Latter-day Saints View of Islam.

[BCSpace]

I also have zero patience for people who whine about the moderating around here. If you can't stand the mods or disagree with board rules then find someplace else to crybab--- er, post on.

Actually, I brought my complaint to FAIR well before this discussion and have accepted and lived with their decision. Which is why I did not take DCP's bait to start a board war.

[structurecop]

I way I read it is that....

1) moderate Muslims will not come out against jihad because it is a component of Islam.

2) moderate Muslims will not come out against jihad because such would condone Western decadence.

While it may be argued that both are or could be valid reasons in tandem it seems to me that 1) is the real answer and 2) is the answer Western revisionist scholars and CAIR apologists give to justify the silence in the Muslim world.

It's like having your cake and eating it too.

To nonMuslims it is said that "we don't like your society so don't criticize us" while on the other hand to Muslims it is taught that "this, the house of war, is part of our doctrine so how dare they criticize us".

First, let me say how flattered I am that Dr. Peterson would pick up my post and defend it as his own words. Furthermore, as Dr. Peterson would no doubt agree, the Islamic world is in now way composed of a homogenous culture. There is a great deal of variety in opinions and interpretations, even among jihadists and Islamicists. To boil down Islamic opinion into a paragraph, as I did, does not give the topic the treatment it is due. The intricacies involved in summarizing the motivating forces for moderate Muslims is far beyond my ability to address. From what I have read and understand, however, the above is an accurate statement for at least part of the Islamic world.

[BCSpace]

Furthermore, as Dr. Peterson would no doubt agree, the Islamic world is in now way composed of a homogenous culture. There is a great deal of variety in opinions and interpretations, even among jihadists and Islamicists. To boil down Islamic opinion into a paragraph, as I did, does not give the topic the treatment it is due.

To which I also would agree.

The intricacies involved in summarizing the motivating forces for moderate Muslims is far beyond my ability to address. From what I have read and understand, however, the above is an accurate statement for at least part of the Islamic world.

It's actually not as intricate as you suppose. Despite the differing forces and philosophies at work, the ultimate result is quite homogenous. I've seen DCP argue otherwise, but not in a very convincing fashion. While there have been glimmers of hope, the scholarship he generally adheres to is a very narrow representation and often bows to political correctness which is quite understandable considering his position relative to the Church and the Church's current tendency towards political correctness.

Makes me wonder sometimes if he feels a little muzzled as to expressing his full and true opinion on Islam.

[Daniel Peterson]

1) moderate Muslims will not come out against jihad because it is a component of Islam.

True.

2) moderate Muslims will not come out against jihad because such would condone Western decadence.

Probably true, too, in a rather different sense.

They cannot condemn jihad as such (I said this in my post yesterday, where I first attempted to engage you in substantive conversation), because the term and concept of jihad are enshrined in the canonical and oldest Islamic texts.

However, they are free to discuss what, precisely, the term means and what the concept entails. And such a discussion is, in fact, going on, just as it has been for much of the past millennium and a half. Islam is simply not a monolith. There is considerable variety from country to country and within countries, though, obviously, certain militant voices have the microphone at the moment. I could wish that the current discussion were more vigorous, and that it would go more forcefully and decisively in certain directions than it has been, but wishes don't create reality.

While it may be argued that both are or could be valid reasons in tandem it seems to me that 1) is the real answer and 2) is the answer Western revisionist scholars and CAIR apologists give to justify the silence in the Muslim world.

I believe that, over on your other board, I'm considered in league with the CAIR apologists and, in addition, to be one of those "Western revisionist scholars" (though a pathetically obscure one). Whatever. I don't care to discuss that, but will leave my precise place in its demonology to the theologians of that board.

I see both reasons as valid. The first is, of course, absolutely fundamental. But the second also plays a role. Many Muslims -- far beyond the "extremist" groups -- are, to one degree or another, in sympathy with the critique of the West emanating from the jihadis. I regret this. Much of that critique is, from my perspective, flatly false or misguided, and profoundly dangerous. Other parts of it, however, have some merit. Western treatment of the Islamic world has not always measured up to the West's own political and ethical standards. American foreign policy in the Islamic world was indeed warped and deformed (perhaps unavoidably) by America's decades-long struggle to contain expansionist Soviet Communism. The West really is increasingly Godless and immoral. And so on and so forth.

To nonMuslims it is said that "we don't like your society so don't criticize us" while on the other hand to Muslims it is taught that "this, the house of war, is part of our doctrine so how dare they criticize us".

I'll admit that I haven't run into this particular position. That's probably because I lack your wide reading in the Islamic sources.

[MorningStar]

So, on this thread, you can't discuss comments on this thread about comments on this thread?

Well, that would be a thread war, wouldn't it? We should all refrain from commenting on each other's comments on this board to avoid such things. We should keep the comments random just in case anyone happens to duplicate comments on other boards.

[MorningStar]

I also have zero patience for people who whine about the moderating around here. If you can't stand the mods or disagree with board rules then find someplace else to crybab--- er, post on.

Actually, I brought my complaint to FAIR well before this discussion and have accepted and lived with their decision. Which is why I did not take DCP's bait to start a board war.

How was he starting a board war?

[BCSpace]

I believe that, over on your other board, I'm considered in league with the CAIR apologists and, in addition, to be one of those "Western revisionist scholars" (though a pathetically obscure one). Whatever. I don't care to discuss that, but will leave my precise place in its demonology to the theologians of that board.

I've followed that discussion from here on FAIR over to that board and your opinions on Islam are not why you are 'demonized'. Frankly, you do yourself and others a great diservice by avoiding that debate.

I see both reasons as valid. The first is, of course, absolutely fundamental. But the second also plays a role.

On that I agree. But it was the fundamentalness of the first that I am emphasizing. There really is no way around it.

Many Muslims -- far beyond the "extremist" groups -- are, to one degree or another, in sympathy with the critique of the West emanating from the jihadis. I regret this. Much of that critique is, from my perspective, flatly false or misguided, and profoundly dangerous. Other parts of it, however, have some merit. Western treatment of the Islamic world has not always measured up to the West's own political and ethical standards. American foreign policy in the Islamic world was indeed warped and deformed (perhaps unavoidably) by America's decades-long struggle to contain expansionist Soviet Communism. The West really is increasingly Godless and immoral. And so on and so forth.

I generally agree here except that you put too much distance between the 'extremists' and the rest of Islam. Which distance has been the crux of the entire debate.

To nonMuslims it is said that "we don't like your society so don't criticize us" while on the other hand to Muslims it is taught that "this, the house of war, is part of our doctrine so how dare they criticize us".

I'll admit that I haven't run into this particular position. That's probably because I lack your wide reading in the Islamic sources.

As I implied before, you are the lord and master of invective. It is your best debate tactic. My hat's off to you.

You are not exactly acting the part of the gentleman yourself. Please stop badgering Dr. Peterson to concede your points. You obviously disagree on some things, now move along. -mods

[Orpheus]

!ATTENTION FAIR BOARDS CONTRIBUTORS!

We are fortunate here at FAIR to have an expert such as Dr. Peterson share his insights into what is a very charged and potentially political discussion.

We are asking all posters to refrain from taking this discussion other places to debate it, and refrain from turning it into a purely political discussion on this forum. Regardless of the strength of their personal views on the subject.

If Islam cannot be discussed with as much decorum as we expect Mormonism to be discussed here (or better) we will not allow those posters who cannot refrain from politicizing the discussion to continue to post on these threads.

-Orpheus and the mod squad.

[Daniel Peterson]

I've followed that discussion from here on FAIR over to that board and your opinions on Islam are not why you are 'demonized'. Frankly, you do yourself and others a great diservice by avoiding that debate.

What "debate"?

But it was the fundamentalness of the first that I am emphasizing. There really is no way around it.

That's why I called it "fundamental."

I generally agree here except that you put too much distance between the 'extremists' and the rest of Islam. Which distance has been the crux of the entire debate.

You put too little distance between the "extremists" and the rest of Islam.

As I implied before, you are the lord and master of invective. It is your best debate tactic. My hat's off to you.

Thanks. Other than the fact that I don't use invective, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[Calm]

It's actually not as intricate as you suppose. Despite the differing forces and philosophies at work, the ultimate result is quite homogenous.

Support (besides personal opinion) for this assertion please.

[juliann]

Makes me wonder sometimes if he feels a little muzzled as to expressing his full and true opinion on Islam.

Everyone is muzzled here...right? Grow up, BC. If you have a bull by the horns then let go instead of whining and crying.

[Daniel Peterson]

It's actually not as intricate as you suppose. Despite the differing forces and philosophies at work, the ultimate result is quite homogenous.

Support (besides personal opinion) for this assertion please.

It's simple, really.

Saddam Hussein = Salah al-Din

al-Biruni = Ramzi Yusuf

Wahhabi = Sufi.

Rabiâ??a al-â??Adawiyya = Ayman al-Zawahiri

Mughal = Almohad

al-Ghazali = Ibn Taymiyya

Cordoba = Qom

Muhammad Yunus = Seyyid Qutb

Andalusia = Hijaz

Fazlur Rahman = Mulla Omar

Malaysia = Iran

Ibn Sina = Timur-i Leng

And so on and so forth. No significant differences. All pretty much the same.

[BCSpace]

If you have a bull by the horns

A non sequitur if there ever was one.

It's actually not as intricate as you suppose. Despite the differing forces and philosophies at work, the ultimate result is quite homogenous.

Support (besides personal opinion) for this assertion please.

It's simple, really.

Saddam Hussein = Salah al-Din

al-Biruni = Ramzi Yusuf

Wahhabi = Sufi.

Rabiâ??a al-â??Adawiyya = Ayman al-Zawahiri

Mughal = Almohad

al-Ghazali = Ibn Taymiyya

Cordoba = Qom

Muhammad Yunus = Seyyid Qutb

Andalusia = Hijaz

Fazlur Rahman = Mulla Omar

Malaysia = Iran

Ibn Sina = Timur-i Leng

And so on and so forth. No significant differences. All pretty much the same.

Fazlur Rahman = Mulla Omar? The application of Ijtihad to Jihad? I'm intrigued. After all I am certainly not one of the Ulema.

[Daniel Peterson]

I am certainly not one of the Ulema.

Urge . . . to unleash . . . new barrage . . . of . . . scurrilous vicious . . . verbal . . . abuse . . . must . . . resist.

[BCSpace]

I am certainly not one of the Ulema.

Urge . . . to unleash . . . new barrage . . . of . . . scurrilous vicious . . . verbal . . . abuse . . . must . . . resist.

And why is that? Are you reading something into my post that is not there?

Your equation of the two people intrigued me about jihad vis a vis the principles of Ijtihad and I thought that you might have some insight on it. Traditionally in the Islamic world only one of the Ulema can provide the proper interpretation, but since neither you nor I are of that council, it will have to do.

[Daniel Peterson]

Your equation of the two people intrigued me about jihad vis a vis the principles of Ijtihad and I thought that you might have some insight on it. Traditionally in the Islamic world only one of the Ulema can provide the proper interpretation, but since neither you nor I are of that council, it will have to do.

I have essentially no idea what you're talking about.

But I know better than to ask for clarification. Been there, done that.

[BCSpace]

Allow me to be even more specific....

Fazlur Rahman accepts a definition of ijtihad that allows for a text to be generalized into a set of principles, and that these principles can be interpreted as new set of rules. It says that a tradition in question can be seen according to meanings under which the tradition arose. Thus orthodoxy is implied.

Now you equated Fazlur Rahman with Mullah Omar who's writings I admittedly have not seen much of. Hence I am curious as to what made you equate the two especially in terms of ijtihad applied to jihad.

[Daniel Peterson]

Allow me to be even more specific....

Fazlur Rahman accepts a definition of ijtihad that allows for a text to be generalized into a set of principles, and that these principles can be interpreted as new set of rules. It says that a tradition in question can be seen according to meanings under which the tradition arose. Thus orthodoxy is implied.

Now you equated Fazlur Rahman with Mullah Omar who's writings I admittedly have not seen much of. Hence I am curious as to what made you equate the two especially in terms of ijtihad applied to jihad.

You missed the point altogether, it seems. Permit me to clarify:

Saddam Hussein is very different from Salah al-Din.

Al-Biruni was nothing like Ramzi Yusuf.

Wahhabis hate Sufis and Sufism, and Sufism is dramatically different from Wahhabism.

Rabiâ??a al-â??Adawiyya was light years apart from Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The Mughals created a society that was radically different from that created by the Almohades [al-Muwahhidun]..

Al-Ghazali's thinking differs very much from that of Ibn Taymiyya.

Islamic Cordoba was quite unlike Qom.

Muhammad Yunus, the most recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, cannot possibly be confused with Seyyid Qutb.

Andalusia was a vastly different place than the Saudi-ruled Hijaz.

Fazlur Rahman has very little in common with Mulla Omar.

Malaysia is noticeably different from Iran, religiously as in other ways.

Ibn Sina and Timur-i Leng could almost have come from different planets.

And so on and so forth. Significant differences everywhere you look. Not at all the same. Which was a response to your claim that Islam is, on the whole, quite homogeneous.

[BCSpace]

Fazlur Rahman has very little in common with Mulla Omar.

Which is what I was thinking in the first place.

You missed the point altogether, it seems.

Not really. But since I tend to get burned by taking someone else's words at face value, I had to get more specific for you to reveal if you were really serious about the equations you made. Now I know....

Which was a response to your claim that Islam is, on the whole, quite homogeneous.

I knew that it what you were angling at. Problem, is I made no such claim and I actually agreed with you in the first place that Islam is not homogenous.

[Nighthawke]

Fazlur Rahman = Mulla Omar? The application of Ijtihad to Jihad? I'm intrigued. After all I am certainly not one of the Ulema.

Well, DCP's humour clearly whooshed right past your head.

[Daniel Peterson]

Islam is not homogenous.

Good to hear that from you.

He said with his usual invective.

[TrespassersW]

Daniel Peterson:

I hereby plead guilty to being duplicitous.

I'm sorry, Dr. Peterson. But I just don't believe you.

[TraddButton]

Allow me to be even more specific....

Fazlur Rahman accepts a definition of ijtihad that allows for a text to be generalized into a set of principles, and that these principles can be interpreted as new set of rules. It says that a tradition in question can be seen according to meanings under which the tradition arose. Thus orthodoxy is implied.

Now you equated Fazlur Rahman with Mullah Omar who's writings I admittedly have not seen much of. Hence I am curious as to what made you equate the two especially in terms of ijtihad applied to jihad.

I am curious about something. Fazlur Rahman was the mentor of my first Middle Eastern Studies professor, and I am particularly fond of his writings. Where are you drawing this knowledge from? Have you actually read Rahman?

The reason I ask is that your commentâ?¦

â??Fazlur Rahman accepts a definition of ijtihad that allows for a text to be generalized into a set of principles, and that these principles can be interpreted as new set of rules. It says that a tradition in question can be seen according to meanings under which the tradition arose. Thus orthodoxy is implied.â?

â?¦seems to be a complete lifting of this Free Republic articleâ?¦

â??The definition of ijtihad that Fazlur Rahman accepts means it is possible that a text can be generalized into a set of principles, and that these principles can be formulated as new sets of rules. It implies that the tradition in question can be judged according to the normative meanings under which the tradition arose. In other words, that some form of orthodoxy is possible.â?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/531762/posts

I am wondering if you have actually read Rahman, or simply read others who have read Rahman? Additionally if you have yourself, which books? Could you elaborate on Rahmanâ??s theories of Hadith interpretation and application?

Incidentally I would be careful with statements like the above, since they border on plagiarism, pretending others comments are your own.

[Alf O'Mega]

Don't I first have to do something in order to qualify to converse with you? Something, say, like balancing a copy of The DaVinci Code on my nose while gargling pancake batter, dressed in leopard skin pants and vest and standing atop a moving Yugo?

I'm afraid that I haven't read Feldman's article. But I will try to do so and get back to you. (I'm out of town over the weekend, lying duplicitiously to an interfaith symposium in Topeka, Kansas. So that may interfere.)

Thanks. Take your time. (But in the meantime go ahead and post video evidence of your compliance with the entrance requirements for this conversation.)

Anybody else who is interested may comment on the article as well (again: Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age), although it also has a lot of political analysis, which is obviously off topic for this forum.

[BCSpace]

Fazlur Rahman accepts a definition of ijtihad that allows for a text to be generalized into a set of principles, and that these principles can be interpreted as new set of rules. It says that a tradition in question can be seen according to meanings under which the tradition arose. Thus orthodoxy is implied.

Now you equated Fazlur Rahman with Mullah Omar who's writings I admittedly have not seen much of. Hence I am curious as to what made you equate the two especially in terms of ijtihad applied to jihad.

You missed the point altogether, it seems. Permit me to clarify:

.....

Fazlur Rahman has very little in common with Mulla Omar.

Which is what I was thinking in the first place.

Another reason why your mention of Rahman catches my attention are the circumstances under which he left Pakistan and came here. Was it exile and if so was it self-imposed? Did it have to do with anything he taught and believed?

These are important questions as it speaks to the overall issue of the western revisionism of Islam. If Rahman was driven out because of his beliefs this would speak to the idea that his view (which influences much scholarship in the West as has been implied in an above post) is well outside the mainstream Islamic view.

But this brings me back to my original interest of DCP's tongue-in-cheek comparison of Rahman and Omar. Having only seen some of Omar's rhetoric, I still can't help but wonder if he uses for the basis of his interpretation some of the same or similar ideas Rahman had on ijtihad.

I thought DCP might has some insight on this but perhaps not since such detailed info on Omar's philosophy may be hard to come by.

On the more humorous side, Rahman and Omar actually seem to have at least one thing in common....exile.