James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

Yup always like a public record of such things.

For anyone interested in the original debate: Has Islam ever split?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78792

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also for the public record, another saying of Maududi's you didn't seem to have a problem citing:

So he certainly believes in punishment for disbelief. And you cite from him uncritically.

Here's the thing: no one can force you not to be blithe, unrepentant, ignorant, or inhumanitarian, Sam. This is a choice you take on yourself. You can even accuse those who criticize these things about you from all kinds of illogical standpoints. But you don't restart your own reputation by doing so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure I have no problem with that. For example, extremists who commit fitna through terrorism are considered apostates. They cannot be treated the same way as someone who draws a Mohammed cartoon. Islamic teachings about apostasy make it an issue between man and God. Islamic jurisprudence takes a more dim view of political consequences of such apostasy. Suicide bombers for instance show a distinct lack of faith in God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Forgetting entirely Maududi's other comments on apostacy? And that your example is specious and derived? That the numerous other manners of committing apostacy have nothing to do with the above?

'Eminently' brilliant. I can see why you were so taken with Hitler's comment on propaganda.

 

Also, here's a question: just what kind of punishment should be leveled on someone who draws a Mohammed cartoon?

 

Lets start with the number of people who are actually put to death for apostasy. How many this month alone?

Islamic doctrine requires a very heavy burden of proof because there is no way to know what is in anyone's heart. One must have irrefutable evidence of wrong doing which is dangerous to society, politically, [except when US supported dictators are in charge] before anything can even be brought before a jurist

How many people were sentenced to death under Maududi? Answer : zero.

However he is a conservative Hanafi cleric and would probably support mainstream Hanafi views on apostasy. Note that most Hanafis are Asians and I don't recall if anyone has ever been put to death for apostasy in Asia.

 

How many were fined, jailed or otherwise harassed? What effect did this have on the freedom of belief which you espouse - here and there - in their peers?

Fascinating. No other religious system carries such a heavy burden of proof for apostacy - or, indeed, civil charges and fines for it.

Unsurprising, since he held no political office of any kind. He did found Jamaat-e-Islami, a brownshirt organization that holds views similar to his own, as a student of Qutb.

There's no maybe about it, as I demonstrated. Whether he agrees with a small waiting period is kind of irrelevant.

And you draw spiritual weight of decision on what an unbeliever is from this guy.

 

How many? Give me a number.

Yes, it certainly beats bombing innocent civilians and calling it collateral damages

So how many put to death by his influence?

Hardly surprising. Most clerics are tradition bound.

 

Is it any surprise Syed Maududi turned out to be a religious bigot given the foundation ideology?

If you asked a suicide bomber, they'd tell you they have a strong faith in God. But yes, from another point of view, their faith is lacking. One wonders how would you go about explaining to the soon to be suicide bomber that they have so little faith?

You'd think you could appeal to rational. But you'd be mistaken. Pointing out that they're killing innocent women and children will not sway they're type of faith in God either - their faith is strong. Thus, a moral argument always falls on deft ears.

Muslims show a distinct lack of faith in God. Being atheist it is as easy for me to see this as it is for you to see the lack of faith in Suicide Bombers. As difficult as it is for the Suicide Bomber to see her own lack of faith, is it for you.

 

Hard to say how many people were cowed by such fear.

Troll much? Tu quoque is not a point of view.

So you're implying he's only an accomplice, not a frothing hater in his own right? That's a little hard to believe. Who told him to start Jamaat-e-Islami? God?

 

The subject of the post you are responding to - and, in turn, your own previous post that prompted it - was not "infidel" or "kafir," but "your faith."

That a term whose definition specifically refers to a particular faith implies such a context, is not what you said earlier. You said that when a Muslim refers to "your faith," he's speaking of Islam. Can you see that these are not the same statement?

Last I checked, said god was on the record as being both "jealous" and "vengeful." Wherever your presumption that god must be some kind of universalist humanitarian is coming from, it doesn't seem to be the actual scriptures or practices of the religions in question. That god doesn't seem to have any trouble picking sides, nor condemning huge portions of humanity to eternal torment. He's supposed to have wiped out the entire human race, except for a single favored family, at one point, and blessed his favored nations with victory in battle and subsequent genocide/slavery of the defeated nations on multiple occasions. He is understood by a great many to demand the death of anyone who departs the "correct" religion.

So the idea that a solitary god must necessarily be a beneficent god for all humanity, seems screwy - at least if said god is supposed to be that of Abraham. It presumes that such a god is also benevolent and just, and not a partisan for certain subsets of humanity (a position he takes again and again, very explicitly and forcefully, throughout Abrahamic theology). From a human science perspective, such a pan-humanist god is a pretty silly suggestion - the entire social-evolutionary advantage of organized religion is as a framework for hanging nation-scale political hierarchy onto. A just, universal god wouldn't do for that, exactly because he would have no reason to take your side in political conflicts with competing nations.

Indeed. But that poses no difficulty for any reference of "your faith" being accurate.

So what? We have to accept people behaving as offensive bigots, because divergent views exist as such?

That doesn't require one to disrespect the (equal) standing of others to come to their own decisions on the matter. You can think someone is wrong, without going so far as to insist that they don't have any right to disagree with you in the first place.

Arrogance is not the same thing as provincialism.

 

There is a discussion on suicide bombers and their faith somewhere - I remember looking up the studies on their religious convictions. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that even if a suicide bomber was caught in the act, before he managed to pull it off, he would still not be under the authority of a religious cleric, but the civil government and its laws. Religious opinions ie fatwas do not have the force of law in Islam. Law is determined by civic consensus which is determined by the legal authority of the state. In fact he would be treated the same way as Kasab in India. By due process. Compare that with how the US fights terrorism. 10 years and counting in Iraq and Afghanistan. So many dead tortured and traumatised. And still unable to meet their goals.

 

Why?

 

Because its an indication of how the ideology works. Note how the evil Arabs revolt against dictators. Without guns. Could that ever happen in the west?

 

Which is related to the OP how again?

And your point is...that Arabs only revolt without guns? (Like in Libya, I guess.)

 

I don't - not generally. The most common use of that phrase is in response to someone that regards one's plans or suggestions cynically. The response is then "Oh ye of little faith." The faith there is usually understood to be general and abstract - faith in humanity, or in luck, or in the speaker's ability to anticipate, plan and execute. There's typically no particular religious reference present at all, in "secular settings."

Now, if a preacher delivering a sermon in a church says something about "those of little faith," there'd be some implication that the faith in question is that of the denomination attending the sermon. But even those types typically would not connote that way when speaking to a general, secular audience.

Not that I deny that bigoted supremacists do use that term in that way - such was exactly the subject of my complaint.

That there are forces that reject secularism and liberalism, and work against such - including by attempting to appropriate and sacrilize common language - does not require that we all accept the propriety of them doing so and play along. They're working to destroy the actual definitions of words, for their own partisan ends - if we want a secular, liberal universe, we have to fight them. To capitulate on the grounds that the universe isn't secular in the first place is ass-backwards.

Of course. But nothing in there requires one to disrespect the basic standing of others to come to their own conclusions on the matter.

The issue is not the basic nature of faith, nor the associated urge to proselytize. You can have all that stuff, without also rejecting the basic equality between your own spiritual convictions and anyone else's.

 

Its an indication of how Islam is maligned by its detractors for theories and words, while the actions of the detractors themselves leave much to be desired. I mean seriously, I have to listen to bullshit from someone who is waiting for Jesus to come and kill all the Jews - and he is offended because there is a word in a foreign language which describes his beliefs!!!!! All while his taxes support occupation torture and murder of innocents on a daily basis. What could be more pathetic than that?

 

Last time I checked, those Libyan rebels were having gun battles against Qadaffi's forces.

And the Egyptian military had some small role in getting rid of Mubarak, note - recall all those pictures of protestors in Tahrir square standing on tanks?

It has happened many, many times in the West. A recent example being the revolutions of 1989 - themselves widely considered models for the current uprisings in North Africa and elsewhere.

 

What me criticize?

And whole-life-system political theories that would consign everyone else to second-class citizen status. And you expect everyone else to just kind of believe that it's really just bad press, no matter what the actual proponents of it - like Maududi - say about such ideas. And that we should just pretend that Islamic reformist movements are just crazy, or nonexistent; Maududi way or the highway.

Right.

 

James you need to make up your mind. awhile back on of the mods said something along the lines of for you UFO NUTS out there was recieved as ufo idiots but he didnt mean it that way THAT was ok but now this is not ok? what is the stance? dont wanna stand up for this dude cuz all he really does is troll but you need to treat everyone the same