Latter-day Saints View of Islam.

[TraddButton]

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.

Rahmanâ??s exit was explained in the introductions to both â??Revival and Reform in Islamâ? as well as â??Islam and Modernityâ?. I would ask again, have you actually read Rahman, and if so what? What is the depth of your interest?

Coincidentally, the one Rahman work I had never read was â??Major Themes of the Qurâ??anâ? which arrived in my mailbox today.

[KevinG]

Just butting in where I have no business but...

Please don't take Dr. Peterson to task for not condemning a people with whom he has developed a very valuable relationship and of whom he knows intimate details the rest of us aren't going to get from the news or history books.

He has been gracious enogh to admit that the Islamic world is going through a dysfunctional phase (I think that was his word) and acknowledge that he has concerns. But think about his relationships with these people. What good would it serve a publicly known scholar to push hard on the middle to stick their necks out at a time of jihad, and for what profit?

Lets use some common sense right now in asking Dr. Perterson for public comments on his public comments.

If Dr. Peterson is correct and this phase of Islams development is similar to Christianity in the middle ages, than a more enlightened world may have a chance of coming out of this crisis. If all of the western world comes out in condemnation of all things Islamic why should any of them risk their necks to protest even the more radical sects among them. Where could they go for understanding? Let our Mormon representatives to the Islamic world be peace makers and men of reason. Its our best chance at having a positive effect on all of this. We have enough soliders in the field (including my big brother - God Bless them all) taking care of suppressing the bad guys already.

[TraddButton]

The major problem in discussing jihad as a theological concept is that it requires a fairly developed understanding of the depth and breadth of Islamic history and more importantly politics. In the absence of this understanding the discussion becomes murky.

As has been mentioned before, Islam as a religion has much more political involvement than Christianity or Judaism because of the rise of the Islamic empires so soon after the establishment of the Islamic religion. Christianity did not suffer from this relationship and was the better off for it.

After Muhammad died, the various Islamic empires used religion to validate political decisions in almost every category to include war, and in doing so polluted the religious with the political. This tendency, to use religion as a tool, is easily recognized in most historical kingdoms and empires throughout the world, to include â??Christianâ? kingdoms. Just as there have been devoutly pious Popes, and unabashedly decadent Popes, so have there been pious and decadent Caliphs and Islamic religious rulers. Nevertheless the few centuries of political insulation, mostly due to oppression and opposition, allowed the development and solidification of theological precepts before the political became involved, providing a buffer when politics became important. Islam lacked this period of isolation to develop mature theological concepts, and as such the political and purely theological are mixed to a degree that the amateur is almost hopelessly lost.

Therefore the effort to draw out the pure religious injunctions, independent of political involvement, requires very detailed reading and comprehension of the political and historical nuances that existed in order to understand the context and motivations behind what would outwardly appear to be religious declarations. This is rarely the case mostly due to the lack of required specialization.

Unfortunately what happens in too many cases is that the motivation is not really to understand, but support prejudices and intolerance. Superficially reading Islamic history could easily support the assertions that Islam is a blood thirsty and horrible religion, that Muslims want to convert or kill, and that there is a continual jihad to kill all non-believers, because effort is not made to really understand but support these preconceived notions. The case of jihad falls into this category. The issue is complex enough to allow those who want to find evil to find it, but only because of superficial research. Unfortunately with such prejudices, superficiality is actually considered rigorous scholarship.

[KevinG]

A question if it is not too delicate... I have pondered the role of Jesus teachings as a moderating force in Judeo-Christian religous traditions. The emphasis on forgiveness and peaceful resolution that modern Christianity has taken from His teachings seems to moderate our more vengeful tendencies to a degree.

What forces are there in Judaism and Islam that could present a similar moderating force, not having a Messiah like Christ who has already arrived?

Or am I overplaying the influence on Jesus teachings with the western worlds tendency to justify war or condemn it? Are we just as likely to justify our own version of Jihad?

[TraddButton]

A question if it is not too delicate... I have pondered the role of Jesus teachings as a moderating force in Judeo-Christian religous traditions. The emphasis on forgiveness and peaceful resolution that modern Christianity has taken from His teachings seems to moderate our more vengeful tendencies to a degree.

What forces are there in Judaism and Islam that could present a similar moderating force, not having a Messiah like Christ who has already arrived?

Or am I overplaying the influence on Jesus teachings with the western worlds tendency to justify war or condemn it? Are we just as likely to justify our own version of Jihad?

I think Jesusâ?? teachings have undoubtedly had some impact, but consider that Jesus never had a political role at all. Islam does not have this distinction. The better question is, what would Jesusâ?? actions have been had He/he been forced to put theory into practice? Consider that the non-Christian world views Jesus as a philosopher, not the Son of God, so there is no a priori assumption that he/He would act differently than Muhammad, King Solomon, or Abraham.

Oddly enough however, I cannot think of any Muslims I know who would have any problem with Christâ??s teachings on forgiveness and peaceful resolution, and would consider them Islamic. Muslims consider Jesus a Muslim (along with Solomon and Abraham).

[TraddButton]

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.

I thought I would bump this. I was hoping for some more discussion on Rahmanâ??s scholarly contributions to Islamic thought, and hoped something more than poorly concealed plagiarism could be provided. Dr. Rahman remains an influential thinker in the Islamic intellectual tradition, and you might be surprised to know that his religious views were widely sought after in Pakistan and elsewhere after he left the country. Prior to his death he was constantly receiving phone calls on issues of religious doctrine from Pakistan, a virtual â??Dial-a-fatwaâ? so to speak. My professor said that not a single period of office hours would pass without at least one international call. Your insinuation that his beliefs were not respected is wrong. I do not understand why you would draw such a conclusion based on a perceptible lack of study. Again I would ask if you have actually attempted to read and understand Rahman, or any Islamic thinker for that matter? I am curious what books you used in this educational process. How can you call something revisionist you have not felt was necessary to read first hand?

[BCSpace]

Rahmanâ??s exit was explained in the introductions to both â??Revival and Reform in Islamâ? as well as â??Islam and Modernityâ?.

Hardly suprising that you would refer to a work by an Islamic reformist and by Rahman himself. So you vote no on exile? I made no claim as you have implied, I was simply curious.

Coincidentally, the one Rahman work I had never read was â??Major Themes of the Qurâ??anâ? which arrived in my mailbox today.

Good!

Possibly your edition is the latest? Did he change his view that the Qur'an teaches Muslims should establish 'a political order on the earth' through the instrument of jihad before he died?

Just butting in where I have no business but...

Please don't take Dr. Peterson to task for not condemning a people

I am certainly not asking for that. I'm just trying to establish the reasoning behind what I perceive to be the western revisionism of Islam. Is it the actual truth? Is it political correctness? Is it an effort to reform mainstream Islam? Or some combination?

with whom he has developed a very valuable relationship and of whom he knows intimate details the rest of us aren't going to get from the news or history books.

No one is questioning his knowledge and experience in this area, just his conclusions.

Don't we LDS question the conclusions of say, Catholic scholars, despite the centuries of study and research they have under their belts?

Let our Mormon representatives to the Islamic world be peace makers and men of reason.

Indeed. As per John 8:32, it would be best if they go armed with the truth of the matter.

[TraddButton]

Hardly suprising that you would refer to a work by an Islamic reformist and by Rahman himself. So you vote no on exile? I made no claim as you have implied, I was simply curious.

???

You made no claim at all? You plagiarized someone elseâ??s thoughts, making minor changes to hide the plagiarism, which proved unsuccessful. Nevertheless it seems to have made no effort to actually learn or understand anything about Dr. Rahman.

Again, have you ever actually read anything by Rahman? For some reason you seem incapable of answering this question.

Possibly your edition is the latest? Did he change his view that the Qur'an teaches Muslims should establish 'a political order on the earth' through the instrument of jihad before he died?

If youâ??re going to make that accusation perhaps you should provide a quote with reference? Are you quoting something again, trying to pass it off as your own?

Wouldnâ??t it be much better to read Rahman for yourself instead of selectively reading the writings of others who may or may not fully embody the

[USU78]

A question if it is not too delicate... I have pondered the role of Jesus teachings as a moderating force in Judeo-Christian religous traditions. The emphasis on forgiveness and peaceful resolution that modern Christianity has taken from His teachings seems to moderate our more vengeful tendencies to a degree.

What forces are there in Judaism and Islam that could present a similar moderating force, not having a Messiah like Christ who has already arrived?

Or am I overplaying the influence on Jesus teachings with the western worlds tendency to justify war or condemn it? Are we just as likely to justify our own version of Jihad?

I think the preserved sayings of the Master are more than a bit ambiguous on the issue of the necessity (perhaps sad but inevitable necessity?) for employment of violence in certain instances.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

This is reported to have been said shortly before the Master's arrest, where he is uniformly reported to have enjoined violence in defense of Himself.

Following His resurrection, however, and specifically during Last Dispensation instructions to the Prophet Joseph, He said:

"Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart," saith the Lord, "that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me. Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children; And again, the hearts of the Jews unto the prophets, and the prophets unto the Jews; lest I come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be consumed before me."

Later, of course, the Master gives specific rules for defensive war, but never offensive, and with specific injunctions on forgiveness of offenders. Indeed, the verses quoted above make clear that G-d's Kingdom is to be spread only through seeking to turn hearts. Never by force.

To the extent Islam teaches that, I have no problem with it.

[BCSpace]

Hardly suprising that you would refer to a work by an Islamic reformist and by Rahman himself. So you vote no on exile? I made no claim as you have implied, I was simply curious.

???

You made no claim at all?

Nope. I have postulated to you that he was exiled and have joked that perhaps exile is the first thing that he and Mullah Omar have in common, but since you took issue with the idea, I was hoping you'd provide some actual reasoning.

Possibly your edition is the latest? Did he change his view that the Qur'an teaches Muslims should establish 'a political order on the earth' through the instrument of jihad before he died?

If youâ??re going to make that accusation perhaps you should provide a quote with reference?

What accusation? Is your edition the latest or not? Did he not teach this very thing? Considering your apparent reverence for Rahman (having read much about him, I have the same respect though not necessarily agreement) you, as the self-acclaimed expert, should know what Rahman taught.

Now the 1980 edition says this....

"There is no doubt that the Qur'an wanted Muslims to establish a political order on earth for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order. Jihad is the instrument for doing so." - Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an,1980, pp. 63-64

So I ask again. Did he change his mind? If not, this is actually something he seems to have in common with Mullah Omar. I picked this up right away when Mr. Peterson made his 'tongue-in-cheek' list because I had previously seen somewhat of Rahman's work.

Just to make it clear for everyone, what exactly is your study on Islam?

Are you so insecure in your position that you must ask for my credentials before you engage? If you believe (erroneously) that I am unqualified to discuss these matters, then by all means, educate me or dismiss me as not worthy of your efforts.

Considering your performance last we met on that older Islamic poll thread, I certainly have no worries about holding my own.

I have found that in general, when encountering prejudice, this is usually revealed by a surprising lack of study when compared to the ferocity of opinion. How can someone feel so strongly about a subject they have invested to little time in understanding?

I agree completely. But not holding the same opinions or not comming to the same conclusions is not prejudice. If I were prejudiced, I would be saying something like this....

"I have nothing but respect for the Christian faith, it is a noble religion, but then again I respect Islam as well, but oddly enough, not Muslims."

[Daniel Peterson]

Now the 1980 edition says this....

"There is no doubt that the Qur'an wanted Muslims to establish a political order on earth for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order. Jihad is the instrument for doing so." - Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an,1980, pp. 63-64

So I ask again. Did he change his mind? If not, this is actually something he seems to have in common with Mullah Omar.

Did Fazlur Rahman mean by jihad what Mullah Omar means by jihad?

(Mr. Peterson asked with his usual invective.)

[BCSpace]

"There is no doubt that the Qur'an wanted Muslims to establish a political order on earth for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order. Jihad is the instrument for doing so." - Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an,1980, pp. 63-64

So I ask again. Did he change his mind? If not, this is actually something he seems to have in common with Mullah Omar.

Did Fazlur Rahman mean by jihad what Mullah Omar means by jihad?

Not necessarily jihad, but they both wanted a political order though hopefully their concept of 'an egalitarian and just moral-social order' is different. Seems to be a common thread here. But I was hoping you'd enlighten us.......

[TraddButton]

Nope. I have postulated to you that he was exiled and have joked that perhaps exile is the first thing that he and Mullah Omar have in common, but since you took issue with the idea, I was hoping you'd provide some actual reasoning.

This is not true. M Yahya Birt postulated this and you quoted the section, making minor changes to hide the deception. You have postulated nothing. To date you have not demonstrated that you have even read a single book by Rahman, though you continue to plagiarize others who do.

What accusation? Is your edition the latest or not? Did he not teach this very thing? Considering your apparent reverence for Rahman (having read much about him, I have the same respect though not necessarily agreement) you, as the self-acclaimed expert, should know what Rahman taught.

Now the 1980 edition says this....

"There is no doubt that the Qur'an wanted Muslims to establish a political order on earth for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order. Jihad is the instrument for doing so." - Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an,1980, pp. 63-64

So I ask again. Did he change his mind? If not, this is actually something he seems to have in common with Mullah Omar. I picked this up right away when Mr. Peterson made his 'tongue-in-cheek' list because I had previously seen somewhat of Rahman's work.

The problem with this is three fold.

1. The comment “Is your edition the latest or not?” is not very accurate. There are multiple editions, but only one copy. The second edition was copyrighted after Dr. Rahman’s death in a reprinting, but no new material was added that I am aware of. I think a good way to solve this question would be to quote the preceding paragraph. Could you provide this material?

2. The quote you are using is a combination of quote and paraphrase. The only way this could happen is if you somehow arrived at the same direct quote as the article found here…

http://www.meforum.org/article/357

…independently from the author, or you simply lifted the quote from the article and passed it off as your own research. The latter seems to be the clear case. This is problematic, because it is again plagiarism. You did not do the researched, but copied someone else’s.

The actual quote, with some succeeding sentences is…

There is no doubt that the Qur’an wanted Muslims to establish a political order on earth for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order. Such an order should, by definition, eliminate “corruption on the earth [fasad fi’l-ard] and “reform the earth.” To fulfill this task, to which every people whose vision is neither truncated not introverted pays at least lip service, the Qur’an created the instrument of jihad – indeed, 22:41, describing this function of the Muslim Community, follows directly upon the verse laying down the principle of jihad for the first time.

3. The source from which you plagiarized, for the second time, has this quote under the heading of “JIHAD AS NON-WARFARE IN MODERN TIMES.” Somehow you managed to lift the quote, but not the author’s explanation, and without any actual study on your own you have been completely unable to explain the position.

Are you so insecure in your position that you must ask for my credentials before you engage? If you believe (erroneously) that I am unqualified to discuss these matters, then by all means, educate me or dismiss me as not worthy of your efforts.

Considering your performance last we met on that older Islamic poll thread, I certainly have no worries about holding my own.

What do you consider credentials? I have asked several times if you had actually read Rahman, and you have consistently failed to answer the question each time. Your information is plagiarized from secondary sources, further strengthening this position, that you have never actually engaged the source text. Discussion of a subject usually requires some sort of familiarity with the subject matter and to date that has not been demonstrated.

I would ask again “Have you ever read anything by Dr. Rahman, and if so, what?”

Edit: Grammar correction

[BCSpace]

Nope. I have postulated to you that he was exiled and have joked that perhaps exile is the first thing that he and Mullah Omar have in common, but since you took issue with the idea, I was hoping you'd provide some actual reasoning.

This is not true. M Yahya Birt postulated this and you quoted the section

I neither quoted or paraphrased anything relative to the issue of whether or not Rahman was exiled. But by your own references, I was able to highlight that your brand of Islam is on the reformist/revisionist side.

1. The comment â??Is your edition the latest or not?â? is not very accurate. There are multiple editions, but only one copy. The second edition was copyrighted after Dr. Rahmanâ??s death in a reprinting, but no new material was added that I am aware of.

All you had to say was "no".

Just as I thought. Rahman has not changed his mind on the politcal order and the role of jihad in it.

The source from which you plagiarized, for the second time,

More baseless invective.

has this quote under the heading of â??JIHAD AS NON-WARFARE IN MODERN TIMES.â? Somehow you managed to lift the quote, but not the authorâ??s explanation, and without any actual study on your own you have been completely unable to explain the position.

Now you are beating around the bush. I said nothing about this quote showing a militant pov of jihad on Rahman's part (though it may be shown later that Rahman's view of jihad is quite militant) and nothing you've presented so far can gainsay the fact that Rahman and our good friend the Mullah connect Islam with political order which was my point.

Which begs the question....Do you think it is possible to establish a political system by "inner spiritual struggles within oneself"?

Are you so insecure in your position that you must ask for my credentials before you engage? If you believe (erroneously) that I am unqualified to discuss these matters, then by all means, educate me or dismiss me as not worthy of your efforts.

Considering your performance last we met on that older Islamic poll thread, I certainly have no worries about holding my own.

What do you consider credentials?

I don't consider anyones's credentials in debate. If I did, perhaps I might be concerned if you were published in acedemia, recently. But whether you are or not is of no concern to me.

Later, of course, the Master gives specific rules for defensive war, but never offensive, and with specific injunctions on forgiveness of offenders. Indeed, the verses quoted above make clear that G-d's Kingdom is to be spread only through seeking to turn hearts. Never by force.

To the extent Islam teaches that, I have no problem with it.

It doesn't. At least not the mainstream and it depends on what is meant by 'forcible conversion'. Is it 'convert or die' or 'convert or accept Muslim rule'. Either is forcible conversion in my mind.

Even some liberal Muslim scholars such as the aforementioned Rahman express miltant jihad extant in the orginal Islam....

The most unacceptable on historical grounds, however, is the stand of those modern Muslim apologists who have tried to explain the jihad of the early Community in purely defensive terms. Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 37

From another respected scholar......

â??It is under the heading of jihad that the Muslim jurists normally discuss the various legal problems arising from relations between Muslims and non-Muslims : authorities, communities, individuals. The reason for this classification is clear. Like Christians, Muslims believed that the revelation that had been given to them was for all mankind and that it was their sacred duty to bring it to those who were not aware of it or had not yet accepted it. This obligation is known in the language of the holy law is jihad, usually translated as holy war but literally meaning striving. In later times this was sometimes interpreted in a moral sense. In classical juristic literature it is invariably interpreted in a military sense, and the jurists go into great detail on such questions as the opening, conduct, and termination of hostilities, the treatment of prisoners and noncombatants, and the definition and division of booty.

Islamic teaching, and with few exceptions Islamic practice, rejects forcible conversion. The power of the Islamic state and therefore the jurisdiction of Islamic law were, however, extended in the early centuries of the Islamic era over vast territories and populations, and the literature of the time clearly reflects the belief that this process would continue without interruption until, in a not too distant future, the whole world would either accept the Islamic faith or submit to Muslim rule. In the meantime, the world was divided into two, the Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam, in which Islamic government and Islamic law prevailed, and the Dar al-Harb, the House of War, in which infidel rulers for the time being remained in power.â? Bernard Lewis, â??Islam and the Westâ?? (1993), p. 46 â?? 47

[TraddButton]

I neither quoted or paraphrased anything relative to the issue of whether or not Rahman was exiled. But by your own references, I was able to highlight that your brand of Islam is on the reformist/revisionist side.

Actually no you did nothing of the sort. The problem with relying on plagiarism as scholarship is that you learn nothing. The details of Dr. Rahmanâ??s exit from Pakistan are detailed in the preface to â??Revival and Reform in Islamâ? by Ebrahim Moosa. The issue was complex and highly politicized, so your understanding, based on no actual personal study, is highly stunted.

If you would like to make a statement it would be terribly helpful to have actually have read the books you are attempting unsuccessfully to discuss.

All you had to say was "no".

Just as I thought. Rahman has not changed his mind on the politcal order and the role of jihad in it.

Given that there were eight years from his completion of â??Major Themes of the Qurâ??anâ? your assertion that the ideas crystallized in this work never changed is premature and logically inconsistent. Also given that your entire knowledge of the ideas crystallized in the above tome come from plagiarized sources you wish to pass off as your own, it would appear that any statement you would make on Rahmanâ??s position is completely unreliable.

You wonâ??t actually put effort into studying the subject, but continue to comment on it. Why is this?

Again, for the 4th or 5th time, â??Have you ever read a book by Dr. Fazlur Rahman?â?

Why wonâ??t you answer this question?

More baseless invective.

It is not baseless at all. You misquoted a section of a book, the exact same misquote found elsewhere, and clearly plagiarize another article. This is not indicative of rigorous research methods. I would almost think you were being fed information.

Now you are beating around the bush. I said nothing about this quote showing a militant pov of jihad on Rahman's part (though it may be shown later that Rahman's view of jihad is quite militant) and nothing you've presented so far can gainsay the fact that Rahman and our good friend the Mullah connect Islam with political order which was my point.

Once again you have said nothing at all. Others have and you wish to pass off their comments as your own.

Which begs the question....Do you think it is possible to establish a political system by "inner spiritual struggles within oneself"?

If you would actually read Rahman, you might find out.

I don't consider anyones's credentials in debate. If I did, perhaps I might be concerned if you were published in acedemia, recently. But whether you are or not is of no concern to me.

How about explain why you cannot reference original thought on the subject? Why are you misquoting the same texts others misquote? Why are you making statements identical to others? Why are you unable to answer the simple questions about your own study?

It doesn't. At least not the mainstream and it depends on what is meant by 'forcible conversion'. Is it 'convert or die' or 'convert or accept Muslim rule'. Either is forcible conversion in my mind.

Even some liberal Muslim scholars such as the aforementioned Rahman express miltant jihad extant in the orginal Islam....

How odd. You see if you had actually read Rahman, on the same page which you plagiarized fromâ?¦

One may concede that jihad was often misused by later Muslims whose primary aim was territorial expansion and not the ideology they were asked to establish; one must also admit that the means of jihad can vary- in fact armed jihad is only one form. But once can never say that â??Islam was spread by the sword.â?

It would behoove you to actually read the book in question. You do not understand the issue or the position of the author.

It doesn't. At least not the mainstream and it depends on what is meant by 'forcible conversion'. Is it 'convert or die' or 'convert or accept Muslim rule'. Either is forcible conversion in my mind.

Even some liberal Muslim scholars such as the aforementioned Rahman express miltant jihad extant in the orginal Islam....

Only if you pull quotes without understanding the context. For example, for your quote could you provide the context in the preceding paragraph?

It discusses communism and Kharijites. I am sure you have actually read the book, so you should be able to provide this.

I will help you out. The paragraph beginsâ?¦ â??The Qurâ??an calls upon believers to undertake jihadâ?

From another respected scholar......

And you can post what someone else tells you to, but why not stick with one author at a time?

[BCSpace]

The details of Dr. Rahmanâ??s exit from Pakistan are detailed in the preface to â??Revival and Reform in Islamâ? by Ebrahim Moosa. The issue was complex and highly politicized, so your understanding, based on no actual personal study, is highly stunted.

You don't even know what my understanding is. I simply asked whether or not you thought he was exiled and noted that your nonresponse included a work by a reformer.

Just as I thought. Rahman has not changed his mind on the politcal order and the role of jihad in it.

Given that there were eight years from his completion of â??Major Themes of the Qurâ??anâ? your assertion that the ideas crystallized in this work never changed is premature and logically inconsistent. Also given that your entire knowledge of the ideas crystallized in the above tome come from plagiarized sources you wish to pass off as your own, it would appear that any statement you would make on Rahmanâ??s position is completely unreliable.

So you're saying he did change his mind?

You wonâ??t actually put effort into studying the subject, but continue to comment on it. Why is this?

I think the fact that you avoid assesing the actual quotes speaks to the weakness of your argument. So far we have Rahman in agreement with the concept of an earthly political order and jihad used to accomplish it (an "internal struggle"? LOL!). On top of that, we have him agreeing with the idea (and actually scolding other revisionist scholars who teach otherwise) that even originally, jihad was not for defensive puposes, a decidely militant attitude.

He's much closer to Mullah Omar than either Mr. Peterson or you supposed.

I don't consider anyones's credentials in debate. If I did, perhaps I might be concerned if you were published in acedemia, recently. But whether you are or not is of no concern to me.

How about explain why you cannot reference original thought on the subject?

Now there's an interesting conundrum I'd like to see you explain. Since you refuse to address the quotes and their context (that is, if you have any that will gainsay my assessment), I must conclude you have no thoughts at all on the subject.

You do not understand the issue or the position of the author.

If that is how you feel, then feel free to educate me. What are you afraid of?

It discusses communism and Kharijites. I am sure you have actually read the book, so you should be able to provide this.

What does mainstream Islam teach us about the status of unbelievers?

From another respected scholar......

â??It is under the heading of jihad that the Muslim jurists normally discuss the various legal problems arising from relations between Muslims and non-Muslims : authorities, communities, individuals. The reason for this classification is clear. Like Christians, Muslims believed that the revelation that had been given to them was for all mankind and that it was their sacred duty to bring it to those who were not aware of it or had not yet accepted it. This obligation is known in the language of the holy law is jihad, usually translated as holy war but literally meaning striving. In later times this was sometimes interpreted in a moral sense. In classical juristic literature it is invariably interpreted in a military sense, and the jurists go into great detail on such questions as the opening, conduct, and termination of hostilities, the treatment of prisoners and noncombatants, and the definition and division of booty.

Islamic teaching, and with few exceptions Islamic practice, rejects forcible conversion. The power of the Islamic state and therefore the jurisdiction of Islamic law were, however, extended in the early centuries of the Islamic era over vast territories and populations, and the literature of the time clearly reflects the belief that this process would continue without interruption until, in a not too distant future, the whole world would either accept the Islamic faith or submit to Muslim rule. In the meantime, the world was divided into two, the Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam, in which Islamic government and Islamic law prevailed, and the Dar al-Harb, the House of War, in which infidel rulers for the time being remained in power.â? Bernard Lewis, â??Islam and the Westâ?? (1993), p. 46 â?? 47

And you can post what someone else tells you to,

Now there is an inflammatory and unfounded accusation....Considering your educational claims, do you have any scholarship to present? Should I ask if you have a PhD before I accept your answer?

but why not stick with one author at a time?

They tied together quite well and so far they have contradicted you very well too.

[TraddButton]

You don't even know what my understanding is. I simply asked whether or not you thought he was exiled and noted that your nonresponse included a work by a reformer.

Youâ??ve plagiarized three different sources. I think it is clear what your level of understanding is.

So you're saying he did change his mind?

I donâ??t think anyone could conclusively state either way, but certainly not if you had not bothered to read a single book by the author.

I think the fact that you avoid assesing the actual quotes speaks to the weakness of your argument. So far we have Rahman in agreement with the concept of an earthly political order and jihad used to accomplish it (an "internal struggle"? LOL!). On top of that, we have him agreeing with the idea (and actually scolding other revisionist scholars who teach otherwise) that even originally, jihad was not for defensive puposes, a decidely militant attitude.

He's much closer to Mullah Omar than either Mr. Peterson or you supposed.

Avoid assessing the actual quotes? Are you referring to the quotes you plagiarized wholesale? Is this really how you think discussion goes?

Here is the problem with your approach, (and I recognize that you are not completely responsible) you are not interested in learning anything. If you really wanted to know and understand Islam, you would actually study it. Resorting to plagiarism is only indicative of the fact that you really are not interested in actually learning but also in the fact that your primary aim is in supporting the predetermined opinions you have.

The inherent dishonesty of your actions aside, simply pulling selective quotes from someone elseâ??s research and attempting to make an argument out of the selections is the antithesis of honest intellectual research. You are starting with an idea, in this case a negative view of Islam, and trying to support it however you can, questions of integrity notwithstanding.

Given this attitude and lack of actual study, you are in no position to claim that the position of the late Dr. Rahman is anything, let along contrary to anything anyone else has said on the subject. It could be that I am completely wrong, but in order to counter this, you would actually have to read one of the works in question, not selectively, and dishonestly, plagiarize someone elseâ??s commentary.

Now there's an interesting conundrum I'd like to see you explain. Since you refuse to address the quotes and their context (that is, if you have any that will gainsay my assessment), I must conclude you have no thoughts at all on the subject.

â??Refuse to address the quotes and their contextâ??â?? You donâ??t know the context, you lifted your information from sources other than the book in question. You stole them and want me to discuss the context where you felt such trivialities were unimportant to waste your time on?

I suspect that you think that you are making sweeping points here, but the reality is all too clear, you will sacrifice anything in pursuit of your negative opinion, even your personal integrity.

If that is how you feel, then feel free to educate me. What are you afraid of?

So after you have plagiarized other authors and after this is shown, it is now someone elseâ??s problem to contradict your position? Is this how important making Islam look negative is to you, that you are willing to go this far?

What does mainstream Islam teach us about the status of unbelievers?

I know of a few books which might help you out, but you will have to read them yourself.

Now there is an inflammatory and unfounded accusation....Considering your educational claims, do you have any scholarship to present? Should I ask if you have a PhD before I accept your answer?

The difference between you and I is that I have actually read the books in question. I do not need to steal quotes from the Internet and pass them off as my own research. So yes I do not need someone else telling me what to say.

They tied together quite well and so far they have contradicted you very well too.

Given your already, rather obvious, plagiarism, why should anyone believe that you have not simply lifted, or been fed, these quotes as well? Why should your position be considered any more informed than your other statements where it is clear you never bothered to read the book in question?

[Orpheus]

That's enough from both of you BCSpace and TraddButton....

You have hijacked the thread on Dr. Petersons presentation and turned it into a personal shouting match. You have the thread in comparative religion, discuss Islam there, but refrain from the personal remarks and keep to substance or that will be closed and you will be suspended.