Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: Should we all be following the new Caliph?

  1. #16
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,713

    Default Re: Should we all be following the new Caliph?

    If you were actually familiar with the Qur'an and history, you would not need to refer to a verse 18 verses later in order to understand the context. The verse is referring to a specific incident in history, as is plain. Your taking this verse and making it an alleged general proclamation of how Muslims should behave towards those who do not believe as we do is fanciful and typical of ideologues among Atheist and Islamophobes who jump through hoops in order to construct arguments in support of their arrogant and self-righteous attitude towards Islam, the Scripture and religion in general. That the verse coming 18 verses later being a complaint of yours is incredibly lazy and evidence for Hyd and completely undermines your criticism of Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan. It is furthermore evidence of the contention of people like Charle Le Gai Eaton that the fundamental problem with Europeans scholars (and Western civilization in general) is that when they read the Qur'an, they demand it conform to their mode of literature, instead of relating to it how it is. Education can change minds indeed and your extremely odd claim that 8:12 is ordering the mutilation of bodies begs that you continue yours. If your "scientific" mind has left you so unable to competently read "non-scientific" literature, then you stand as a proof against yourself.

    In regard to the so-called Caliph, we have already answered you. If our answer does not fit into your preconceived argument, that is your problem, not ours. I take it that you clearly either did not read the link I supplied or you simply do not care to let things like facts get in the way of your opinions. In answer to your question: among all the things that could be said, the simplest is there is a concept called "bayah" in Islamic law and it is the un-coerced, willful agreement of the Muslim polity that they consent to a particular individual being their leader. So excluding everything else that you have wantonly ignored, no one can unilaterally declare themselves caliph and then proceed to "cut off the heads and fingertips of those who are fighting them". ISIS's declaration is essentially a dismissal of all rival groups and an empty claim that they alone are the legitimate political entity among the Muslim world. If you really understood current politics and did not simply limit yourself into periodically provoking us into shallow arguments, you would have understood clearly understood that the silence of this forum was an answer to the call. Even the Taliban have enough common sense to see ISIS's declaration for what it is. Why don't you?
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 13th July 2014 at 09:51.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

  2. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default Re: Should we all be following the new Caliph?

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    . . . your extremely odd claim that 8:12 is ordering the mutilation of bodies . . . .
    Why is that claim "odd", when it is exactly what the Quran states?

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    If your "scientific" mind has left you so unable to competently read "non-scientific" literature . . . .
    I read, understand, and appreciate much "non-scientific" literature. But I clearly cannot understand and appreciate the contradictory, fantastic, hate-filled drivel that permeates the Quran. And you yourself have been totally unable to explain why the Quran calls, in plain language, for the mutilation of beheaded bodies.

    Quote Originally Posted by lumumba_s View Post
    In answer to your question: among all the things that could be said, the simplest is there is a concept called "bayah" in Islamic law and it is the un-coerced, willful agreement of the Muslim polity that they consent to a particular individual being their leader.
    Ah, is that why we see so many successful democracies in the Islamic world? Now I understand! By the way, when was the last time the "Muslim polity" consented to a leader?

  3. #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,194

    Default Re: Should we all be following the new Caliph?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcello
    the Quran calls, in plain language, for the mutilation of beheaded bodies
    Either english is not your language or you are not reading it properly. It is not calling for mutilation of beheaded bodies, it is not even calling for beheading. You know at that time people fought with swords right? And during fighting in a war soldiers will strike on the head or fingers right?
    Last edited by hyd; 14th July 2014 at 23:48.

  4. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    123

    Default Re: Should we all be following the new Caliph?

    Quote Originally Posted by hyd View Post
    Either english is not your language or you are not reading it properly. It is not calling for mutilation of beheaded bodies, it is not even calling for beheading. You know at that time people fought with swords right? And during fighting in a war soldiers will strike on the head or fingers right?
    Perhaps I'm not reading it properly. Perhaps I misinterpreted it in the light of the pervasive violence that otherwise permeates the Quran and Hadith, e.g.:

    Book of Muhammad, verse 4 (47:4) - “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”

    Book of Al-Maeda, verse 33 (5:33) -“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

    Quran 22:19-21 - "But those who disbelieved will have cut out for them garments of fire. Poured upon their heads will be scalding water; By which is melted that within their bellies and [their] skins; And for [striking] them are maces of iron."

    Why is it that the "Religion of Peace" seems to delight in gruesome punishments?

  5. #20
    Veteran Member lumumba_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Toronto/Winston-Salem
    Posts
    5,713

    Default Re: Should we all be following the new Caliph?

    "Those who abhor violence can only do so because they have others who commit acts of violence on their behalf." The context of all those verse is the second one you quoted and was the culmination of a continuous gearing up of hostilities against people who were nonviolent and completely self-restrained. You being European (from what I recall), know quite well that many times, war is necessary for peace to be established in the presence of people who persist in aggression. Islam is a religion of peace, but peace does not always equal pacificism. By and large, American cities are peaceful and they are by and large peaceful because the police have the right to take the life of anyone who threatens public security and frequently do so. I have a nagging suspicion that it is not the violence that you take issue with, but that verses such of these provide a potentially permanent motivation for resistance against those who are potentially (and actually) subject to violence committed against them by societies and peoples you identify with. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" as they say. I still remember when Reagan likened the Afghan Mujahidin to the American Founding Fathers.

    As for your snide remark about democracies in the Muslim world, there are actually several thriving and stable democracies in the Muslim world. However, that is beside the point as there is no reason to consider democracy an inherently better form of government than all other forms. But both you and I know the problem with democracies in the Middle-East is that they were externally and arbitrarily installed by foreign powers. After colonialism was officially ended, there were a number of stable and successful democracies and they all were overthrown by Western powers. Additionally, the military poses the biggest challenge to democracy in the Middle-East and Africa and when you have the American, British and French giving foreign aid directly to militaries, it clearly undermines the political system and insures that only governments who are loyal or responsive to American and British interests will emerge. In regard to Muslims consenting to a leader, if you are going to be so blind and thoughtless to ignore the vast majority of stable governments which exist in the Muslim world, it is simply more proof of my sentiments expressed above.
    Last edited by lumumba_s; 15th July 2014 at 20:12.
    "Allah is the point. If it is other-than-Allah, then it is besides the point." - Nuh Ha Mim Keller

Similar Threads

  1. Hazrat Ali rta's view on the Caliph's before him
    By DocW in forum Islamic Discussions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 29th December 2009, 23:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •