# If radical Islam is violent due to culture and not religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741 "2015-09-11T23:24:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 71
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1402 "2015-10-29T04:30:58Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > You know, if you’re a Muslim whose having cocktails in mixed-gender settings, you pretty much _are_ challenging the notion of doctrinal infallibility. By your actions you are, maybe, except, not really. Disobeying a commandment is different than challenging it’s legitimacy. Khuldune’s observation is that these are the same people who will NOT challenge doctrinal infallibility with rhetoric. > [@](#): > > It’s no surprise to me that actual moderate liberals in Pakistan ignore the ravings of this Western-bigot-pandering asshole and pay no heed whatsoever to his hypocritical excoriations. Ad hominem outburst disregarded. > [@](#): > > (And if these Lahoris are doing things like drinking alcohol and having mixed-gender parties, aren’t they supposedly _also_ risking their lives in _shari’ah_-loving Pakistan?) Partying behind closed doors is not a very dangerous activity for the rich ones who can afford to live in a bubble. Being a Shia, a secular politician, an Ahmadi, a Christain, a Sufi, or a child in a school in Peshawar are all far more dangerous. > [@](#): > > I find it rather odd that he accuses the moderate, liberal Muslims he’s so mad at of refusing to place humanistic values above religious ones on one hand, and then accuses them of being “the product of studying concepts derived from other human beings and then trying to forcibly merge them into Islamic teachings” (as opposed to the Taliban, who according to him, are “are the product of studying Islam and nothing but Islam”. You are completely failing to grasp the concept. He wants them to stop pretending that there is some objectively determinable “true Islam” at all. He points out that people try to meld modern humanistic values with values and traditions derived from Islam. This is great, but what is not is pretending that this new chimera is “true Islam”. By continuing the charade that they are deriving these values from Islam, and only Islam, they are failing to challenge the notion that it is acceptable in the modern era to derive all of their morals and behavioral habits from the Iron Age. If it is not challenged, some large portion of Muslims will continue to _actually_ do this, instead of pretending. And considering the violent nature of the texts and traditions, this is very very dangerous. It takes some pretty deep denial and cognitive dissonance to blind yourself to this. One of the interpretations that comes from actually studying Islam and nothing but Islam, while disregarding humanistic values, is the interpretation of the Taliban, Isis, Saudi Arabia, and the vast numbers of other Muslims who believe in death sentences for crimes of conscience and consensual sex. > [@](#): > > No, but it would certainly be odd for a Mormon who claims to be against polygamy as practiced by those sects to declare that they’re following the true Mormonism, and that Mormons who don’t believe what those sects do (which includes all the Church Elders who condemn polygamy and those sects) are getting their own religion wrong. You are confused. In this analogy Khuldune is analogous not to a Mormon who merely condemns the practice of polygamy in our current modern setting without abandoning the underlying doctrine, but to a non-literalist Catholic or other Christian who does. > [@](#): > > I thought you meant his “criticisms” of Islam were obviously aimed at a Pakistani audience because they contained references to things only Pakistanis would understand. None of those articles have anything to do with his views of Islam or the Taliban, and so far all of the pieces which do contain his views of Islam don’t have anything in them that a Western Islamophobe like Robert Spencer wouldn’t understand. Malsi, the [Elephant in the room](http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/01/comment/columns/elephant-in-the-room/) is very Pak-centric. [Here is another example.](http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-mullahs-utility/) He is a Pakistani author, based in Pakistan, who writes primarily for Pakistani outlets. Yes, sometimes he participates in discussion about what is happening in the wider Muslim world, or God, forbid, even the West. It’s all one big digital mishmash of a community anyway. Welcome to the internet. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t abrogated (and you’ll note that Ibn 'Abbas does not say it was, nor in his exegesis of 5:90-91 does he say they abrogated 4:43). It was already a sin (per 2:219). The three verses are progressive clarifications, and since all three are still in force (alcohol is still a great sin, and you can’t go to prayers drunk), none of the other verses were abrogated, since _naskh_ is (by _definition_) the cancellation/negation of a ruling. Noting that a behavior was a common practice among the Prophet or his companions was plenty of evidence for it to become halal, makruh, or sunnah, in the absense of a later revelation. > [@](#): > > As opposed to trusting a liar who publishes on Robert Spencer’s Islam-hating website? The article was first published on the Telegraph. I doubt Khuldune is even aware of who Robert Spencer is. He is neither obsessed with nor inflamed by American political tribalism. I don’t know how the article ended up on his site, but I am certain that he is not ideologically aligned with Spencer (regardless of how convenient that would be for your avoidance of the meat of the discussion) considering he called [CNN anchors anti-Muslim bigots](http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/self-defeating-extremes/): > [@](#): > > When Reza Aslan, highly acclaimed scholar of religions, was being interviewed by a CNN team last week, to comment on renowned satirist and TV show host Bill Maher’s comments on Islam, a familiar vacuum bulged out from the footage that went viral on social media. The vacuum is hogged by bigotry and apologia, on either flank, and becomes conspicuous every time Islam is being discussed thousands of miles away from any relevant proximity of the Muslim world. The two self-defeating extremes have been aggravating the Islamist predicament since it metamorphosed into a global existential crisis 13 years ago. > > The blatantly ignorant CNN team was masterfully called out for their anti-Muslim bigotry, which was evident by rhetorical questions like ‘Does Islam promote violence?’ The CNN hosts didn’t pose a challenge worthy of Aslan’s religious savoir-faire. This allowed him to meticulously disguise his religious apologia, while the CNN team was left with quite a few dozen eggs on their faces. > > Neither the hosts nor the guest, however, brought any meaningful answers to fill the gaping vacuum. > > Most discussions ostensibly designed to solve the Islamist puzzle around the globe seem to be hogged by two extremes: > > Anti-Muslim bigots who claim that Islam is the root of most – if not all – evil in the world > > OR > > Religious apologists who assert that there’s nothing wrong with Islam or the Muslim countries at all that warrants special mentions of religion or the religious identity of the countries where most human rights violations are being witnessed. > > Both extremes were evident in the five-minute footage. > > - See more at: [TFT-Story](http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/self-defeating-extremes/#sthash.FYPwYR59.dpuf) > [@](#): > > Yeah, no. I’ll stick with the academic work of specialist scholars As long as they shore up your illusions you will. Anti-Muslim bigots are not the only group pandered to, you know. There is [quite the trend now of pandering to Islamists](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maryam-namazie-secular-activist-barred-from-speaking-at-warwick-university-over-fears-of-inciting-10517296.html-0) in Britain these days, which is where your specialist scholar makes her living. > [@](#): > > He managed to get the second part of his nonsense in the Torygraph (surely out of reach of angry Pakistanis). I am sure you are aware that [being in Europe does not protect journalists in their offices from being killed](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-killings-arab-states-jihadi-extremist-sympathisers-isis)by angry Muslims following the literal examples of their prophet and his companions. > [@](#): > > Why was his third part a JihadWatch exclusive? Good question. Maybe because no one else would leave it online on their sites out of fear of being killed. > [@](#): > > Only if those articles were exclusively published on the Brotherhood’s website, the way Khaldune’s “part III” was exclusively published on JihadWatch. You really are trying to wring as much as you can out of this connection, aren’t you? The ideas you are avoiding the discussion of are not changed by the paper or website they are printed on, anyway. > [@](#): > > Because it documents that scholars and exegetes haven’t all thought about the violent verses and peaceful verses the way Khaldune asserts they did, and it shows how wrong he is about abrogation and those verses. I am looking through the book on Amazon and I am not seeing anything that contradicts what he has said, so far. > [@](#): > > I’m cutting and pasting _his exact words_. You are cutting and pasting his exact words, yes, but they do not back up your claim. You are refusing to even comprehend the notion that someone can be a Muslim and at the same time be disturbed or even disgusted by parts of the Koran. This is unsurprising, considering most Muslim see this stance as incompatible with being a Muslim, but it is how many Christians and Jews have come to think. > [@](#): > > You’re the one twisting and spinning to try to claim that he was only referring to some random Lahori moderate liberals. Something which is a wee bit hard to swallow, given that he has a whole paragraph in his “part III” published on Spencer’s hate-site about how the Taliban are what you get when you study Islam and only Islam, and that they’re merely striving to obey what the Qur’an tells them and what Khaldune claims that 1400 years worth of scholars intended to say. Yeah, you are very confused. His audience is Lahori Muslim liberals. He is criticizing their lack of willingness to challenge doctrinal infallibility, which preserves the fertile ground that the Taliban thrive in. If you assert that their is one true Islam, don’t be surprised when some people actually open the source texts themselves, instead of apologetic filters published by Oxford Press, and come up with what the Taliban come up with. > [@](#): > > Even in his concluding paragraph, in which he says he wants a reformation of Islam to better fit with the modern era, he claims that such a reformation as he desires would “still light years away from the original Islamic scriptures and their teachings”, Yes, it would be. Just as modern Christianity is usually light years away from original Biblical Christianity. > [@](#): > > and so “there is no point blaming the Taliban or other Muslim terrorist organizations for taking the Islamic teachings way too literally, because that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”. There isn’t, unless one is willing to challenge the notions that it is acceptable in the modern era to derive ones morals and behavioral habits primarily from Iron Age sources (which he does). > [@](#): > > He’s not likening the Taliban to the cherrypickers of Lahore cocktail parties, he’s _literally_ saying that the Taliban are doing Islam the “right way”. They are actually implementing Islam in the way that the Lahorian moderates falsely claim to, that is, directly from the source texts, rather than trying to pretend that the texts support modern notions of equality, which they clearly do not. > [@](#): > > He doesn’t, because “his version” of Islam, proper Islam the way the scriptures say it should be practiced, is the Taliban’s version, and anything else (such as modern, liberal interpretations,\* including\* what are the reforms he ostensibly says he wants) is _explicitly_ “light years away from the original Islamic scriptures and their teachings”. That is not his version, his version is a modern pluralistic one that acknowledges that there is not any one true Islam, and that some verses should be abandoned as sources of morality and especially law. Uh, that actually says exactly what _I_ said about it, that the verse isn’t about taking Jews and Christians as friends (as Khaldune asserted), but as _patrons_ in the clientage system. > [@](#): > > O you who believe, do not take Jews and Christians as patrons, affiliating with them **or showing them affection** ; they are patrons of each other, being united in disbelief. **Whoever amongst you affiliates with them, he is one of them** , counted with them. God does not guide the folk who do wrong, by affiliating with disbelievers. > [@](#): > > You know, the way you keep referring to other, completely unrelated essays of his to supposedly explain what he _really_ meant in _these_ essays really doesn’t say a whole lot for Khaldane’s ability to get his meaning across clearly and directly. You are trying to argue against him with general statements about his motives rather than grappling with the ideas themselves. These statements of yours are refuted by his body of work. > [@](#): > > At any rate, once again he’s trying to trap moderate Muslims in a catch-22. If they don’t speak out against and reject the terrorists, obviously they support them. If they do speak out against and reject the terrorists, they admit that the terrorists are true Muslims after all because otherwise they wouldn’t feel the need to speak out against and reject them! > > Heads I win, tails you lose again. Life is not a coin, there are more than two options. His assertion is that by limiting criticism of terrorists to detailing how they are supposedly not following “true Islam” they are supporting the notion that their _is_ a true Islam. And, [as he says](http://leftfootforward.org/2015/06/the-author-of-the-counter-terrorism-curriculum-advocates-murder-for-blasphemy/): > [@](#): > > Anyone who peddles the concept of ‘true Islam’ – just like any other religion – no matter how peaceful and tolerant their version of Islam might be, inadvertently gives credence to the likes of ISIS. > > For if there is a ‘true’ version, what’s stopping the radicals from believing that theirs is the one? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1403 "2015-10-29T04:54:57Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > By your actions you are, maybe, except, not really. Disobeying a commandment is different than challenging it’s legitimacy. Khuldune’s observation is that these are the same people who will NOT challenge doctrinal infallibility with rhetoric. > > Ad hominem outburst disregarded. > > Partying behind closed doors is not a very dangerous activity for the rich ones who can afford to live in a bubble. Being a Shia, a secular politician, an Ahmadi, a Christain, a Sufi, or a child in a school in Peshawar are all far more dangerous. > > You are completely failing to grasp the concept. He wants them to stop pretending that there is some objectively determinable “true Islam” at all. He points out that people try to meld modern humanistic values with values and traditions derived from Islam. This is great, but what is not is pretending that this new chimera is “true Islam”. By continuing the charade that they are deriving these values from Islam, and only Islam, they are failing to challenge the notion that it is acceptable in the modern era to derive all of their morals and behavioral habits from the Iron Age. If it is not challenged, some large portion of Muslims will continue to _actually_ do this, instead of pretending. And considering the violent nature of the texts and traditions, this is very very dangerous. It takes some pretty deep denial and cognitive dissonance to blind yourself to this. One of the interpretations that comes from actually studying Islam and nothing but Islam, while disregarding humanistic values, is the interpretation of the Taliban, Isis, Saudi Arabia, and the vast numbers of other Muslims who believe in death sentences for crimes of conscience and consensual sex. > > You are confused. In this analogy Khuldune is analogous not to a Mormon who merely condemns the practice of polygamy in our current modern setting without abandoning the underlying doctrine, but to a non-literalist Catholic or other Christian who does. > > Malsi, the [Elephant in the room](http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/01/comment/columns/elephant-in-the-room/) is very Pak-centric. [Here is another example.](http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-mullahs-utility/) He is a Pakistani author, based in Pakistan, who writes primarily for Pakistani outlets. Yes, sometimes he participates in discussion about what is happening in the wider Muslim world, or God, forbid, even the West. It’s all one big digital mishmash of a community anyway. Welcome to the internet. > > Noting that a behavior was a common practice among the Prophet or his companions was plenty of evidence for it to become halal, makruh, or sunnah, in the absense of a later revelation. > > The article was first published on the Telegraph. I doubt Khuldune is even aware of who Robert Spencer is. He is neither obsessed with nor inflamed by American political tribalism. I don’t know how the article ended up on his site, but I am certain that he is not ideologically aligned with Spencer (regardless of how convenient that would be for your avoidance of the meat of the discussion) considering he called [CNN anchors anti-Muslim bigots](http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/self-defeating-extremes/): > > As long as they shore up your illusions you will. Anti-Muslim bigots are not the only group pandered to, you know. There is [quite the trend now of pandering to Islamists](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maryam-namazie-secular-activist-barred-from-speaking-at-warwick-university-over-fears-of-inciting-10517296.html-0) in Britain these days, which is where your specialist scholar makes her living. > > I am sure you are aware that [being in Europe does not protect journalists in their offices from being killed](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-killings-arab-states-jihadi-extremist-sympathisers-isis)by angry Muslims following the literal examples of their prophet and his companions. > > Good question. Maybe because no one else would leave it online on their sites out of fear of being killed. > > You really are trying to wring as much as you can out of this connection, aren’t you? The ideas you are avoiding the discussion of are not changed by the paper or website they are printed on, anyway. > > I am looking through the book on Amazon and I am not seeing anything that contradicts what he has said, so far. > > You are cutting and pasting his exact words, yes, but they do not back up your claim. You are refusing to even comprehend the notion that someone can be a Muslim and at the same time be disturbed or even disgusted by parts of the Koran. This is unsurprising, considering most Muslim see this stance as incompatible with being a Muslim, but it is how many Christians and Jews have come to think. > > Yeah, you are very confused. His audience is Lahori Muslim liberals. He is criticizing their lack of willingness to challenge doctrinal infallibility, which preserves the fertile ground that the Taliban thrive in. If you assert that their is one true Islam, don’t be surprised when some people actually open the source texts themselves, instead of apologetic filters published by Oxford Press, and come up with what the Taliban come up with. > > Yes, it would be. Just as modern Christianity is usually light years away from original Biblical Christianity. > > There isn’t, unless one is willing to challenge the notions that it is acceptable in the modern era to derive ones morals and behavioral habits primarily from Iron Age sources (which he does). > > They are actually implementing Islam in the way that the Lahorian moderates falsely claim to, that is, directly from the source texts, rather than trying to pretend that the texts support modern notions of equality, which they clearly do not. > > That is not his version, his version is a modern pluralistic one that acknowledges that there is not any one true Islam, and that some verses should be abandoned as sources of morality and especially law. > > Uh, that actually says exactly what _I_ said about it, that the verse isn’t about taking Jews and Christians as friends (as Khaldune asserted), but as _patrons_ in the clientage system. > > You are trying to argue against him with general statements about his motives rather than grappling with the ideas themselves. These statements of yours are refuted by his body of work. > > Life is not a coin, there are more than two options. His assertion is that by limiting criticism of terrorists to detailing how they are supposedly not following “true Islam” they are supporting the notion that their _is_ a true Islam. And, [as he says](http://leftfootforward.org/2015/06/the-author-of-the-counter-terrorism-curriculum-advocates-murder-for-blasphemy/): Well, this is interesting. I am so often accused of being “ignornat” in my criticism of Islam. It seems, however, criticism from people who actually do know about the topic receive just as much evasion and denial as my “uninformed” comments receive. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1404 "2015-10-29T06:33:57Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > By your actions you are, maybe, except, not really. Disobeying a commandment is different than challenging it’s legitimacy. Khuldune’s observation is that these are the same people who will NOT challenge doctrinal infallibility with rhetoric. And the fact that they apparently reject Khaldane’s ignorant, hypocritical demands means that they’re a lot smarter and better educated in Islam than he is. He’s not demanding that they “challenge doctrinal infallibilty”, he’s demanding that they accept the same notions of doctrinal infallibility that the Taliban subscribe to. > [@](#): > > Partying behind closed doors is not a very dangerous activity for the rich ones who can afford to live in a bubble. Being a Shia, a secular politician, an Ahmadi, a Christain, a Sufi, or a child in a school in Peshawar are all far more dangerous. These partiers are so private and exclusive that he apparently knows all about them yet refuses to talk about them in anything more than phantasmagorical vagueries. Khaldane’s “chosen audience” is nothing more than a straw boogeyman, chosen so he can pretend to his Western Islamophobe allies like Spencer that he’s Fighting the Good Fight, pretending to address moderate liberals who are guilty of not believing in the same True Islam as practiced by the Taliban that both Khaldane and Spencer believe in, and have nothing whatsoever to do with actual moderate liberals and their struggles to fight the very same Muslim extremists that Khaldane believes are the only ones practicing Islam as it’s supposed to be practiced. > [@](#): > > You are completely failing to grasp the concept. He wants them to stop pretending that there is some objectively determinable “true Islam” at all. The only one asserting that there’s any kind of objectively determinable “true Islam” is _him_. > [@](#): > > One of the interpretations that comes from actually studying Islam and nothing but Islam, while disregarding humanistic values, is the interpretation of the Taliban, Isis, Saudi Arabia, and the vast numbers of other Muslims who believe in death sentences for crimes of conscience and consensual sex. Which is, according to him, the only actual “true Islam”. > [@](#): > > You are confused. In this analogy Khuldune is analogous not to a Mormon who merely condemns the practice of polygamy in our current modern setting without abandoning the underlying doctrine, but to a non-literalist Catholic or other Christian who does. And that “analogy” fails, because Khaldane is not claiming to be an outsider like a Catholic would be to Mormonism, but to be a Muslim. It’s the most pathetic kind of appeal to authority: “I’m a Muslim, and I say Islam is evil! Therefore you can trust me that Islam is really evil!” > [@](#): > > Malsi, the [Elephant in the room](http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/01/comment/columns/elephant-in-the-room/) is very Pak-centric. [Here is another example.](http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/the-mullahs-utility/) Again, you keep appealing to the other writings of _Hazrat_ Khaldane to try to explain why he didn’t actually mean what he wrote in the essays you cite. > [@](#): > > Noting that a behavior was a common practice among the Prophet or his companions was plenty of evidence for it to become halal, makruh, or sunnah, in the absense of a later revelation. Which has precisely jack shit to do with your (and his) claims about _naskh_. _Naskh_ is a very specific doctrine with very specific rules. And 4:43 does not fall within those rules, no matter how hard you and Khaldane wish it would. > [@](#): > > The article was first published on the Telegraph. I doubt Khuldune is even aware of who Robert Spencer is. Yes, so unaware that “part III” of his little bullshit essay was published exclusively and solely at Spencer’s website. Go on, pull the other one. > [@](#): > > As long as they shore up your illusions you will. Anti-Muslim bigots are not the only group pandered to, you know. There is [quite the trend now of pandering to Islamists](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maryam-namazie-secular-activist-barred-from-speaking-at-warwick-university-over-fears-of-inciting-10517296.html-0) in Britain these days, which is where your specialist scholar makes her living. Oh, please _do_ provide evidence that Afsaruddin is “pandering to Islamists” in any way (other than, of course, using actual evidence to prove that the assertions of _Hazrat_ Khaldane is full of shit). I’ll wait. > [@](#): > > I am sure you are aware that [being in Europe does not protect journalists in their offices from being killed](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-killings-arab-states-jihadi-extremist-sympathisers-isis)by angry Muslims following the literal examples of their prophet and his companions. Yes, the Telegraph is so terrified by the (nonexistent) threats from (nonexistent) Pakistani Islamists angry at Khaldane’s writing that [his essay is not only still up on their website](http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/12/dont-blame-the-taliban/), but they [keep publishing his writing even now](http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/112/no-charlie-hebdo-did-not-mock-syrian-toddler-aylan-kurdi-in-its-cartoons/). :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Good question. Maybe because no one else would leave it online on their sites out of fear of being killed. Since it’s still up at the Telegraph, maybe your “theory” there is entirely bullshit. > [@](#): > > You really are trying to wring as much as you can out of this connection, aren’t you? The ideas you are avoiding the discussion of are not changed by the paper or website they are printed on, anyway. Yes, they’re both entirely wrong, and written specifically for and with the wholehearted endorsement of hate sites. > [@](#): > > I am looking through the book on Amazon and I am not seeing anything that contradicts what he has said, so far. I doubt that very much. > [@](#): > > You are cutting and pasting his exact words, yes, Game, set, match. > [@](#): > > You are refusing to even comprehend the notion that someone can be a Muslim and at the same time be disturbed or even disgusted by parts of the Koran. Not really, no. But that’s not what Khaldane is doing. > [@](#): > > If you assert that their is one true Islam, As Khaldane does, and says that it’s the Taliban’s Islam. > [@](#): > > don’t be surprised when some people actually open the source texts themselves, instead of apologetic filters published by Oxford Press, and come up with what the Taliban come up with. And here you agree with him: the Taliban are merely following what the “source texts” say. > [@](#): > > There isn’t, unless one is willing to challenge the notions that it is acceptable in the modern era to derive ones morals and behavioral habits primarily from Iron Age sources (which he does). He doesn’t want Muslims to “challenge” the Qur’an, he wants Muslims to _abandon_ the Qur’an. > [@](#): > > They are actually implementing Islam in the way that the Lahorian moderates falsely claim to, The way his straw “Lahorian moderates” claim to. He’s, so far, not cited a single thing written or said by anyone to support that. > [@](#): > > that is, directly from the source texts, rather than trying to pretend that the texts support modern notions of equality, which they clearly do not. Because he supports the Taliban’s interpretation of those texts. Fortunately, there are Muslims who are willing to call bullshit on that stance. > [@](#): > > That is not his version, his version is a modern pluralistic one that acknowledges that there is not any one true Islam, and that some verses should be abandoned as sources of morality and especially law. If that were true, then I submit that he might want to stop talking about how the Taliban is what you get when you study Islam and how the Taliban’s interpretation is the true one and the closest to what the Qur’an and other scriptures actually teach. Because the one is at pretty strong odds with the other. > [@](#): > > _Jalalayn tafsir again_ “Affection” in terms of respect for ones patron (haven’t you seen _The Godfather_?). “Affiliation” there is the same. Both of these, in the\* tafsir\* you quoted, are in the specific and quite explicit context of _patronage_. Not two guys hanging out together and having a barbecue with their families. _Patron and client._ > [@](#): > > You are trying to argue against him with general statements about his motives rather than grappling with the ideas themselves. These statements of yours are refuted by his body of work. I quote his actual words, not your ridiculous spin. > [@](#): > > Life is not a coin, there are more than two options. His assertion is that by limiting criticism of terrorists to detailing how they are supposedly not following “true Islam” they are supporting the notion that their _is_ a true Islam. And, [as he says](http://leftfootforward.org/2015/06/the-author-of-the-counter-terrorism-curriculum-advocates-murder-for-blasphemy/): The only one here who has said a _single fucking thing_ in favor of there being a “true Islam” is Khaldane himself. And his “true Islam”, as he has exhaustively explained in the links you’ve provided, is that of the Taliban. He’s either a hypocrite, or a bullshit artist of the highest order. And the fact that you keep citing him _ad nauseam_ and defend his writing almost _religiously_ doesn’t say a whole lot for you, your argument, or your knowledge of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1405 "2015-10-29T07:40:08Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > And the fact that they apparently reject Khaldane’s ignorant, hypocritical demands means that they’re a lot smarter and better educated in Islam than he is. He’s not demanding that they “challenge doctrinal infallibilty”, he’s demanding that they accept the same notions of doctrinal infallibility that the Taliban subscribe to. No, you are utterly and completely missing the point. He is asking that they stop paying lip service to doctrinal infallibility. > [@](#): > > These partiers are so private and exclusive that he apparently knows all about them yet refuses to talk about them in anything more than phantasmagorical vagueries. Their existence is certainly no secret. > [@](#): > > Khaldane’s “chosen audience” is nothing more than a straw boogeyman, chosen so he can pretend to his Western Islamophobe allies like Spencer that he’s Fighting the Good Fight, pretending to address moderate liberals who are guilty of not believing in the same True Islam as practiced by the Taliban that both Khaldane and Spencer believe in, and have nothing whatsoever to do with actual moderate liberals and their struggles to fight the very same Muslim extremists that Khaldane believes are the only ones practicing Islam as it’s supposed to be practiced. You are chasing your own tail. > [@](#): > > The only one asserting that there’s any kind of objectively determinable “true Islam” is _him_. Incorrect. Muslims the world over argue constantly about the correct interpretations. The idea of Islam as a perfectly revealed religion is the opposite of controversial among Muslims. > [@](#): > > Which is, according to him, the only actual “true Islam”. No, he is a pluralist. > [@](#): > > And that “analogy” fails, because Khaldane is not claiming to be an outsider like a Catholic would be to Mormonism, but to be a Muslim. A pluralist Muslim who is willing to be critical of scripture and it’s application. He could be a Mormon in the analogy, as long as he was willing to challenge the scriptural authority of the verses allowing polygamy. > [@](#): > > It’s the most pathetic kind of appeal to authority: “I’m a Muslim, and I say Islam is evil! Therefore you can trust me that Islam is really evil!” Except that he neither makes that appeal nor claims that Islam is evil. > [@](#): > > Again, you keep appealing to the other writings of _Hazrat_ Khaldane to try to explain why he didn’t actually mean what he wrote in the essays you cite. No, I appeal to him to refute your assertions about him and what he has written. > [@](#): > > Which has precisely jack shit to do with your (and his) claims about _naskh_. _Naskh_ is a very specific doctrine with very specific rules. And 4:43 does not fall within those rules, no matter how hard you and Khaldane wish it would. It falls within the rules. 4:43 falls within the rules for the reason I have already explained. Descriptions of the companions getting drunk would be plenty to justify a ruling allowing drinking, if not for the later revealed verse. > [@](#): > > Yes, so unaware that “part III” of his little bullshit essay was published exclusively and solely at Spencer’s website. And what is your source for the claim that it was published exclusively and solely at Spencer’s website? Oh , that’s right, it is Spencer’s website. > [@](#): > > Go on, pull the other one. > **[Don’t blame the Taliban III – My Telegraph](https://web.archive.org/web/20140109073146/http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/30/dont-blame-the-taliban-iii/)** > > Let’s bring everything into context > > by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid > > Ever since Taliban’s attack on Malala Yousafzai, there’s almost universal condemnation of the act and of the ‘Taliban ideology’. Even though there are exceptions, most notably in... > [@](#): > > Yes, the Telegraph is so terrified by the (nonexistent) threats from (nonexistent) Pakistani Islamists angry at Khaldane’s writing that [his essay is not only still up on their website](http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/12/dont-blame-the-taliban/), but they [keep publishing his writing even now](http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/112/no-charlie-hebdo-did-not-mock-syrian-toddler-aylan-kurdi-in-its-cartoons/). > > :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Yes, they’re both entirely wrong, and written specifically for and with the wholehearted endorsement of hate sites. Again, simple ad hominem outburst, no substance. > [@](#): > > Game, set, match. Very childish behavior. You arer cutting and pasting, or in this case quoting, partial segments and implying they mean something that they do not. > [@](#): > > As Khaldane does, and says that it’s the Taliban’s Islam. No, he does not, he continuously and quite explicitly argues against what you are claiming, despite your failure to understand this. > [@](#): > > It is ironic that all the endeavour of progressive Muslims is dedicated to shielding their ideology from criticism, when it’s actually this critique that would lead to necessary reform, which at the end of the day is their much touted agenda. By claiming that criticism in unjustified, and denying the rather obvious influence of religion on religious extremism, one contradicts the “progressive” and “reformist” labels. While there is no denying that an irrational phobia of Muslims exists all over the world – considerably less than irrational phobia of people belonging to all other religions in the Muslim world, one might add –the term “Islamophobia”, used to shield the ideology, not the people, from scrutiny – and hence reform –, again, becomes a self-defeating misnomer. > > By saying that Islamists are using the “wrong” Islam uses the same logic that Islamists use to claim that the progressives are using the “wrong” Islam. Playing “true and false”, while thousands continue to be under the Islamist gun is a very dangerous game to play. Anyone who claims that the terrorism that is brewing owing to Islamism needs to be countered and condemned should focus on ensuring that no punches are pulled in condemnations for the acts. Whether or not the Islamist ideology is a blatant misinterpretation of “true” Islam is tantamount to needless apologia in the immediate aftermath of an Islamist attack. > > - See more at: [TFT-Story](http://www.thefridaytimes.com/tft/shameless-apologia/#sthash.VM8AF7ds.dpuf) > [@](#): > > And here you agree with him: the Taliban are merely following what the “source texts” say. Yes, the Taliban use the source texts of Islam. Their literal interpretations is one possible interpretation. > [@](#): > > He doesn’t want Muslims to “challenge” the Qur’an, he wants Muslims to _abandon_ the Qur’an. As an infallible source of morality and law, yes. Also known as religious moderation. > [@](#): > > Because he supports the Taliban’s interpretation of those texts. No, he does not. He is a pluralist Muslim who puts his life on the line making arguments against them and in favor of secularism. > [@](#): > > Fortunately, there are Muslims who are willing to call bullshit on that stance. Ok, let’s see: > [@](#): > > Fourteen centuries of Islamic thought have produced a legacy of interpretive readings of the Qu’ran written almost entirely by men. Now, with Qu’ran and Woman, Amina Wadud provides a first interpretive reading by a woman, a reading which validates the female voice in the Qu’ran and brings it out of the shadows. Muslim progressives have long argued that it is not the religion but patriarchal interpretation and implementation of the Qu’ran that have kept women oppressed. For many, the way to reform is the reexamination and reinterpretation of religious texts. Right, they are challenging interpretations, **but not the texts themselves.** > [@](#): > > If that were true, then I submit that he might want to stop talking about how the Taliban is what you get when you study Islam and how the Taliban’s interpretation is the true one and the closest to what the Qur’an and other scriptures actually teach. Yes, you submit that argument, I know. And he submits a different argument. One which you have yet to address. > [@](#): > > Because the one is at pretty strong odds with the other. The source of the contradiction is the Muslims who meld traditional Islam with modern humanistic values without admitting that they are doing so, and claiming that their version is the one true version. > [@](#): > > “Affection” in terms of respect for ones patron (haven’t you seen _The Godfather_?). “Affiliation” there is the same. A very large number of Muslims disagree with your interpretation. > [@](#): > > Both of these, in the\* tafsir\* you quoted, are in the specific and quite explicit context of _patronage_. Not two guys hanging out together and having a barbecue with their families. _Patron and client._ That is one way of looking at it. And there are others. With no way to objectively determine which one is correct. This is not a math problem. Many Muslims agree with you, and many do not. > [@](#): > > I quote his actual words, not your ridiculous spin. You quote his words but his work speaks for itself, and doesn’t saying anything like what you claim it does. > [@](#): > > The only one here who has said a _single fucking thing_ in favor of there being a “true Islam” is Khaldane himself. And his “true Islam”, as he has exhaustively explained in the links you’ve provided, is that of the Taliban. You yourself are continuously arguing about what is the correct interpretations are, as if there are any. He does not argue that the Taliban practice Islam as it _should_ be, but as it will inevitably be practiced by some, as long as humanistic values are held below Islamic orthodoxy. > [@](#): > > And the fact that you keep citing him _ad nauseam_ and defend his writing almost _religiously_ doesn’t say a whole lot for you, your argument, or your knowledge of Islam. Oh that is rich. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1406 "2015-10-29T11:15:02Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > No, you are utterly and completely missing the point. He is asking that they stop paying lip service to doctrinal infallibility. A) Where do they say they believe in doctrinal infallibility, B) does he have any evidence that a belief in doctrinal infallibility is any kind of hindrance to a modernist, liberal form of Islam? Because if his hated Lahori liberal moderates believe in doctrinal infallibility but are liberal moderate Muslims, it seems it _doesn’t,_ and C) if these moderate liberal Muslims disbelieve in doctrinal infallibility, how the _everliving fuck_ is that supposed to make the Taliban disbelieve in it? Most Christians believe in doctrinal infallibility of the Bible, after all, including Catholics and evangelical Protestants. > [@](#): > > Incorrect. Muslims the world over argue constantly about the correct interpretations. The idea of Islam as a perfectly revealed religion is the opposite of controversial among Muslims. Which means that the latter does not seem to be having any effect on the former, contrary to Khaldune’s bullshit thesis. > [@](#): > > No, he is a pluralist. No matter how many times you assert this, his own words show otherwise. > [@](#): > > No, I appeal to him to refute your assertions about him and what he has written. By essentially going “nu uh!!” every time I quote _his own words._ :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It falls within the rules. No, it doesn’t, and Ibn 'Abbas does not say it does. > [@](#): > > 4:43 falls within the rules for the reason I have already explained. Descriptions of the companions getting drunk would be plenty to justify a ruling allowing drinking, if not for the later revealed verse. And yet the later verse does not abrogate the earlier verses. 2:219, 4:43, and 5:90-91 are all still in force, with none of them being abrogated. > [@](#): > > And what is your source for the claim that it was published exclusively and solely at Spencer’s website? “And now I am pleased to present part III as a Jihad Watch exclusive. — RS” > [@](#): > > [https://web.archive.org/web/20140109073146/http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/30/dont-blame-the-taliban-iii/](https://web.archive.org/web/20140109073146/http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/30/dont-blame-the-taliban-iii/) “The article was originally published here: [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/dont-blame-the-taliban-part-iii.html](http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/dont-blame-the-taliban-part-iii.html)” It was, at the very least, published initially and exxclusively at Spencer’s hate site, something which is _fucking acknowledged right at that link!_ Which makes your claim that “oh, he doesn’t even know who Robert Spencer is!” straight-up bullshit. > [@](#): > > Very childish behavior. You arer cutting and pasting, or in this case quoting, partial segments and implying they mean something that they do not. You can keep playing “nu uh!” all you want, but his own words show he means exactly what he writes, with no Sooper Secret Decoder Ring knowledge required to decipher what he really means as opposed to what he actually writes. > [@](#): > > Yes, the Taliban use the source texts of Islam. Their literal interpretations is one possible interpretation. And according to Khaldune, “that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”. > [@](#): > > The source of the contradiction is the Muslims who meld traditional Islam with modern humanistic values without admitting that they are doing so, and claiming that their version is the one true version. That’s not contradiction, that’s Khaldane getting pissy that some Muslims dare to be moderate, liberal Muslims and not the Taliban without subscribing to his particular views about how they should be moderate, liberal Muslims. Which is kind of the _opposite_ of tolerance and pluralism. > [@](#): > > A very large number of Muslims disagree with your interpretation. Which you know from your citation of a single _tafsir_ that agrees with what I said? 😕 > [@](#): > > That is one way of looking at it. And there are others. With no way to objectively determine which one is correct. This is not a math problem. Many Muslims agree with you, and many do not. I have my interpretation, yes. But I’m not the one spouting bullshit like “the Taliban are the product of studying Islam and nothing but Islam” and “there is no point blaming the Taliban or other Muslim terrorist organizations for taking the Islamic teachings way too literally, because that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”. That would be Khaldane. > [@](#): > > You yourself are continuously arguing about what is the correct interpretations are, as if there are any. He does not argue that the Taliban practice Islam as it _should_ be, but as it will inevitably be practiced by some, as long as humanistic values are held below Islamic orthodoxy. “[T]here is no point blaming the Taliban or other Muslim terrorist organizations for taking the Islamic teachings way too literally, because that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”. You’re not actually arguing with me, but instead arguing with Khaldane! ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1407 "2015-10-29T19:24:20Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > A) Where do they say they believe in doctrinal infallibility, B) does he have any evidence that a belief in doctrinal infallibility is any kind of hindrance to a modernist, liberal form of Islam? Because if his hated Lahori liberal moderates believe in doctrinal infallibility but are liberal moderate Muslims, it seems it _doesn’t,_ He is not claiming they believe in it, but they pay lip service to it, rather than challenging troubling passages directly. > [@](#): > > No matter how many times you assert this, his own words show otherwise. He is quite clearly a pluralist. > [@](#): > > By essentially going “nu uh!!” every time I quote _his own words._ :rolleyes: No, by quoting his own words to show you that you are wrong. > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t, and Ibn 'Abbas does not say it does. Yes it does, Quranic descriptions of the Prophet and his companions doing things is enough to back up rulings that those things are permissible, without the later verses. > [@](#): > > “And now I am pleased to present part III as a Jihad Watch exclusive. — RS” > > “The article was originally published here: [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/dont-blame-the-taliban-part-iii.html](http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/dont-blame-the-taliban-part-iii.html)” > > It was, at the very least, published initially and exxclusively at Spencer’s hate site, something which is _fucking acknowledged right at that link!_ Which makes your claim that “oh, he doesn’t even know who Robert Spencer is!” straight-up bullshit. I messaged him and asked about this. Here is his response: > [@](#): > > Hank: Robert Spencer is considered to be a bigot > > Kunwar Khuldune Shahid: Well he does have a prejudice against Muslims > > Hank: What is the story behind the “exclusive” publishing of only part 3 of the story on his website? > > Kunwar Khuldune Shahid: Well he wanted me to write a piece for his website. This was back when I didn’t know about his Muslimophobia. So I wrote this one. > [@](#): > > You can keep playing “nu uh!” all you want, but his own words show he means exactly what he writes, with no Sooper Secret Decoder Ring knowledge required to decipher what he really means as opposed to what he actually writes. Yes, he means what he writes. The only problem here is your failure to comprehend it. > [@](#): > > And according to Khaldune, “that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”. Yes, and this is quite clear from tafsir: [There is no compulsion to accept Islam - Islam Question & Answer](http://islamqa.info/en/34770) > [@](#): > > That’s not contradiction, that’s Khaldane getting pissy that some Muslims dare to be moderate, liberal Muslims and not the Taliban without subscribing to his particular views about how they should be moderate, liberal Muslims. You can’t truly advance a moderate and liberal agenda while professing that the murderous commands in the Koran are the literal word of God. > [@](#): > > Which you know from your citation of a single _tafsir_ that agrees with what I said? 😕 I know from the numerous verses commanding this, and and from the fact that there is still a controversy today as to whether Muslim and Jews are prohibited as friends altogether or merely as close friends. [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/003-qmt.php#003.118](http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/003-qmt.php#003.118) > [@](#): > > I have my interpretation, yes. But I’m not the one spouting bullshit like “the Taliban are the product of studying Islam and nothing but Islam” and “there is no point blaming the Taliban or other Muslim terrorist organizations for taking the Islamic teachings way too literally, because that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”. Yes, you have your interpretation, and you consider those that disagree with you to be bullshit. That is fundamentalism plain and simple. > [@](#): > > “[T]here is no point blaming the Taliban or other Muslim terrorist organizations for taking the Islamic teachings way too literally, because that is precisely how they were supposed to be taken”. There is no point in blaming them for taking the teachings literally if one is not willing to challenge the notion that the teachings are the literal words and commandments of God. That this is his assertion is plain and simple from reading his work. It is obvious that your refusal to acknowledge this point stems from an inability to do so. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1408 "2015-10-29T20:16:28Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > He is not claiming they believe in it, but they pay lip service to it, rather than challenging troubling passages directly. Do you have any examples of him quoting what they actually say, rather than his vague strawman accusations of what he claims they say? And, again, how does he think this will help? Does he honestly believe that if cocktail-drinking liberal Muslims declare that the Qur’an is fallible will in any way, shape, or form induce the likes of the Taliban to rethink their position? Fuck no! They’ll just see it as further confirmation of what they _already believe_ about those liberal Muslims! > [@](#): > > Yes it does, Quranic descriptions of the Prophet and his companions doing things is enough to back up rulings that those things are permissible, without the later verses. A) Such a thing would be an example of juridical interpolation since there’s no clear ruling, as I said before, and B) is irrelevant to abrogation, since for _naskh_ to apply, the two verses have to be genuinely in conflict with each other and can in no way be reconciled with one another such that one cannot follow the rulings of both verses simultaneously, otherwise the one verse is the specification (_takhsis_) or qualification (_taqyid_) of the other, and not its abrogator. Since 4:43 (don’t be drunk during prayers) is qualified by 5:90-91 (don’t just don’t be drunk during prayers, but don’t be drunk period), but not nullified (you still aren’t permitted to be drunk during prayers, so the ruling of 4:43 has not been cancelled), and you can certainly follow both rulings simultaneously (not ever being drunk will automatically mean that you won’t go to prayers drunk) this is an example of _taqyid_/_tahksis_, not _naskh_. _Takhsis_ and _taqyid_, along with things like condition (_shart_), distinction (_wasf_) and exception (_istithna’_) are part of a whole host of different methods used to reconcile apparent “contradictions” in the Qur’an without having to resort to _naskh_. > [@](#): > > I messaged him and asked about this. Here is his response: In other words, you were wrong about him not knowing who Spencer was and not specifically writing something for Spencer’s hate site. And if he didn’t do even the bare-bones research which would have informed him of Spencer’s Islamophobia (like, say, _looking anywhere on his fucking website_), that certainly doesn’t say a whole lot for his research skills in general. It certainly explains the piss-poor and superficial nature of his other “research”, though. > [@](#): > > Yes, and this is quite clear from tafsir: [There is no compulsion to accept Islam - Islam Question & Answer](http://islamqa.info/en/34770) That’s not _tafsir_, that’s a _fatwa_ from [an extremist salafi website that’s even been banned in Saudi Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IslamQA.info). > [@](#): > > You can’t truly advance a moderate and liberal agenda while professing that the murderous commands in the Koran are the literal word of God. You’re apparently conflating “words of God that should be read literally” with “words that were literally spoken by God (as opposed to being the words of ‘inspired’ humans)”. Because you can certainly believe the latter without believing the former. > [@](#): > > I know from the numerous verses commanding this, and and from the fact that there is still a controversy today as to whether Muslim and Jews are prohibited as friends altogether or merely as close friends. [http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/003-qmt.php#003.118](http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/003-qmt.php#003.118) Do you think linking to other translations of the Qur’an consists of evidence to back up your specific assertion? > [@](#): > > Yes, you have your interpretation, and you consider those that disagree with you to be bullshit. That is fundamentalism plain and simple. No, I consider false statements to be bullshit. Khuldune is free to have whatever Taliban-hugging Spencer-pandering interpretation of Islam that he likes. But if he’s saying things like the Qur’an commands believers to cut the fingertips off unbelievers, _naskh_ means that the peaceful verses have been abrogated by the violent ones, the concept of “inner _jihad_” is a post-9/11 development, and that for 1400 years Islamic scholars have all promoted the same interpretation of Islam that the Taliban follow, then I’m going to call him out on his bullshit. > [@](#): > > There is no point in blaming them for taking the teachings literally if one is not willing to challenge the notion that the teachings are the literal words and commandments of God. That this is his assertion is plain and simple from reading his work. It is obvious that your refusal to acknowledge this point stems from an inability to do so. Again the conflation of “words of God that should be read literally” with “words that were literally spoken by God”. Those two are not the same thing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1409 "2015-10-30T01:21:27Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > And, again, how does he think this will help? Does he honestly believe that if cocktail-drinking liberal Muslims declare that the Qur’an is fallible will in any way, shape, or form induce the likes of the Taliban to rethink their position? His position, which is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension who bothers to read even the bit of his work that has been posted in this thread, is that the long awaited Islamic reformation is not possible while the only way for Muslims to condemn the Taliban for shooting a child in the face for going to school is to proclaim that shooting a child in the face for going to school is un-Islamic, rather than proclaiming that shooting a child in the face for going to school is evil and unacceptable, regardless of whether or not Islamic doctrine provides a justification for it. I get your concern, it is valid. And so is his. It’s not like the Taliban are swayed by the arguments from Westerners or urbanites that their behavior is contrary to Islam. > [@](#): > > A) Such a thing would be an example of juridical interpolation since there’s no clear ruling That is YOUR interpretation. Descriptions in the Koran of the Prophet and his companions engaging in behaviors is enough to rule that those behaviors are allowed. > [@](#): > > In other words, you were wrong about him not knowing who Spencer was and not specifically writing something for Spencer’s hate site. And if he didn’t do even the bare-bones research which would have informed him of Spencer’s Islamophobia (like, say, _looking anywhere on his fucking website_), that certainly doesn’t say a whole lot for his research skills in general. He is under no obligation to pay any attention at all to the intricacies of American political tribalism. One would think being a prolific genius takes up all his time. > [@](#): > > That’s not _tafsir_, that’s a _fatwa_ from [an extremist salafi website that’s even been banned in Saudi Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IslamQA.info). A fatwa by [**Shaykh Ibn Baaz, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993 until his death in 1999**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Baz). His other positions include: > [@](#): > > President of the Permanent Committee for Research and Fatawa. > President and member of the Constituent Assembly of the Muslim World League. > President of the Higher World League Council. > President of the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, Jeddah. And his fatwa is, of course, backed up by tafsir: > [@](#): > > [Tafsir Ibn Abbas 109.6](http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=109&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2): > (Unto you your religion) of disbelief and ascribing partners to Allah, (and unto me my religion) Islam and faith in Allah. The verses of fighting then abrogated this and the Prophet (pbuh) did fight them’ > > [Tafsir Al-Tustari 109.6](http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=93&tSoraNo=109&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2): > (You have your religion and I have a religion). You have your choice (ikhtiyār) for your religion and I have my choice for a religion. Then [this verse] was abrogated by the verse of the sword [9:5]. His words, Exalted is He: > . > [Tafsir Al-Jalalayn 109.6](http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=93&tSoraNo=109&tAyahNo=6&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2): > You have your religion, idolatry, and I have a religion’, Islam: this was [revealed] before he was commanded to wage war [against the idolaters] > [@](#): > > You’re apparently conflating “words of God that should be read literally” with “words that were literally spoken by God (as opposed to being the words of ‘inspired’ humans)”. > > Because you can certainly believe the latter without believing the former. Yes it is _possible_, it is also quite possible and very common for Muslims to literally obey and enforce commandments specifically because they are taught to believe they are the unaltered revelation of God. > [@](#): > > Again the conflation of “words of God that should be read literally” with “words that were literally spoken by God”. Those two are not the same thing at all. Not to you perhaps, but to many other Muslims the fact that the words are believed to have been literally spoken by God is all the reason in the world that they need to read and follow the words literally. Which is why such a[horrifyingly large percentage of Muslims worldwide believe such horrible things](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/). ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1410 "2015-10-30T02:38:47Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > His position, which is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension who bothers to read even the bit of his work that has been posted in this thread, is that the long awaited Islamic reformation is not possible while the only way for Muslims to condemn the Taliban for shooting a child in the face for going to school is to proclaim that shooting a child in the face for going to school is un-Islamic, rather than proclaiming that shooting a child in the face for going to school is evil and unacceptable, regardless of whether or not Islamic doctrine provides a justification for it. I get your concern, it is valid. And so is his. It’s not like the Taliban are swayed by the arguments from Westerners or urbanites that their behavior is contrary to Islam. It’s not cocktail-party Muslims that I’ve seen make such declarations, it’s _faqih_. Who, understandably, tend to couch things in terms of religious rulings. The giant tens-of-thousands-strong rally MQM held in Karachi for Malala after she was shot was all about how what happened to her was straight-up evil and not about doctrinal disputes. > [@](#): > > That is YOUR interpretation. Descriptions in the Koran of the Prophet and his companions engaging in behaviors is enough to rule that those behaviors are allowed. And that’s _your_ interpretation. And let’s not forget here that this entire side discussion was sparked by Khuldune’s claim that _naskh_ is “a necessity” to sort out the “myriad contradictions” in the Qur’an, when in fact it’s so unnecessary (thanks to all those other tools I mentioned) that even the likes of Abul A’la Maududi, founder of the [Jamaat-e-Islami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaat-e-Islami_Pakistan), rejects it as a concept. > [@](#): > > He is under no obligation to pay any attention at all to the intricacies of American political tribalism. One would think being a prolific genius takes up all his time. It certainly doesn’t seem to leave him enough time to research the basics of his own religion. > [@](#): > > His other positions include: Yes, he was a Wahhabi in charge of Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment. Is that supposed to impress me, considering that Wahhabism is an extremist sect that only appeared a thousand years after Muhammad and which was not only rejected by the Ottoman Caliphate, but is still rejected even now by Al-Azhar? The only reason Wahhabis have the influence in Islam they do today is because the British helped them seize Mecca in the 20s, and that gives them both a stranglehold on the _hajj_ and vast oil wealth which they use to export their barely-a-few-centuries-old fundamentalist brand of Islam to other countries. Such as Pakistan, in fact - they were huge backers of Zia-ul-Haq. > [@](#): > > And his fatwa is, of course, backed up by tafsir: Only some _tafsir_ (_tafsir_, like _fatawa_, are not scripture, but interpretations by individuals, and cover a wide range of opinion regarding what the Qur’an says. Al-Wahidi’s Asbab al-Nuzul, the other “major _tafsir_” listed at that site, does not consider 109.6 to be abrogated. Nor does Ibn Kathir, in his _tafsir_. It’s even common, based on Tirmidhi 45.3138 and Dawud 5055, to recite _surah_ 109 at bedtime as _dhikr_. > [@](#): > > Yes it is _possible_, it is also quite possible and very common for Muslims to literally obey and enforce commandments specifically because they are taught to believe they are the unaltered revelation of God. This completely ignores the poetic style in which the Qur’an was written and the critical role interpretation has always had in Islam. Even your own reliance on _tafsir_ in an effort to understand what the Qur’an says and what Muslims think it says shows that. > [@](#): > > Not to you perhaps, but to many other Muslims the fact that the words are believed to have been literally spoken by God is all the reason in the world that they need to read and follow the words literally. Except what they “literally say” differs widely depending on which Muslim you ask, what text you consult, what scholar you cite, even what region you’re in! Saying “oh, the Taliban are just following the Qur’an literally” is nonsensical, since what it “literally” says can’t be agreed upon by anyone! ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1411 "2015-10-30T03:34:29Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > It’s not cocktail-party Muslims that I’ve seen make such declarations, it’s _faqih_. Who, understandably, tend to couch things in terms of religious rulings. The giant tens-of-thousands-strong rally MQM held in Karachi for Malala after she was shot was all about how what happened to her was straight-up evil and not about doctrinal disputes. What is your cite for this? > [@](#): > > And that’s _your_ interpretation. No, it’s not my interpretation. I don’t consider it necessary to sort our the contradictions in the Koran because I don’t think it has any value in the modern world except as a historical document, or perhaps a place for cafeteria Muslims to get their selected servings of scripture, if that’s what they have to do to sleep at night. > [@](#): > > Yes, he was a Wahhabi in charge of Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment. Is that supposed to impress me, considering that Wahhabism is an extremist sect that only appeared a thousand years after Muhammad and which was not only rejected by the Ottoman Caliphate, but is still rejected even now by Al-Azhar? Wahhabis would disagree and claim that they are practicing Islam in it’s original, true, and authentic form, of course. And you have no objectively determinable way to counter their claim, just as they have no way of logically disproving yours, since there is no single true authentic Islam. I mean, you tried to disregard his fatwa based on the fact that it is hosted on a site that is banned in Saudi Arabia, when he was the **Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia**. > [@](#): > > The only reason Wahhabis have the influence in Islam they do today is because the British helped them seize Mecca in the 20s The _only_ reason? You are doing it again. [Criticising Islam](http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/69/criticising-islam/) > [@](#): > > As Isis reaffirms its stranglehold in parts of Middle East and South Asia, it is met with resilient, determined and unyielding apologia. The apologia isn’t reserved for the terrorists – thankfully – or their actions, it is designed to shield the ideology that Isis believes is the driving force behind their brutalities. > The apologia also caters to the fragile sensitivities of the religious community that adheres to the aforementioned ideology and has a tendency of preferring to throw toys out of the pram in lieu of owning up to its own mess. It’s the same community, whose religious sentiments are shattered by animations and YouTube videos, moving them enough to destroy their own property. > However, the fact that the community makes up around a quarter of the global population provides some esteemed opinion-makers in the West a massive pool of people to enhance their fan-mail count by painting rosy pictures of realms they’ve rarely set foot in and ideas whose ramifications they’ve never faced. > Blaming the West for Islamist brutalities, fuels their legacies of monolithic self-criticism at the cost of over 2 billion people of the world that are already over half a century too late in accepting their status as global citizens. The predisposed narrative peddles Western imperialism as the sole evil tarnishing the Solar System, with all history preceding US – and British – imperialistic excursions declared to be null and void. > [@](#): > > Only some _tafsir_ (_tafsir_, like _fatawa_, are not scripture, but interpretations by individuals, and cover a wide range of opinion regarding what the Qur’an says. Al-Wahidi’s Asbab al-Nuzul, the other “major _tafsir_” listed at that site, does not consider 109.6 to be abrogated. Nor does Ibn Kathir, in his _tafsir_. It’s even common, based on Tirmidhi 45.3138 and Dawud 5055, to recite _surah_ 109 at bedtime as _dhikr_. > > This completely ignores the poetic style in which the Qur’an was written and the critical role interpretation has always had in Islam. Even your own reliance on _tafsir_ in an effort to understand what the Qur’an says and what Muslims think it says shows that. > > Except what they “literally say” differs widely depending on which Muslim you ask, what text you consult, what scholar you cite, even what region you’re in! This argument is akin to a chastisement of advice against drinking poison, based on accounts of people who have survived poisonings. > [@](#): > > Saying “oh, the Taliban are just following the Qur’an literally” is nonsensical, since what it “literally” says can’t be agreed upon by anyone! And yet literalists are still a thing, despite their ability to actually be perfectly and consistently literal. Your observations of their failings do nothing to help the thousands or millions of victims of their persistent attempts. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1412 "2015-10-30T03:52:58Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > His position, which is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension who bothers to read even the bit of his work that has been posted in this thread, is that the long awaited Islamic reformation is not possible while the only way for Muslims to condemn the Taliban for shooting a child in the face for going to school is to proclaim that shooting a child in the face for going to school is un-Islamic, rather than proclaiming that shooting a child in the face for going to school is evil and unacceptable, regardless of whether or not Islamic doctrine provides a justification for it. I get your concern, it is valid. And so is his. It’s not like the Taliban are swayed by the arguments from Westerners or urbanites that their behavior is contrary to Islam. > > That is YOUR interpretation. Descriptions in the Koran of the Prophet and his companions engaging in behaviors is enough to rule that those behaviors are allowed. > > He is under no obligation to pay any attention at all to the intricacies of American political tribalism. One would think being a prolific genius takes up all his time. > > A fatwa by [**Shaykh Ibn Baaz, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993 until his death in 1999**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Aziz_ibn_Baz). > > His other positions include: > And his fatwa is, of course, backed up by tafsir: > > Yes it is _possible_, it is also quite possible and very common for Muslims to literally obey and enforce commandments specifically because they are taught to believe they are the unaltered revelation of God. > > Not to you perhaps, but to many other Muslims the fact that the words are believed to have been literally spoken by God is all the reason in the world that they need to read and follow the words literally. Which is why such a[horrifyingly large percentage of Muslims worldwide believe such horrible things](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/). Ok, this is a bit confusing and bizarre. Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims have some odd propensity for terrorism or hate crimes that Christians or Jews lack? That’s a bit odd. If I’m wrong feel free to correct me. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1413 "2015-10-30T04:45:09Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Ok, this is a bit confusing and bizarre. Are you seriously suggesting that Muslims have some odd propensity for terrorism or hate crimes that Christians or Jews lack? > > That’s a bit odd. If I’m wrong feel free to correct me. What is odd is the wording of your question. Are you asking me if I think Muslims have some inherent quality as human beings that Christians and Jews lack? If so the answer is no. Your question is totally coming out of left field. I don’t even think I mentioned Christians and Jews, except in the context of the Islamic prohibitions against befriending them. Try to be more precise, and I will try to answer you. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1414 "2015-10-30T05:25:05Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > What is odd is the wording of your question. > > Are you asking me if I think Muslims have some inherent quality as human beings that Christians and Jews lack? If so the answer is no. > > Your question is totally coming out of left field. I don’t even think I mentioned Christians and Jews, except in the context of the Islamic prohibitions against befriending them. > > Try to be more precise, and I will try to answer you. My apologies. So then you are saying that you don’t think that Muslims are more likely then the member of other religions, such as Christians, Jews, or Buddhists to engage in terrorism or similar crimes? If so, my apologies for suggesting, even if by accident , otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1415 "2015-10-30T05:52:05Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > My apologies. > > So then you are saying that you don’t think that Muslims are more likely then the member of other religions, such as Christians, Jews, or Buddhists to engage in terrorism or similar crimes? I never made the comparison at all. What I have been pointing out is that when Muslims follow the commandments of the Koran to commit violent acts or endorse or enact brutal hudood punishments, that the commandments are part of the cause of the violence. This is obvious, and is not negated by the existence of other Muslims who interpret the same scripture differently. If I didn’t know better, I would think you are jonesing for a hit of what-aboutism. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1416 "2015-10-30T10:30:13Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > What I have been pointing out is that when Muslims follow the commandments of the Koran to commit violent acts or endorse or enact brutal hudood punishments, that the commandments are part of the cause of the violence. This is obvious, and is not negated by the existence of other Muslims who interpret the same scripture differently. That’s utter rubbish. You’re assigning to the book magical powers that it simply does not have. People, not magic, are the cause of the violence. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1417 "2015-10-30T13:42:00Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > That’s utter rubbish. You’re assigning to the book magical powers that it simply does not have. People, not magic, are the cause of the violence. That is denialist and utterly ridiculous. There is nothing magical about a set of instructions. When a building is built and it ends up looking like the architect’s plans, the reason is both the people who built the building and blueprints that instructed them on how to build it. This is obvious if you pay even the slightest bit of attention. When ISIS kills gay people they do not improvise a method of execution on the spot. They follow the instructions of Ibn Abbaas and throw them off a high building and then stone them. > **[The Punishment For Homosexuality - Islam Question & Answer](https://islamqa.info/en/answers/38622/the-punishment-for-homosexuality)** > > Some Companions said that the punishment for homosexuality is to burn the homosexuals with fire, and some of them viewed that they should be thrown down from a high place then have stones thrown at them. Some of them thought that they should be... > [@](#): > > The Sahaabah were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed. Some of them were of the view that they should be burned with fire, which was the view of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and also of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), as we shall see below. And some of them thought that they should be thrown down from a high place then have stones thrown at them. This was the view of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him). ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1418 "2015-10-30T13:52:25Z")
Keep in mind that most [Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God.](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/) So it is no accident (or magic) that a majority of Egyptians and Pakistanis support the killing of those who leave Islam. It is a result of their belief that the instructions are the word of God, and it is \*the result of what those instructions actually say. \* ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1419 "2015-10-30T14:02:03Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > What is your cite for this? People who were there. > [@](#): > > No, it’s not my interpretation. Yes, it’s yours, parroting Khuldune. His argument was that _naskh_ is a “necessity” (unless this was _also_ one of those instances where he didn’t actually mean what he wrote :rolleyes:) to sort out the contradictions in the Qur’an, then uses the fact that _naskh_ is thus an ostensibly integral part of interpretation to support his other assertion that _naskh_ means the peaceful verses of the Qur’an have been excised. And the problem with his argument is that it’s wrong on two counts. First, _naskh_ is not “necessary” one bit, since there are a who shitload of tools used to interpret the Qur’an that don’t involve abrogation. Second, the example of Maudidi shows that since it’s not necessary to invoke abrogation to interpret the Qur’an (since he rejects the concept entirely), even if Muslims everywhere abandon _naskh_ entirely, it wouldn’t change a single thing for the fundamentalists, who will interpret the Qur’an in a fundamentalist fashion even with every single one of the verses of the Qur’an, peaceful ones included, entirely unabrogated and fully in force. > [@](#): > > Wahhabis would disagree and claim that they are practicing Islam in it’s original, true, and authentic form, of course. They can claim that all they like. Doesn’t make it true. > [@](#): > > And you have no objectively determinable way to counter their claim, just as they have no way of logically disproving yours, since there is no single true authentic Islam. I don’t have to disprove it, I just have to point out where it’s not accepted by the rest of mainstream Islam, such as by al-Azhar. > [@](#): > > I mean, you tried to disregard his fatwa based on the fact that it is hosted on a site that is banned in Saudi Arabia, when he was the **Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia**. That he was the Grand Mufti of Wahhabis and that his _fatwa_ was on a banned website are precisely the reasons why his opinion is useless as any kind of a representation of “what Muslims believe”. Saudi Arabia is even more repressive and fundamentalist than fucking _Iran_, and most Muslims do not subscribe to their particular brand of salafist Islam. > [@](#): > > The _only_ reason? You are doing it again. Yes, the only reason. When al-Wahhab and his Saud allies first seized Mecca and started implementing their fundamentalist brand of Islam on the populace there, the viceroy of Egypt went in to go boot them out, and the Ottomans executed Saud as a rebel and exiled the Wahhabi imam as a heretic. It wasn’t until the 20’s that, with British help, Saudi forces were able to seize Mecca again, and the discovery of oil has been what let them keep it. Seriously, go read some history. > [@](#): > > [Criticising Islam](http://my.telegraph.co.uk/kkshahid/kkshahid/69/criticising-islam/) Again with Khuldune. You quote him like you’re citing scripture! > [@](#): > > This argument is akin to a chastisement of advice against drinking poison, based on accounts of people who have survived poisonings. No, it’s merely pointing out that Khuldune’s boneheaded statement that the Taliban can’t be blamed for their violent actions is because they’re merely following what the Qur’an literally says is wrong, since their (and his!) view of what the Qur’an “literally says” is not everyone’s view of what it literally says, and the only way he can support his and the Taliban’s view is by ignoring all the other views and pretending they don’t exist. > [@](#): > > And yet literalists are still a thing, despite their ability to actually be perfectly and consistently literal. _In_ability, you mean? > [@](#): > > Your observations of their failings do nothing to help the thousands or millions of victims of their persistent attempts. Neither do yours or Khuldune’s. Your opinions actually make things worse for the victims of extremists, because you and Khuldune KEEP INSISTING THAT THE EXTREMISTS ARE RIGHT. ---
**Author:** ![A\_isha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@A\_isha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_isha)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1420 "2015-10-30T14:10:38Z")
> [@Hank\_Beecher](#): > > Keep in mind that most [Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God.](http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/) > > So it is no accident (or magic) that a majority of Egyptians and Pakistanis support the killing of those who leave Islam. It is a result of their belief that the instructions are the word of God, and it is \*the result of what those instructions actually say. \* Except, as pointed out at your link, a large chunk of Muslims also believe that there is more than one interpretation of _shari’ah_ (most Tunisians and Morrocans, for instance). And there’s no correlation between Muslims who think there’s only a single interpretation of _shari’ah_ and belief in an extremist interpretation: most East European and Russian Muslims think there’s only a single interpretation, but even among those who want _shari’ah_ implemented as the law of the land, the overwhelming majority are against the death penalty for apostasy. ---
**Author:** ![Hank\_Beecher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hank_beecher/32/7275_2.png) [@Hank\_Beecher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hank_Beecher)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741/1421 "2015-10-30T15:58:08Z")
> [@A\_isha](#): > > People who were there. That is hearsay, not evidence. > [@](#): > > …his other assertion that _naskh_ means the peaceful verses of the Qur’an have been excised. It is not his assertion: > [@](#): > > Tafsir Ibn Abbas 109.6: > (Unto you your religion) of disbelief and ascribing partners to Allah, (and unto me my religion) Islam and faith in Allah. **The verses of fighting then abrogated this** and the Prophet (pbuh) did fight them’ > > Tafsir Al-Tustari 109.6: > (You have your religion and I have a religion). You have your choice (ikhtiyār) for your religion and I have my choice for a religion.\*\* Then [this verse] was abrogated by the verse of the sword \*\*[9:5]. His words, Exalted is He: > . > Tafsir Al-Jalalayn 109.6: > You have your religion, idolatry, and I have a religion’, Islam: \*\*this was [revealed] before he was commanded to wage war \*\*[against the idolaters] > [@](#): > > And the problem with his argument is that it’s wrong on two counts. First, _naskh_ is not “necessary” one bit, since there are a who shitload of tools used to interpret the Qur’an that don’t involve abrogation. > > Second, the example of Maudidi shows that since it’s not necessary to invoke abrogation to interpret the Qur’an (since he rejects the concept entirely), even if Muslims everywhere abandon _naskh_ entirely, it wouldn’t change a single thing for the fundamentalists, who will interpret the Qur’an in a fundamentalist fashion even with every single one of the verses of the Qur’an, peaceful ones included, entirely unabrogated and fully in force. There is no logical consistency to your arguments whatsoever. You use what you claim is the majority view when it suits your purposes, and then switch to minority viewpoints when the majority views are inconvenient. > [@](#): > > They can claim that all they like. Doesn’t make it true. > > I don’t have to disprove it, I just have to point out where it’s not accepted by the rest of mainstream Islam, such as by al-Azhar. al-Azhar is a University, and includes both those with Salafist leanings and their opponents. All of whom, by the way, oppose secularism. > [@](#): > > That he was the Grand Mufti of Wahhabis and that his _fatwa_ was on a banned website are precisely the reasons why his opinion is useless as any kind of a representation of “what Muslims believe”. Saudi Arabia is even more repressive and fundamentalist than fucking _Iran_, and most Muslims do not subscribe to their particular brand of salafist Islam. Yet most Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, and Egypt, support killing people for leaving Islam. So either your thesis about the limited influence of the Wahhabis is flawed, or the negative influence of Islam is not limited to their brand. > [@](#): > > Yes, the only reason. When al-Wahhab and his Saud allies first seized Mecca and started implementing their fundamentalist brand of Islam on the populace there, the viceroy of Egypt went in to go boot them out, and the Ottomans executed Saud as a rebel and exiled the Wahhabi imam as a heretic. It wasn’t until the 20’s that, with British help, Saudi forces were able to seize Mecca again, and the discovery of oil has been what let them keep it. That does not make it the only reason. The Brits used local militants against their opponents, as was their preferred method. Thus, the contributing factors included, the Brits, the locals, the locals’ militancy, and the\*\* militant Islamic traditions that informed, justified, and motivated them.\*\* > [@](#): > > Seriously, go read some history. I have, which is how I know that there is rarely one single reason for any major historical event. > [@](#): > > No, it’s merely pointing out that Khuldune’s boneheaded statement that the Taliban can’t be blamed for their violent actions You are missing the key qualification in his assertion, which is that they can’t be blamed **by those who claim that there is one true Islam** , which was revealed perfectly by God, and which should be unquestionably followed. Because: "Anyone who peddles the concept of ‘true Islam’ – just like any other religion – no matter how peaceful and tolerant their version of Islam might be, inadvertently gives credence to the likes of ISIS. For if there is a ‘true’ version, what’s stopping the radicals from believing that theirs is the one?" > [@](#): > > is because they’re merely following what the Qur’an literally says is wrong, since their (and his!) view of what the Qur’an “literally says” is not everyone’s view of what it literally says, and the only way he can support his and the Taliban’s view is by ignoring all the other views and pretending they don’t exist. Who is pretending they don’t exist? He specifically wrote: “Anyone who peddles the concept of ‘true Islam’ – just like any other religion – **no matter how peaceful and tolerant their version of Islam might be** , inadvertently gives credence to the likes of ISIS” > [@](#): > > _In_ability, you mean? Yes, that’s what I meant to write. > [@](#): > > Neither do yours or Khuldune’s. Your opinions actually make things worse for the victims of extremists, because you and Khuldune KEEP INSISTING THAT THE EXTREMISTS ARE RIGHT. That is one way of looking at it. Another way is that, by denying that Islamist violence is motivated by Islam, YOU are making things worse for them by refusing to grapple with a major factor contributing to their persecution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=70) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-radical-islam-is-violent-due-to-culture-and-not-religion/730741.md?page=72)