His father was an atheist, and his mother was an agnostic. Islam and Christianity are two religions which are not based on culture. We don't inherit them.
I think that racist, anti-Semitic denial and revision of the Holocaust is absolutely disgusting. As a Muslim who believes that God has commanded us to reject pride, jingoistic nationalism, and racism, I stand firmly against such filth.
Just because Israeli politicians are imperialistic tyrants doesn't mean that Jewish people have never suffered at the hands of the rest of us.
If Hamas has refused to engage in the peace process, how do we explain their very consistent offers of a truce, and of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders?
Louie, Hamas is difficult to define on our traditional left-right spectrum. They are socially very conservative. I have no idea what their economic policies are like. In terms of foreign relations, they could be defined as liberal, but I really don't know. But they have a lot of butt-wiping to do before they can be truly Islamic and stand before God with a clean slate. Their treatment og Gilad Shalit is one case in which they could reallllly improve their behaviour; and so is their treatment of perceived "traitors."
Allahumma salli `ala Muhammad wa aale Muhammad! Thank you for keying me into the potential for a Hakim successorship to Ayatullah Sistani and for allaying my fears about a system of scholarship whose members this side of the ocean have appeared so often to rhetorically kiss Ahmadinejad's proverbial feet. May the hawzah at Najaf be blessed with strength, numbers of students and teachers, and proper guidance, inshallah.
Wallah, this is some of the best news I have seen all week. Did you know that one of my worst fears over the past decade has been the (impending?) assassination of Ayatullah Sistani? Knowing that the line of succession is in good hands settles some of those fears. That's not to say, of course, that I would start bawling my eyes out and demand a mini-vacation with other Shia Muslims in the area. I just won't be so worried about the future, and I will know where to look for the next tawdih al masa'il.
"Less direct" isn't exactly the phrase that I wanted to use, but I cannot think of a more descriptive way to explain what I was thinking. Sorry for those typos.
I tend to think of the Arabic language in terms of third person masculine preterit verbs. This is because those kidns of words neatly contain all of the important letters for nearly every single Arabic word out there. The word "jahada" means "to struggle" or "to strive" (literaly, "he struggled"). Its noun is "jihad."
In the context of Islamic theology, jihad has two different forms: one's personal struggle to do what is considered proper, and a military struggle in obedience to God or His divine appointee. In Shia Islam, that would be Imam Mahdi, the Messianic figure. Imam Mahdi also exists in Sunni Islam, but with certain differences. This is one of them. In Sunni Islam, only the unified body of qualified religious scholars (not dudes with university degress, but people who have studied all of the Islamic sciences for decades) can declare jihad.
Neither of these ideas is very far from the other, as it turns out. Both Shia and Sunni Islam have developed systems of scholarship in response to the generational distance between the modern Islamic community and those early Muslims who had contact with Prophet Muhammad. Each sect, though, has its own rules which shape and define the scholarly system.
Shia Islam, believing that Islamic leadership was passed through a series of pre-set divine leaders after the death of Prophet Muhammad, didn't need to rely so much on scholars to guide the Islamic community as soon as Sunni Islam did. We also believe that Imam Mahdi "handed off" a certain authority to a certain set of individuals after his death, and, after them, to scholars whose qualifications he described. That and the Shia Islamic belief in Occultation (Arabis "ghayba") are related to the way that we handle the authority required for declaring jihad.
After the deaths of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, Sunni Islam developed leading scholars. Four of them established schools of thought within Sunni Islam that still survive to this day due to the popularity of their jurisprudential teachings. The handoff between one and the other was less direct and did not involve such an authority figure as did the handoff in Shia Islam. Furthermore, Sunni Islam teaches that Imam Mahdi hasn't been born (or announcced) yet. So even though both Shia and Sunni Islam have tremendous emphasis on scholarly tradition, Shia Islam holds that the Messianic figure, Imam Mahdi, is vested with the authority to declare hjihad, while Sunni Islam grants that authority to a unanimous body of religious scholars.
There are many conditions qualifying the legitimacy of jihad, both in general and in terms of individual participation. Jihad is not offensive or pre-emptive. It is to be used defensively, after a Muslim community has been attacked on account of its religion. This is why I consider the invasion of Spain to be a violation of Islamic law. The Spanish people did nothing to the Muslims to merit any kind of attack. That was purely expansionist. One cannot participate in a jihad for revenge or anger. One who does so and dies under such sentiment doesn't get the Heavenly reward of a martyr - the immediate transport to heaven in a silk cloth held by an angel, acclaim and status in Heaven, etc. Virgins? Dunno. Don't care. One cannot attack women, children, the elderly, or the unarmed. One cannot destroy vegetation or buildings, or kill animals. And there are others in the list.
Btw, The Haqqanis aren't modernist or liberal. At least, their methods for explaining jihad aren't. Modernist and liberal, to my mind is "We don't have to apply the Qur'an and Sunnah because this is the modern age. We can shift the application of Islamic law according to the modern way of life." These guys appears to be using the same method of applying the Qur'an, Sunnah, and other bases of ijtihad to the explanation of jihad.
You cannot kill the elderly, or women, or children. You cannot destroy buildings or vegitation.
Only the body of Islamic scholars (Mufti Desai, Deoband, Hanafi madhhab, Sunni Islam) or Imam Mahdi (Shia Islam) can declare jihad. The body of Islami scholars has not declared jihad (Mufti Desai); and Imam Mahdi is in occultation (Shia Islam).
Thank you for the proof-text on defensive jihad only.
I would also suggest using less plastic, and acquainting ourselves with chemicals that are derived from oil. Those chemicals end up in all sorts of everyday products. We need to learn how to live without all of the crap.
Actually, I am just as offended now as I was initially. Not only do I consider myself fully capable of being modern *and* covered, I fully believe that the injunction for Muslim women to cover their heads does indeed lie in the Wur'an itself. The word used in 24:31 is khumurihinna. The word khimar has always referred to a head covering. Its meaning did not change after the revelation of 24:31 to mean simply "scarf" or "chest covering," as would have been the case if the Qur'an had advised women that they could drop the scarf off their heads and replace it on their chests. In addition, the "-hinna" ending specifies that the khumur in question belonged to the women of the time. That is to say, we are just as obligated to cover are heads as was the custom of the women of the time; and every women who reacted to the revelation of 24:31 did so by unrolling the tails of their headcoverings and laying them over their chests while continuing to cover their heads. Furthermore, I take the meaning of the verb used in that verse to imply that the main body of an item remains in place while parts of it are extended out. The body of hadith literature also backs up the legitimacy of the Islamic obligation for women to cover their heads - not only with the saying of Prophet Muhammad to Asma to cover except the face and hands, but also with other references to tin and antimony, and by other ahadith present in Shia Muslim literature in which women were specifically advised to cover their heads and arms.
And again, I repeat: I am fully modern, and I cover my head in front of men. Your insinuation that I am not modern because I cover up insults me.
Unfairly Maligned.
*falling off chair*
*laughing*
*gasping for breath*
*laughing more*
I personally think that it's because conservatives have been defunding education for years. Like such as for the children USA Americans.
I still say Free Kurdistan Now.
There is NO equivalence between terrorism and the struggle for human rights. NONE.
David, excellent analysis.
"Law and Order." The KKK was big on that, too.
[corrected my typo]
Koch Brothers vs College Professors. Mackinac Center vs the same.
Yup.
Money. It's anti-democratic.
May the Ahmadinejad regime fall and a truly democratic, representative, accountable, and transparent government lead Iran towards truly moral values.
His father was an atheist, and his mother was an agnostic. Islam and Christianity are two religions which are not based on culture. We don't inherit them.
Adam, what you described of "wonderful treatment" and "ungratefulness" smacks of white American supremacist beliefs. You're spot on about racists.
I think that racist, anti-Semitic denial and revision of the Holocaust is absolutely disgusting. As a Muslim who believes that God has commanded us to reject pride, jingoistic nationalism, and racism, I stand firmly against such filth.
Just because Israeli politicians are imperialistic tyrants doesn't mean that Jewish people have never suffered at the hands of the rest of us.
Yeah, right. Of course, technically he can deny those offers, since it was Eraqat who made them.
If Hamas has refused to engage in the peace process, how do we explain their very consistent offers of a truce, and of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders?
Palestinian Elections Now
Louie, Hamas is difficult to define on our traditional left-right spectrum. They are socially very conservative. I have no idea what their economic policies are like. In terms of foreign relations, they could be defined as liberal, but I really don't know. But they have a lot of butt-wiping to do before they can be truly Islamic and stand before God with a clean slate. Their treatment og Gilad Shalit is one case in which they could reallllly improve their behaviour; and so is their treatment of perceived "traitors."
Juan, can you put something out which would describe the likely process that Palestine could pursue at the United Nations towards statehood?
Assaalmu `alaykum wa rahmatullah
If I were to Google Naraqi to learn more, what other key terms would help me to narrow my search?
[fixed my typo]
Allahumma salli `ala Muhammad wa aale Muhammad! Thank you for keying me into the potential for a Hakim successorship to Ayatullah Sistani and for allaying my fears about a system of scholarship whose members this side of the ocean have appeared so often to rhetorically kiss Ahmadinejad's proverbial feet. May the hawzah at Najaf be blessed with strength, numbers of students and teachers, and proper guidance, inshallah.
Wallah, this is some of the best news I have seen all week. Did you know that one of my worst fears over the past decade has been the (impending?) assassination of Ayatullah Sistani? Knowing that the line of succession is in good hands settles some of those fears. That's not to say, of course, that I would start bawling my eyes out and demand a mini-vacation with other Shia Muslims in the area. I just won't be so worried about the future, and I will know where to look for the next tawdih al masa'il.
Thank you again so much.
Sposing the NYT wouldn't take this now that you have published it?
"Less direct" isn't exactly the phrase that I wanted to use, but I cannot think of a more descriptive way to explain what I was thinking. Sorry for those typos.
I tend to think of the Arabic language in terms of third person masculine preterit verbs. This is because those kidns of words neatly contain all of the important letters for nearly every single Arabic word out there. The word "jahada" means "to struggle" or "to strive" (literaly, "he struggled"). Its noun is "jihad."
In the context of Islamic theology, jihad has two different forms: one's personal struggle to do what is considered proper, and a military struggle in obedience to God or His divine appointee. In Shia Islam, that would be Imam Mahdi, the Messianic figure. Imam Mahdi also exists in Sunni Islam, but with certain differences. This is one of them. In Sunni Islam, only the unified body of qualified religious scholars (not dudes with university degress, but people who have studied all of the Islamic sciences for decades) can declare jihad.
Neither of these ideas is very far from the other, as it turns out. Both Shia and Sunni Islam have developed systems of scholarship in response to the generational distance between the modern Islamic community and those early Muslims who had contact with Prophet Muhammad. Each sect, though, has its own rules which shape and define the scholarly system.
Shia Islam, believing that Islamic leadership was passed through a series of pre-set divine leaders after the death of Prophet Muhammad, didn't need to rely so much on scholars to guide the Islamic community as soon as Sunni Islam did. We also believe that Imam Mahdi "handed off" a certain authority to a certain set of individuals after his death, and, after them, to scholars whose qualifications he described. That and the Shia Islamic belief in Occultation (Arabis "ghayba") are related to the way that we handle the authority required for declaring jihad.
After the deaths of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, Sunni Islam developed leading scholars. Four of them established schools of thought within Sunni Islam that still survive to this day due to the popularity of their jurisprudential teachings. The handoff between one and the other was less direct and did not involve such an authority figure as did the handoff in Shia Islam. Furthermore, Sunni Islam teaches that Imam Mahdi hasn't been born (or announcced) yet. So even though both Shia and Sunni Islam have tremendous emphasis on scholarly tradition, Shia Islam holds that the Messianic figure, Imam Mahdi, is vested with the authority to declare hjihad, while Sunni Islam grants that authority to a unanimous body of religious scholars.
There are many conditions qualifying the legitimacy of jihad, both in general and in terms of individual participation. Jihad is not offensive or pre-emptive. It is to be used defensively, after a Muslim community has been attacked on account of its religion. This is why I consider the invasion of Spain to be a violation of Islamic law. The Spanish people did nothing to the Muslims to merit any kind of attack. That was purely expansionist. One cannot participate in a jihad for revenge or anger. One who does so and dies under such sentiment doesn't get the Heavenly reward of a martyr - the immediate transport to heaven in a silk cloth held by an angel, acclaim and status in Heaven, etc. Virgins? Dunno. Don't care. One cannot attack women, children, the elderly, or the unarmed. One cannot destroy vegetation or buildings, or kill animals. And there are others in the list.
"If Islam can’t be spread at the point of a sword, what were the armies of Islam doing in southern France mere decades after The Prophet died?"
Violating Islamic law. At least, as far as I am concerned. (I tend to be a minority opinion on this, but do I care?)
Btw, The Haqqanis aren't modernist or liberal. At least, their methods for explaining jihad aren't. Modernist and liberal, to my mind is "We don't have to apply the Qur'an and Sunnah because this is the modern age. We can shift the application of Islamic law according to the modern way of life." These guys appears to be using the same method of applying the Qur'an, Sunnah, and other bases of ijtihad to the explanation of jihad.
You cannot kill the elderly, or women, or children. You cannot destroy buildings or vegitation.
Only the body of Islamic scholars (Mufti Desai, Deoband, Hanafi madhhab, Sunni Islam) or Imam Mahdi (Shia Islam) can declare jihad. The body of Islami scholars has not declared jihad (Mufti Desai); and Imam Mahdi is in occultation (Shia Islam).
Thank you for the proof-text on defensive jihad only.
This is it, the perfect blend of video and text. You did it:)
I would also suggest using less plastic, and acquainting ourselves with chemicals that are derived from oil. Those chemicals end up in all sorts of everyday products. We need to learn how to live without all of the crap.
typo:
"a way of transferring you money" => a way of transferring your money
Juan, can you link your reading audience to a few of thsoe rebuttals? Thank you bunches. :)
Actually, I am just as offended now as I was initially. Not only do I consider myself fully capable of being modern *and* covered, I fully believe that the injunction for Muslim women to cover their heads does indeed lie in the Wur'an itself. The word used in 24:31 is khumurihinna. The word khimar has always referred to a head covering. Its meaning did not change after the revelation of 24:31 to mean simply "scarf" or "chest covering," as would have been the case if the Qur'an had advised women that they could drop the scarf off their heads and replace it on their chests. In addition, the "-hinna" ending specifies that the khumur in question belonged to the women of the time. That is to say, we are just as obligated to cover are heads as was the custom of the women of the time; and every women who reacted to the revelation of 24:31 did so by unrolling the tails of their headcoverings and laying them over their chests while continuing to cover their heads. Furthermore, I take the meaning of the verb used in that verse to imply that the main body of an item remains in place while parts of it are extended out. The body of hadith literature also backs up the legitimacy of the Islamic obligation for women to cover their heads - not only with the saying of Prophet Muhammad to Asma to cover except the face and hands, but also with other references to tin and antimony, and by other ahadith present in Shia Muslim literature in which women were specifically advised to cover their heads and arms.
And again, I repeat: I am fully modern, and I cover my head in front of men. Your insinuation that I am not modern because I cover up insults me.