Harry's Place

However, in practice – or do they call it “taqiyya”? – Islam recognises “useful idiots” when it sees them as well as Lenin did.

Lovely !

But doesn’t he know, as johng and the SWP are so fond of saying, that Marx said that ‘religion was mankind’s sigh’? He ought to think it out again.

Poor old Gorgeous George!

This will come as a cruel blow to him, especially after trying so hard to perfect that dreadful Arabic-Scottish accent he now parades on Press TV.

Ten out of ten for trying though, eh?

George, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability, and I want you to know that we are with you!

Philipe

RESPECT worked very well for George, Phillipe.
His primary interest was to get re elected and replace the money he lost when Saddam was toppled.
Both of which he did very nicely.
Plus a bit of office impregnation.

Its the SWP who made fools of themselves as they’ve pretty much admitted since.

Perhaps Yusuf, you might like to consider, or at least ponder for a moment, that Islam is a crock of man made shit, just like Communism.
I couldn’t care less who marries who, as long as they are willing and able, and have not been forced into it.
I am a Libertarian Capitalist.
I make no hard and fast rules for how society should be except to be free of the constraints of the small minded, who would shoehorn it into a rigid structure that denies any idea of freedom of thought.
I am not a number, or a beard, I am a free man!

I would assume that a Libertarian Capitalist would have no objections to marrying a Communist.

But would the Party permit such a union?

Odd then that the Brotherhood so like the methods and tactics of Lenin and the terrorist Castroists and the oh so charming habit of the anarchists; triggering pogroms and wars by assassinations.

Cipriano.
Taqiyya doesn’t mean what you think it does.
A Muslim is only permitted to use taqiyya – lie about what his or her faith – when his or her life is threatened. Not only that, but the majority position is that only Shi’is have recourse to this.

OT: David T, guess who’s speaking at SOAS on Wednesday?

All these arguments about doctrines, what is and what is not permitted really do look rather silly from the outside looking in.

Gsirrah -

I stand corrected. Thank you.

‘Perhaps Yusuf, you might like to consider, or at least ponder for a moment, that Islam is a crock of man made shit, just like Communism.
I couldn’t care less who marries who, as long as they are willing and able, and have not been forced into it.
I am a Libertarian Capitalist.
I make no hard and fast rules for how society should be except to be free of the constraints of the small minded, who would shoehorn it into a rigid structure that denies any idea of freedom of thought.
I am not a number, or a beard, I am a free man!’

Well it looks like someone got riled up by their year 10 politics class.

I would assume that a Libertarian Capitalist would have no objections to marrying a Communist.

A libertarian capitalist, I would have thought, would say that it depends on the person. If s/he is stupid enough or vicious enough to be a communist, it depends on whether s/he has other qualities that redeem the stupidity or the viciousness: a great mind, or enthusiasm in bed.

Back on topic. Iain, these Islamist groups didn’t just nick their methods from left-wing groups of the 20th century – reading Milestones you can’t help but notice the influence socialism has had on Qutb’s ideology. He tries to cover this up by endeavouring to express everything in Quranic terms but every now and then fairly standard 20th century revolutionary terms and concepts are left exposed.

So if true for the sake of argument that a communist only takes from communism its social and economic sides leaving aside its intellectual and ideological base – as some people imagine, though this is not realistic and certainly not plausible.

This is all a bit unfair as a writer who finds such a position implausible has obviously never actually come into contact with the SWP.

Graham – Qaradawi has never come into contact with the SWP? Surely balls. They’ve lived up each other’s arses for…how long?

Cip – heavy irony

If he knew the SWP that well he would know their taking absolutely any bloody position was plausible!

So if true for the sake of argument that a communist only takes from communism its social and economic sides leaving aside its intellectual and ideological base

Comrade Qaradawi appears a bit misinformed. I’ve never met or heard of a communist who took the social and economic sides seriously enough, to the extent they gave up their own trust-fund and made do with staff just at the weekends.

Or must I refuse permission for him to marry my daughter

It’s not yours to withold, the most one can do of one’s adult children, is to advise.

if the marriage did take place between a Muslim woman and a communist then it’s obligatory that they must be split up and the father, who is communist, prevented from having access to his children

Says it all really, hardly congruent with the mores one would expect in a liberal democracy; yet all too many get into political bed with these characters.

Communism categorically denies & refutes all the religions and considers them myths & superstitions, remnants of ignorance, weakness and exploitation.

See; Communism does have some good stuff!

Communism is a cohesive doctrine. It’s not possible in any way to separate its system, ideological base and its philosophy.

Do I detect a distinct whiff of projection?

Yes Nearly Oxfordian,
Good in bed does it for me every time!

The wife, who is a Socialist, rather than flat out Commie,
only gets to vote every five years like the rest of us. ;-)

“This is guest post by Yusuf Al Qaradawi, and first appeared on Islam Online”

Very droll. Did yyou ask permission? Funny thing is though, rather like Omar Bakri and ‘Fitna’, I really don’t think he’d see anything to complain about.

HP is obsessed with obscure lefty outfits like RESPECT or SWP. I have no idea why.

For the same reason that the SWP hated Tony Blair with a passion far, far greater than it could muster for John Major.

We are always more hurt by the slights of our own family than of strangers.

A Muslim is only permitted to use taqiyya – lie about what his or her faith – when his or her life is threatened. Not only that, but the majority position is that only Shi’is have recourse to this.

I thought the Imam had cleared this up Gsirrah? See here and here.

The practice of taqiyyah is agreed upon by the five principal schools of jurisprudence and its application is a lot more, shall we say, ‘nuanced’ than you would have it.

In the ash-Sharq al-Awsat article, be sure to note how the author characterises taqiyyah, as ’saying one thing and meaning or doing the opposite’ with particular reference to Barry (yes, we can) Obama. Also note that the first commenter proposes that taqiyyah is ‘lying’ and rejects its institution by Allah. Could it be that taqiyyah, in modern Arabic, has both a religious component (as doctrine) and as a social one?

Right! I get it now! I understand! Very very clever! Really you had me going there, really had me going, Well done. Great. So funny.
And all you contributors acting like racist fuckwits – brilliant!
And that font page disclaimer about the BNP supporting Israel – and explaining how that doesn’t count cozzitssasneeeeky “cynical and shallow political trick”!
The Onion – eat yr heart out.
Fanbloodytastic!
Brilliant!

Roman Kevorkian.
The full complexities of taqiyya are covered well by the Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry on this topic. I suggest you read it. My summary is, to the best of my knowledge, a very fair one.

I did not say that it does not exist as a concept in the Sunni schools, merely that the majority view of those schools is that taqiyya is unacceptable. There are minority views, but I did not deny that they exist.

The al-Sharq al-Awsat article you link to does not prove your point in the slightest.

فهل ما نشاهده الآن محاكاة بين النظام الخميني في طهران والنخبة السياسية الأميركية؟

It is making the point that American political leaders are becoming like their Iranian (Shi’i) counterparts. It is not difficult to find Sunnis who inaccurately use taqiyya as a stick with which to beat Shi’is.

RESPECT failed? I hadn’t noticed.

Incidentally is RESPECT an aconym or are they just being rude (capitalisation is considered shouting on the intertubes) as well as obnoxious, delusional and irrelevant?

Also note that the first commenter proposes that taqiyyah is ‘lying’ and rejects its institution by Allah.

Exactly, he is presenting the orthodox viewpoint. Taqiyya is lying and lying is forbidden.

Could it be that taqiyyah, in modern Arabic, has both a religious component (as doctrine) and as a social one?

Not that I have ever come across. The only modern usage of this term tends to be (rarely) in a Shi’i context or (much more often, and inaccurately) by semi-informed Islamophobes.

(orthodox Sunni viewpoint, that is)

Now, could we please VERY KINDLY give this fucking taqqiah crap a rest?

Sea Kitten @ 23 February 2009, 10:01 pm

“passion far, far greater than it could muster for John Major.”

I was utterly astonished when I learned what Edwina Currie had mustered for John Major.

Now, could we please VERY KINDLY give this fucking taqqiah crap a rest?

My thoughts exactly.

This was always a Nazi-Soviet Pact – two totalitarian sizing each other up and thinking “Aah – a useful idiot, with a bit of luck.”

Gsirrah

Your absolutely right about milestones. I see its closest analogue as ‘what needs to be done’.

did you find those e references I gave you on Qutb usefull?

Can we persuade you to right the hatchett job book?

Even though it mighnt be beneath your average Islamic scholar I would love you to show why it is not beneath a politically and socially aware Orientalist.

Perhaps a co write job with someone else pulling it apart for its socialist and fascist totalitarian modernism and you explaining that Quranic exegesis is merely a masking device to intorude radical totalitarian politics into the language of Quranic ecegesis and Muslim jurisprudence and failing miserably.

You would get real respect for such a task and a small but perfectly formed fandom!

Seriously I think you are thinking abolut it, keep it under wraps for a while if you are then burst forth.

But I think you would like to see Qutb the Muslim and politically scholarly hatchet job sitting next to Qutb in the SOAS Library.

A major contribution it would be

Yeah they may not be allowed to marry, but the point that gsirrah made about the ideological influences on Islamism still holds. Where as the Baath borrowed most heavily from Facism the Islamists are permeated with the Thirdworldism and “Anti-Imperialism” and occidentalism that was the stock in trade of the Cominform and post-war Communist internationalism. Given that this weltanshaung is quite widespread in education systems, both whithin the west and without, and especially on the left, great numbers of young people are pre primed for the Islamists message, even when (perhaps especially when) they don’t themselves come from very religious backgrounds.

It also complicates the ability of states to resist the Islamists when they themselves openly or sotte voce espouse a version of the old Cominform line. Algeria was almost brought to it’s knees by a relative handful of Islamists and I think the fact that officially it’s socialism is of the revolutionary thirdworldist international variety made it very difficult to mount an ideological defence against Islamists who frequently promised a purer form of the same ideology. Pakistan has similar difficulties WRT to the Taleban – the acceptance of an essentially anti-American attitude makes it tremendously difficult to fight the Taleban or co-operate with NATO. Lebanon’s weakness in defending against being taken over by Hezbollah suffers from the same weakness. Walid Jumblatt senses this, even if incompletely, which is why there have been a number of surprising (given his past) statements that sound almost as of the could have come from the neo-conservatives.

WRT to taqqiah, it may be the wrong term, but blatant dishonesty on the part of the Islamists is now such a commonplace that it seems difficult to beleive that they don’t have a religio-ideological justification for the regular ocassions when the lie to people they view as infidels.

Now, could we please VERY KINDLY give this fucking taqqiah crap a rest?

I will, but only because you’ll delete my contribution. I must stress that I’m not one for levelling the accusation of taqiyyah at all and sundry; I merely wish it be known that, contrary to what Mr Gsirrah says, taqiyyah is part of mainstream Islam (not just a Shi’ah eccentricity as he would have it).

Gsirrah

A major contribution it would be

Forget about Milestones, his Qur’an commentary is quite brilliant. That Qutb, as a supremely talented linguist, could draw on the preceding 14 centuries of Islamic scholarship and synthesize a coherent and innovative approach to the text, tailored to 20th century Islamism and his own purview, is reason enough to examine Fi Dhilal more closely.

It was all a bit boring really.

”Now if it wasn’t permissible for a Muslim woman to marry Someone of the Book, then it’s certainly not permissible for a Muslim woman to marry a communist.”

But it’s quite OK for a Muslim man to marry ‘Someone of the Book’…..

Why would any woman want to be a Muslim?

“Why would any woman want to be a Muslim?” – skydog.

Or become a pole dancer?

Back to the topic: Who whom?

Why would any woman want to be a Muslim?

Because they’re Bottoms? Same reason woman marry abusive husbands.

I merely wish it be known that, contrary to what Mr Gsirrah says, taqiyyah is part of mainstream Islam (not just a Shi’ah eccentricity as he would have it).

I’ve never been one to hold to the viewpoint that taqiyyah is commonplace and a specifically Islamic thing, for the simple reason that its not – theists in general are quite open with their genocidal aims and ambitions.

And when you’ve dealt with (Christian) Creationists for as long as I have, any suggestion that taqiyyah is an exclusively Islamic phenomena is just laughable.

Theists lie. The whole basis of theism is built exclusively on lies. How do you know a Theist is lying? His lips are moving.

Polytheistic ‘Hindu Nationalists’ never lie of course.

And the neo-pagan Himmler only talked truth to the power of the juice

And the atheist Stalin never told any whoppers, nor does anarchist Chomsky.

Because they’re Bottoms? Same reason woman marry abusive husbands.

Unless it’s different in Britain, the word you’re searching for is “submissive”. Quite the coincidence eh?

“Bottom” is more like this http://www.spike.com/video/ren-stimpy-uvula/2473322

And the atheist Stalin never told any whoppers, nor does anarchist Chomsky.

Stalin wasn’t an atheist. Stalin was the High Priest of the Theism of Marxism. Chomsky is an adherent of that particular monotheistic creed as well.

‘Incidentally is RESPECT an aconym or are they just being rude (capitalisation is considered shouting on the intertubes) as well as obnoxious, delusional and irrelevant?’

RESPECT is supposed to stand for:

Respect (for George and no one else).
Equality (although not for women or homosexuals).
Socialism (in your dreams, swuppies).
Peace (although we won’t complain about Hamas, Hizbollah, Russia attacking Georgia, Saddam’s past record, Darfur etc).
Environment (although even the Greens had the common sense not to join).
Community (which is why we connive in Jew-hatred); and
Trade Unionism (except in Iraq, because trade unionists are all collaborators and deserve to be murdered).

http://www.respectrenewal.org/

Incidentally, is it me, or should ‘me here’ rename himself ‘thrush’, because he’s an irritating c**t?

Peace (although we won’t complain about Hamas, Hizbollah, Russia attacking Georgia, Saddam’s past record, Darfur etc).

Shhh…apparently its a “well known fact”, according to one CiF muppet, that the Georgians killed thousands of Russians.

Incidentally, is it me, or should ‘me here’ rename himself ‘thrush’, because he’s an irritating c**t?

Back in the old days, when I worked at a now-extinct telecomms company, we had the “Canisten Cup” which was awarded to particularly annoying people, for that same reason.

Theists lie. The whole basis of theism is built exclusively on lies. How do you know a Theist is lying? His lips are moving

Morgoth, I agree with you on lots of things (and you know that I am an atheist), but please give this brainless crap a rest.

Stalin wasn’t an atheist. Stalin was the High Priest of the Theism of Marxism. Chomsky is an adherent of that particular monotheistic creed as well.

This is an example of the things you say that I agree with.
And the same goes for the cult of Nazism.

A sky-fairy worshipper calling *me* brainless? Haha, I think my irony meter has just gone bust *again*.

This is guest post by Yusuf Al Qaradawi

Ha! That made me laugh. Visions of Yusuf and Brett chatting away over nibbles at the HP Christmas bash…

Oh goody! It’s one of those articles that makes me feel all pro-Lenin and Stalin. Doesn’t happen very often.

“Communism is a materialist doctrine. It doesn’t acknowledge anything other than what is material and therefore rejects the metaphysical. Communism doesn’t believe in Allah, the soul, revelation, the Afterworld, or in anything supernatural and divine. Communism categorically denies & refutes all the religions and considers them myths & superstitions, remnants of ignorance, weakness and exploitation.”

Sensible people, communists. At least, compared to religious believers.