Article

2003-11-19 Arabia

The case of humanity vs. Muhammad bin Abdallah

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mhw 2003-11-19 8:15:50 AM|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ive met muslims who seem to be good persons. Im not going to assume theyre liars cause of whats in the Koran, anymore than i want someone to think im a bad person cause of the biblical injunction to kill every last Amalekite. Im sure the moderates have ways of reinterpretating any passage they dont like.

In any case, if ex-muslims want to convert muslims away from Islam thats their business. But it shouldnt be seen as part of the WOT, or it will undermine the WOT.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-19 8:51:49 AM|| 2003-11-19 8:51:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Agreed. The ennemy is not islam, it is a culture of bigotry and hatred. Perhaps it could be said "revolutionnary islam" is the ennemy? As a religion, I have no love lost for islam, as it seems either overly ritualistical and not very spirituality-based (muslims I know), or violently chauvinist & aggressive (money quotes from various hadiths). Trouble is, while islam is growing geographically & demographically, it is also rotting at the core, as it is subverted by deobandists, ikwhanists, salafists, wahabists,..., in a sweeping "re-arabization" fueled by petrodollars. While we're menaced, islam itself is also under attack.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-11-19 9:22:46 AM|| 2003-11-19 9:22:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 liberal hawk,

you said, "Im sure the moderates have ways of reinterpretating any passage they dont like."

Well we are two years since 9/11 and whatever the moderates are doing, they aren't winning.

The thing about Islam is that contemporaneous reinterpretations of the Koran is quite difficult. The burden of the revered books- which unambigously have harsh, warlike language when it comes to the war against the Kaffirs, the status of woman, the fate of the Jews, etc. is very great.

This is unlike in the Judeo/Christian tradition where, not only are the early revered interpretations peace instigating (the Talmud is clear that by that time there were no more Amalekites or Caananites to wipe out) but also, that contemporary reinterpretation is allowed.

On the other hand, I agree that the WoT does require the US to have Islamic allies.

What needs to be done is to allow the ex Muslims to be able to have their ideas exposed so that the ex-Muslims can compete with the $4B/year Saudi subsidy of Islam - not as part of the WoT, but as part of Freedom of Speech and Conscience.

Posted by mhw 2003-11-19 9:30:54 AM|| 2003-11-19 9:30:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 biblical injunction to kill every last Amalekite

Seen any Amalekites recently? Bet someone took that line seriously.:}

Posted by Shipman 2003-11-19 10:06:04 AM|| 2003-11-19 10:06:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Shipman,

This is a little off the original post but actually, there are no references to the Amalekites outside the Bible. Even the Bible is a bit ambiguous about this since there were numerous Amalekite raiders around between David's anointment and his ascension to the throne even though Saul had killed all but one of them only a few years earlier. If there ever was an Amalekite extermination program, it must have been long, long ago.

Posted by mhw 2003-11-19 10:56:36 AM|| 2003-11-19 10:56:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Well we are two years since 9/11 and whatever the moderates are doing, they aren't winning.

LH - thats a huge statement and difficult to parse. Are we talking about local politics - whos ahead in Jakarta? Or about making long run changes to Islam? Which by definition wont be apparent in 2 years time.

The thing about Islam is that contemporaneous reinterpretations of the Koran is quite difficult. The burden of the revered books- which unambigously have harsh, warlike language when it comes to the war against the Kaffirs, the status of woman, the fate of the Jews, etc. is very great.

Are reintepretations that difficult? The Wahabis indicate that what 90% of muslims have been doing for the last 1200 years is based on reintepretations,and is therefore illegitimate. My limited reading of Islamic history is that there have been significant changes over the centuries, and great variety from place to place. Was little of that in a liberal direction till about 200 years ago (IE tolerance for Kufers, equality for women, etc) well of course not, those are modern themes, and one wouldnt expect such changes till Islam encounters modernity. Which it didnt do in a large way till the early years of this century. And then it largely followed secular nationalists, who in many cases were interested in change wrt Women, but were not friendly to Jews and Christians.

WRT Amalekites - who the hell knows if there are any descendants of Amalekites around. The rabbis simply said there werent any, making the commandment moot. Thats how an aggressive attempt to update a tradition (and get around explicit textual commandments) happens.

WRT to change within Judaism - yes it allowed for interpretation, but that was supposed to be based on formal rules, to resolve ambguities in the text, new situations(like new technologies) etc. It was NEVER explicitly admitted in traditional texts that what the rabbis were doing was CHANGING the religion to accommodate new ideas and new times. IF that happened (a matter of dispute among the trends within Judaism) it happened secretly, perhaps even unconsciously. The dilemma of modernity for Judaism (Per Mordechai Kaplan) was that in modern times such unconscious change is no longer possible - we know all too clearly what is happening, you cant change the religion and pretend youre only elucidating a point of text. Thus the choices are 1. Refuse further change 2. Make changes without regard to the texts 3. Or make continue to make changes by elucidating the texts, but acknowledge explicitly that you are making changes. These are Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative responses respectively.

It seems to me that Islam faces similar dilemmas. The fastest growing tendency in Islam now is Wahabism, which not only refuses further changes, but wishes to undo past accomodations to local custom (very different from O Judaism in that respect)

Strategy - right now the most important thing is to allow the moderate muslims, both reformers and pre-wahabi traditionalists, to contest with the saudi subsidy of WAHABISM. If pressuring too hard for freedom for people arguing against Islam altogether makes the work of the moderates harder, that will be a big problem.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-11-19 11:25:04 AM|| 2003-11-19 11:25:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Please understand and accept the Muslim claim that their goal is to eliminate all Infidels. I know this is difficult to accept, but the truth is that unless we face reality, WE WILL NOT FIGHT AND WIN THIS WAR.

Posted by lena 2003-11-19 12:23:45 PM|| 2003-11-19 12:23:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 biblical injunction to kill every last Amalekite Seen any Amalekites recently? Bet someone took that line seriously.:}
Posted by: Shipman 2003-11-19 10:06:04 AM

probably why the Taliban and Paki turban heads have been banning kite flying...they can't read worth a damn

Posted by Frank G 2003-11-19 1:18:20 PM|| 2003-11-19 1:18:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I'm grateful for what these former muslims are doing, but they should also watch their backs. This may be America, but moonbats are here too. They may have just put their lives in danger.

Posted by Charles 2003-11-19 6:45:10 PM|| 2003-11-19 6:45:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 WRT the Amalekites: As usual, giving only part of the truth perpetuates a lie. The Amalekites earned the hatred of Yahweh by attacking the rear of the Israelites during their wilderness wanderings, concentrating on the old, weak, and the children. The injunction to kill the Amalekites was very specific, and gave specific reasons.

In other passages, Yahweh commanded the Children of Israel to not bother the Moabites or the Ammonites, and to not mistreat Egyptians, even though they had been their former taskmasters. Treaties with nations outside of the Canaanites was not forbidden, and was the foundation for the deception played on the Israelites by the Gibeonites, a Canaanite tribe, who tricked Israel into an Alliance that both God and the leadership insisted had to be adhered to. A later violation of the alliance, by Saul, was met by a famine imposed by God.

If the observation that "God is a Jacksonian" doesn't make things click, you really should look into Steven Den Beste's essential library at USS Clueless...

Posted by Ptah 2003-11-19 10:28:20 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-11-19 10:28:20 PM|| Front Page Top

10:54 Aris Katsaris
09:30 Raptor
08:07 B
00:19 Old Patriot
00:11 Old Patriot
00:05 tu3031
00:01 absentee ballot
23:53 Old Patriot
23:36 tu3031
23:33 tu3031
23:31 Steve White
23:29 Old Patriot
23:24 tu3031
23:18 tu3031
23:18 Robert Crawford
23:14 Robert Crawford
23:13 tu3031
22:53 Alaska Paul
22:50 Jarhead
22:48 Jarhead
22:47 tu3031
22:44 Alaska Paul
22:43 PBMcL
22:33 Jarhead