize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir

Reading over Takfir on Wikipedia, it seems to suggest that Takfir is just the Arabic word for apostate?

Takfir is " The act of denouncing one's religion by a religious authority. "

The word Takfir is derived from the Arabic word ' Kufr ' which means the denial of God's religion ( in which point here , Islam is the religion we mean. )

Takfir should only be done by the God's word , the Prophet ... And aftert he Prophet's death was done by the Caliphats. Its supposed to weigh heavily on the one who decide wether an Individual is a Kafir or not , hoever recently , it is taken so lightly in the form of ' If you're not with me , then you're against me '. Which is a clear mantra of people like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Of course the cause of all of this is the lack of an absolute Islamic Religion Authority all over the world. Hence why everyone thirsty for political influence within the middleeast would just announce how they're righteous and the rest aren't.

So no , Takfir is an act , while apostate is a definition. This is simply a literate angle to view it though.

Reading over Takfir on Wikipedia, it seems to suggest that Takfir is just the Arabic word for apostate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

Salafi...I don't really understand without reading in significant detail, and I won't pretend to be an expert.  Formless, are the Salafis considered to be Islamic by you and yours?

Honestly , I have no idea how Salafis suddenly became a different definition to the same group.

As the link you provided stated. Salafi refers to the first & second generations of Muslims. So following their example means you're following Islam. So basically any Sunni is a Salafi. They may differ in minor practices as mentioned in a earlier post. Since during the Abbasy rule , four Islamic schools ( sects? ) were formed , but ultimately they follow the same basics.

A salafi may be different from a Shi'ah. But the difference isn't significant , except for the Shi'ah believing Ali should've been the Prophet.

Wahhabism ... It just refers to the man who allied himself with the Saud family to conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula under one islamic rule. The Saudis fortified their cause by having Mohammed Abdulwahhab as their preacher and religious figure. Yet he himself is a Salafi. He didn't add anything to Islam ... He simply brought back the teachings when the land was slowly losing its religious influence over the people. ( People worshipping tombs and idols. Or flat out religiousless. )

So I really don't understand why did anyone separate these two terms. Why even call it Wahhabism when its the Same as Salafi , and same as Sunni. But that's how I see it.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #268 on: February 25, 2015, 10:00:29 AM »
Terrorism is simply a set of tactics, most commonly employed within asymmetric warfare in which military action is taken for the purpose of demoralizing and terrifying your opponent rather than in pursuit of strategic military objectives. It has no link whatsoever with religion, with the exception that asymmetric warfare often occurs between a state and a minority group in which frequently religion remains a rallying point of cultural identity amongst the minority group.

Granted.  if you want to catch a terrorist by thinking like a terrorist, though, you need to understand them, and thus have some label which identifies a particular group without either missing members or adding those into the identification who don't deserve to be there.

That's what I was attempting to convey with the analogy of Hannibal Lecter and criminal profiling, as well as this one:  If a psychopath believes that he needs to eat the eyes of people named Fred in order to stop himself from dying during the full moon, we all know that it's not true.  However, if we don't know that's what he believes, we're going to have a much harder time catching him until we realize that all his victims are going to be Freds.  Simply applying the label "psychopath" is ultimately unhelpful in understanding him.

With a perversion of Islam being a rallying point, we need to define and understand that rallying point and how it's different from actual Islam.

Takfir is " The act of denouncing one's religion by a religious authority. "

The word Takfir is derived from the Arabic word ' Kufr ' which means the denial of God's religion ( in which point here , Islam is the religion we mean. )

Takfir should only be done by the God's word , the Prophet ... And aftert he Prophet's death was done by the Caliphats. Its supposed to weigh heavily on the one who decide wether an Individual is a Kafir or not , hoever recently , it is taken so lightly in the form of ' If you're not with me , then you're against me '. Which is a clear mantra of people like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Of course the cause of all of this is the lack of an absolute Islamic Religion Authority all over the world. Hence why everyone thirsty for political influence within the middleeast would just announce how they're righteous and the rest aren't.

So no , Takfir is an act , while apostate is a definition. This is simply a literate angle to view it though.

Honestly , I have no idea how Salafis suddenly became a different definition to the same group.

As the link you provided stated. Salafi refers to the first & second generations of Muslims. So following their example means you're following Islam. So basically any Sunni is a Salafi. They may differ in minor practices as mentioned in a earlier post. Since during the Abbasy rule , four Islamic schools ( sects? ) were formed , but ultimately they follow the same basics.

A salafi may be different from a Shi'ah. But the difference isn't significant , except for the Shi'ah believing Ali should've been the Prophet.

Wahhabism ... It just refers to the man who allied himself with the Saud family to conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula under one islamic rule. The Saudis fortified their cause by having Mohammed Abdulwahhab as their preacher and religious figure. Yet he himself is a Salafi. He didn't add anything to Islam ... He simply brought back the teachings when the land was slowly losing its religious influence over the people. ( People worshipping tombs and idols. Or flat out religiousless. )

So I really don't understand why did anyone separate these two terms. Why even call it Wahhabism when its the Same as Salafi , and same as Sunni. But that's how I see it.

Okay, thank you ^_^ We'll find the right word eventually.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #269 on: February 25, 2015, 10:44:35 AM »
Granted.  if you want to catch a terrorist by thinking like a terrorist, though, you need to understand them, and thus have some label which identifies a particular group without either missing members or adding those into the identification who don't deserve to be there.

Well honestly such things are difficult. In many cases these are fairly informal groups in which people can be involved or associated with to a greater or lesser extent. Is the local shopkeeper who sells a terrorist bleach at a discount without asking any questions or reporting it to anyone because the terrorist is 'such a good devoted young man doing work to help the faith' a terrorist as well? Their cousin who hides them in their basement when police are checking the area because 'families stick together', is he a terrorist as well? What about a local businessman who smiles to himself when he reads the newspaper about an attack because 'those bastards had it coming' even though he'd never do anything himself?

The situation is complex, woven into the social fabric of various areas and contributed to by a lot of history over the region. Boko Haram in northern Nigeria, fueled by the economic disparities between north and south, memories of their brutal civil war and secession crisis, the combination of diverse ethnic groups by imperialist Europeans in the past and religious differences between the predominantly Muslim north and predominantly Christian south are one sort of group. They are quite different to ISIS who are fueled by... well, a lot, but most recently the US led coalition's invasion of Iraq, disapproval of what they see as an imposed puppet government or a power vacuum being left in the region after the overthrow of the previous regime.

We won't necessarily come up with a single term that can neatly define everyone. The situation is complex and our understanding need be equally complex if we are to anticipate and correctly respond to these events.

Quote
With a perversion of Islam being a rallying point, we need to define and understand that rallying point and how it's different from actual Islam.

It's not necessarily any different, nor is it necessarily a perversion. During World War Two for example, most of the combatants were Christian who felt that the political situation justified military action including killing other Christians despite the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'. They still felt strong affiliations to their faith, drawing upon it for support and maintaining what they believed to be its values despite coming into conflict with other people who believed that their faith supported their cause instead.

Nor is there only one form of Islam practiced, there are many and varied forms of the faith and although they remain centered around the Qu'ran and the Hadith, there are differing interpretations and ideas on how an Islamic society can be run. Much like the Catholics and the Protestants may have different ideas of what Christianity includes, you have Shi'a or Sunni Muslims with disagreements about the correct interpretation of the faith along with numerous over divergent sects or even individual interpretations.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 10:48:05 AM by Caehlim »

Offline Sabre

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #270 on: February 25, 2015, 12:56:22 PM »
Honestly , I have no idea how Salafis suddenly became a different definition to the same group.

As the link you provided stated. Salafi refers to the first & second generations of Muslims. So following their example means you're following Islam. So basically any Sunni is a Salafi. They may differ in minor practices as mentioned in a earlier post. Since during the Abbasy rule , four Islamic schools ( sects? ) were formed , but ultimately they follow the same basics.

A salafi may be different from a Shi'ah. But the difference isn't significant , except for the Shi'ah believing Ali should've been the Prophet.

Wahhabism ... It just refers to the man who allied himself with the Saud family to conquer most of the Arabian Peninsula under one islamic rule. The Saudis fortified their cause by having Mohammed Abdulwahhab as their preacher and religious figure. Yet he himself is a Salafi. He didn't add anything to Islam ... He simply brought back the teachings when the land was slowly losing its religious influence over the people. ( People worshipping tombs and idols. Or flat out religiousless. )

So I really don't understand why did anyone separate these two terms. Why even call it Wahhabism when its the Same as Salafi , and same as Sunni. But that's how I see it.

The confusion stems from the self-proclaimed names these sects give themselves. As an example, non Orthodox Christians aren't necessarily non-orthodox, and clearly the Catholic Church is not the universal church for all Christians. Were it up to Wahhabis they would only call themselves the Monotheists - as though only they are monotheists among Muslims.

The Wahhabis are a Saudi-Najd sect of Hanbali scholarship. That is, their jurist progenitor followed Hanbali doctrine of Islamic law, where an emphasis is placed on all hadith wherever possible in place of individual opinion. But, as Hanbalis, they are part of centuries old Sunni scholarship and debate where three other schools of jurisprudence, the Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanafi, are tacitly accepted as fellow Muslims even though their methodology and approach to Islamic law and custom is different. What makes Wahhabism different from Hanbalis however is this denial of other schools (who were not accepted officially until the last decade, and who the Saudis massacred and expelled when they conquered Mecca and Medina). As well, the Wahhabi founder was not regarded by contemporary Hanbalis as an authoritative jurist, but instead as someone claiming a new theological mandate to reawaken Islam.

Salafis are different. They are not followers of a Sunni school of jurisprudence like Wahhabis (sort of) are. They reject these schools and instead approach the Quran and Hadith as an Evangelical Protestant might today - literally. To them there is no concept of local custom, contemporary consensus, layered and alternative readings of the Quran, legal analogy or logic, metaphor, or science to apply to hadith. As such they are beyond the scope of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence and are a separate movement that only happens to parallel Hanbalis in their acceptance of weak hadith as useful source material and Wahhabis in their self-proclaimed messianism in returning Islam to a state of purity.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #271 on: February 25, 2015, 01:08:52 PM »
The confusion stems from the self-proclaimed names these sects give themselves. As an example, non Orthodox Christians aren't necessarily non-orthodox, and clearly the Catholic Church is not the universal church for all Christians. Were it up to Wahhabis they would only call themselves the Monotheists - as though only they are monotheists among Muslims.

The Wahhabis are a Saudi-Najd sect of Hanbali scholarship. That is, their jurist progenitor followed Hanbali doctrine of Islamic law, where an emphasis is placed on all hadith wherever possible in place of individual opinion. But, as Hanbalis, they are part of centuries old Sunni scholarship and debate where three other schools of jurisprudence, the Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanafi, are tacitly accepted as fellow Muslims even though their methodology and approach to Islamic law and custom is different. What makes Wahhabism different from Hanbalis however is this denial of other schools (who were not accepted officially until the last decade, and who the Saudis massacred and expelled when they conquered Mecca and Medina). As well, the Wahhabi founder was not regarded by contemporary Hanbalis as an authoritative jurist, but instead as someone claiming a new theological mandate to reawaken Islam.

Salafis are different. They are not followers of a Sunni school of jurisprudence like Wahhabis (sort of) are. They reject these schools and instead approach the Quran and Hadith as an Evangelical Protestant might today - literally. To them there is no concept of local custom, contemporary consensus, layered and alternative readings of the Quran, legal analogy or logic, metaphor, or science to apply to hadith. As such they are beyond the scope of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence and are a separate movement that only happens to parallel Hanbalis in their acceptance of weak hadith as useful source material and Wahhabis in their self-proclaimed messianism in returning Islam to a state of purity.

Not to turn this into a historical debate , but the bolded section is wrong.

The conquest of the peninsula wasn't entirely religious. The Sauds wanted to conquer , plain and simple. People died who followed whichever school or religion during that time , because of which side they picked during that period of power struggle , but at no point where other sect followers were expelled or massacred solely for their practices. The Shi'ah has always been in the eastern side of Saudi Arabia for as long as anyone remembers and no one tried to expel them.

I just had to correct that.

Offline Sabre

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #272 on: February 25, 2015, 01:31:30 PM »
You are speaking of the third Saudi state, which was indeed a very Saudi rather than Wahhabi affair. The first Saudi state, where the Wahhabis were an integral force, was very different. In the early 19th century they attacked Karbala and massacred its Shia population, then destroyed several shrines. When they conquered the Haasa Wahhabi clerics ordered vows from several Shia leaders to abandon their faith, and set about destroying their religious sites. A year later the Saudi king allowed the Shia to expel the Wahhabis. Soon after they attacked Mecca, which surrendered, but then saw countless shrines defaced and destroyed, the news of which sent the Khedive of Egypt with an army into Arabia to punish and destroy the first Saudi state. The third state, the one we now know as modern Saudi Arabia, relied much more extensively on tribal allegiances, and the religious fanatics in its army were eventually discarded.

Offline FormlessTopic starter

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #273 on: February 25, 2015, 05:21:05 PM »
Again , no.

The first Saudi rule was surrounded by the eastern region ruled by the ' Khaldis ' , and by the western region ruled by the ' Ashrafs '. The Ashrafs were allied with the Turks. The invasion of Karbla , which was northeast , was because they were allied with the Ashrafs at the time. And the Ashrafs requested aid when the First Saudi rulers attempted to conquer Makka and Medinah. ( Since that's the only reason the Ashrafs found prosperity at the time. )

The Invasion of the Turks did end the first Saudi Rule. It was all derived by both political & religious agendas.

Offline Sabre

Re: Islam , A variety of discussions from a non extreme perspective.
« Reply #274 on: February 25, 2015, 05:53:01 PM »
No to what? Regardless of political ambitions Saud dynasts may have had, what we are discussing is the Wahhabi movement, and their depredations on their neighbors are well attributed. When Abdullah ibn Saud was executed in Istanbul, it was not for any crime of treason but for violence against civilians. That two Wahhabi clerics were captured and sent with him is no coincidence of fate.

What the Saudi state was or may have been, or its exact relationship with the Wahhabi sect, bears no relevance to their views and, above all else, their actions.