Harry's Place

The Huthi are not a seperate ethnic or national group. They are a clan of Zaidi Shi’a opposed to the largely Sunni Yemeni government (despite the fact that the President is himself of Zaidi Shi’a origins).

The Zaidi Shi’a are not the same as the Twelvers of Iran. At least one aspect of the silence on this issue on the part of the Twelvers in Britain and elsewhere perhaps this sectarian division between different and distinct Shi’a groups.

Much of the north of Yemen’s people are Zaidi Shia. Until overthrown with considerable support from Nasser’s Egypt, all of Yemen was ruled by a line of Zaidi Imams – despite the fact that the Zaidi Shi’a are a (of substantial) minority in Yemen itself. Incidentally, the Saada region, where the Huthi clan are presently battling, was also the last redoubt of the last Zaidi Imam in the guerilla war that followed the Egyptian-orchestrated revolution against the 1000 years old rule of Zaidi Imams in Yemen.

Ironically, at that time Saudi backed the regime of the Zaidi Imam against the Egyptian-backed republican forces in Yemen. Today, however, Saudi Arabia is rattled by the resurgence of Shi’a Islam in the region, and is concerned to quash any Shi’a rebelliousness inside Saudi Arabia proper and stem any such movements in neighbouring states. Saudi Arabia have repeatedly accused Tehran of backing the Huthi rebellion.

Thank you very much. That’s extremely helpful.

The Arabic media has been trailing the involvement of Iran in this conflict in recent months. I doubt whether Tehran cares whether they are Twelver or not – after all, it has no ideological problem arming and funding Hamas.

That is a fair point, Dan. Theological distinctions are not of great interest to the Iranian regime, past masters of inciting and supporting mayhem across the region – as you suggest. Support for the Akhbari sect Twelver Shi’a in Bahrain on the part of the Usuli sect Twelvers of the Iranian regime also serves as an example – despite the often aggravated religious relations between these different sects of the same branch of Shi’a Islam.

My point was, rather, that the silence on the part of the Shi’a Islamists in UK *may* have sectarian roots, however. The experiences I have had of the “Maida Vale mob” in UK point to a deeply sectarian and hostile approach to any group, Twelver or not, who dare to deviate from the Khomeini-line Islamism of Iranian Shi’a “orthodoxy”.

Twelvers are those who expect the Mahdi’s return, imminently – right?

(Previously known as the Shayoshant, to the Zoroastrians)

At least one aspect of the silence on this issue on the part of the Twelvers in Britain and elsewhere perhaps this sectarian division between different and distinct Shi’a groups.

That would indeed be an Ecumenical Matter.

Twelver Shī‘a believe that al-Māhdī was born in 869 and did not die but rather was hidden by God (this is referred to as the Occultation) and will later emerge with Jesus in order to fulfill their mission of bringing peace and justice to the world. He assumed the Imamate at 5 years of age. Sunnīs and other Shī‘ah schools do not consider ibn-al-Hasan to be the Māhdī.

Twelver Shi’as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Mecca, while the other half will ride from Karbala, in Iraq, carrying black flags to Mecca. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding God’s Sword, the Blade of Evil’s Bane, Zulfiqar, the Double-Bladed Sword.

Shi’as believe that Jesus will also come with the Imam Mahdi to destroy tyranny and falsehood, and to bring justice and peace to the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Mahdi

Some of the more insane millenarianist Twelver cults believe that one must act in this world to bring about such conditions of chaos and injustice in order to trigger the re-appearance of the Twelfth Imam. Ahmadinejad is a student of such a group and is closely linked to the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Yazdi who perpetuates such lethal views in Iranian Shi’a circles.

Will the future Goldstone report re the war crime of the Saudi’s blatant over-reaction to what were no more than very primitive rockets, indeed nothing more than harmless ‘fireworks’ really and Saudis overwhelming disproportionate response be debated in the UN and more importantly will the impartial OIC give such a report its utmost unbiased attention?

Wonder when the Left are going to organize the marches against this ‘genocide’, when are they going to set up the ‘Yemen solidarity alliance’ when are the left going to burn the Saudi flag?

“Twelvers are those who expect the Mahdi’s return, imminently – right?”

Twelvers are those who believe this Mahdi will return when the world is in chaos, he will return and make everyone Islamic and happy and submissive.

They also believe that helping things along with a little bit of genocidal chaos will speed his return, that is why it is not a good idea to let Twelvers have nuclear weapons.

Guess who is a Twelver.

I have been on the B.B.C.’s web site but alas can find nothing about this. They are fully occupied at present it seems putting their considerable weight behind the Stop the War movement following the intervention today of the top Tory war lords.

It has yet to be explained to me how helicopters can win hearts and minds in Afghanistan. America had many helicopters in Vietnam and they lost I believe.

The Zaydi differ from the 12ers in the line of descent of imams – they stopped counting after Zayd ibn Ali, the son of Ali (the fourth Shia imam). Zayd (Zaid) was the grandson of Ali ibn Abi Talib, the son-in law and cousin of Prophet Mohammed, whose murder in 661 saw the split between Shia and Sunni. Zayd ibn Ali’s brother (Muhammad al-Baqir) was the 5th Shia imam.

Zayd ibn Ali believed – like the Kharijites – that the Koranic principle of “striving to do right” (“al’ amr bil-ma’ruf”) should be considered a justification for active revolt against corruption (or misrule). The Umayyad Caliph Hisham was thus seen as someone to be overthrown, and Zayd went to war, being killed in battle in Iraq 740 AD. His body was buried, but was then dug up, and his head removed, to be sent to Hisham at his Syria, and his body was crucified and displayed for years.

Hisham (a descendent of the Second “Sunni” caliph Umar) ruled from 722 until his death in 743. In 750, when the Abassids (who descended from Mohammed) overthrew the Umayyads, Hisham’s body was similarly dug up, given 120 lashes, crucified and then burned to ashes.

Zaydi “revolution” against corruption/oppression was shared by the Kharijites, who committed their own insurrections and also targeted killings and active in North Africa and in the 8th and 9th centuries had strongholds in Basra. There were 15 Kharijite “sects”.

Some background info, from a 12er perspective, can be found here:
http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/imams-jihad.htm

The Zaydis established their own state in Yemen in 893 AD. A Zaydi “imamate” lasted there from the 11th cent until 1962. They make up 25% of Yemen’s population.

Excellent and informative comment, Adrian.

The Zaidi Shi’a madhab (school of religious jurisprudence) is notable, of course, for being almost identical to the Hanafi Sunni madhab.

The Zaidiyyah’s Imams were also infamous for their often extreme intolerance of the Yemeni Jewish population.

Larkers,

I have been on the B.B.C.’s web site but alas can find nothing about this.

Try the following link (and follow the links therein):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8346809.stm

Yemen has some political instability which has led to the situation of armed Zaydi rebellion (as well as some Al Qaeda activity, which is unrelated to the Zaydis).

In the north of Yemen there was a Zaydi revolutionary movement called the “Faithful Youth Movement” that had been founded by Hussein Badreddine al-Houthi. This group had been involved in clashes with the yemeni government and in September 2004, Hussein had been killed. In March 2005, his father, Badreddine al-Houthi, then took over the role of spiritual emir of the group. He finally surrendered to the Yemeni authorities on September 23, 2005.

However, there were then several followers of the Faithful Youth Movement who continued to fight. The reason, David, why there is not much coherent background information on this is that in 2005-6 when mosques were attacked and skirmishes were taking place, foreign journalists were barred entry from certain regions, such as the north of Sadaah province where most of the al-Houthi problems were taking place.

With Badreddine al-Houthi in custody, the baton of the Zaydi revolt went to his other son, Yahya Badreddine al-Houthi. See here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070818113406/www.yementimes.com/print_article.shtml?i=899&p=front&a=2

Now – according to Yemeni authorities – there is a link between some of the followers of the Al-Houthis and Iran. On December 3, 2005, two men had their convictions upheld for terrorism offences, and also for working for the Iranian regime to stir up trouble. Yehya Dalimi had been given a death sentence, and Mohammad Moftah had been given a 10 year jail term.

They were accused of “organising armed gangs, backing al-Houthy’s rebellion, conspiring against the regime, and collaborating with Iran through illegitimate channels with the aim of undermining state security and inciting sectarian strife.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20060324011108/www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001152.html

I have more background information in my files, if you are interested.

The “Faithful Youth Movement” is the “Huthi” group mentioned in the opening post, and are named after Hussein Badreddine al-Houthi and his family.

An article here from May 6, 2005 about a group of Zaydi rebels arrested for being “part of a gang which carried out acts of violence and sabotage, including bomb attacks against cars belonging to officials from the Defense Ministry, and in public places, causing death and injury to citizens.”

At that time, 280 people had been killed in the six weeks since the Faithful Youth Movement had started to be active again under the leadership of Hussein’s father in late March, 2005.

By late May, 2005 the rebellion that had been begun a year earlier by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi had “cost the country some 700 lives and more than 270 million dollars” -
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/743/re10.htm

Sorry – I forgot to place a link for the May 6, 2005 article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050512073225/www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=14835

In March 2006, President Ali Abdullah Saleh released 627 “Huthi” rebels, but a month later four people were killed on April 15 at the Grand Mosque of Harf Sufiyan district mosque in Amran, 25 miles northwest of San’aa, the capital of Yemen. Huthis tried to take over the mosque by force and had attacked police guarding the mosque. Four Huthis were killed, and three injured.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071112223545/www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001945.html

Without trying to bore you stupid, these two articles give some good background information, which I hope will be helpful.

The first is entitled “Jihadist Groups in Yemen” by Arafat Mudabish and appeared in Asharq Alawsat on April 4, 2006:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060514065431/aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=4401

The following is more general, but gives some background on Zaidi Islam (Zaydi):
http://web.archive.org/web/20060326231505/www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-zaydi.htm

Sorry – but this current article from Saudi Arabian “Arab News” contains some interesting information about the current situation:
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=128135&d=6&m=11&y=2009

“JEDDAH: Saudi political analysts have denounced the Houthi rebel attack on the Kingdom’s border post and said it was an apparent move to drag the Kingdom into the internal conflict in Yemen.

They also said Iran was using the Houthi rebels to create trouble inside Saudi Arabia. They suggested Tehran was arming the rebels.

“It seems that the Houthis are receiving support from Iran, especially because of the use of arms,” Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al Arabiya news channel, told Arab News.

Asked whether the attack had any link with Tehran’s recent move to politicize Haj, Rashid said: “I don’t think so.” However, he pointed out that Tehran always focused on Haj whenever relations with the Kingdom were tense.

He said Iran would do everything possible to use other countries as scapegoats for its problems.

Al-Rashid described the Houthis as an organized group that follow radical methods. “The Houthis have been engaging in long military battles like the ones in Iraq and Lebanon,” he added.

He said the region has been divided into two camps with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan on one side and Iran, Syria and Hezbollah on the other.

But Salim Al-Ghamdi, political editor of Al-Riyadh Arabic daily, claimed Saudi Arabia maintained good relations with Damascus. “Iran being a non-Arab country will not be able to influence inter-Arab ties,” he added.”

More in the link.

But be wary about believing everything in Arab News – it is a propaganda machine for the Al-Saud establishment. Having seen myself totally misrepresented in one of their damned articles, their journalists don’t seem very good at assembling actual facts, either.

You are not boring me and just to preempt the HP masters of irony I am not admitting to being ‘Mr Stupid’.

Very interesting Mr Morgan, thanks.

“Al-Rashid described the Houthis as an organized group that follow radical methods.”

Whabbi like then. How many radical Islamist groups are there in the middle east? 20, 50, 100+?

Many thanks for the informative materials, Adrian Morgan.

Having seen myself totally misrepresented in one of their damned articles, their journalists don’t seem very good at assembling actual facts, either.

Ah, the perennial joys of Arab-language journalism.

I mentioned above that Yahya al-Houthi, the brother of Hussein (founder of the group) continued the leadership of the Faithful Youth Movement (Houthis/Huthis). He did not. He was a member of parliament, but faced with the problems, Yahya went to Sweden:
http://www.newsyemen.net/en/view_news.asp?sub_no=4_2006_08_19_6295

His brother Abdel-Malik al-Houthi is now the head of the Faithful Youth/Huthi movement.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/10/12/87840.html

Last month, Abdel-Malik declared that he was not receiving any support from Iran.

One should also take into consideration that North and South Yemen were separate entities until formally united in 1990. From 1967 after the British left, South Yemen had been under its own control. In 1970, South Yemen had adopted a Socialist/Marxist government.

After the “unification” of north and south, and establishment of a capital in Sanaa in the north, migration of southerners to the north has created resentments. Many in the south want to secede. There was an attempt at secession in 1994 but this was quickly crushed. The same president (President Ali Abdallah Saleh) has been continuously in charge since 1990, when the “one nation” of Yemen was created.

Some of these southern socialists were targeted for killings. Jarallah Omar, the deputy leader of the Yemeni Socialist Party was killed on December 28, 2002. A hardline cleric, Ali Ahmad Muhammad Jarallah, was executed for the murder on 27 November 2005.

With a “corrupt” government in charge, which does not have the full assent of the people, it may be easier to imagine why the Zaydi rebels decided that they wanted to do some secession of their own. Sadaah province is in the north, and the al-Houthi brigades tried to claim control of parts of this province. They were accused of trying to establish a Caliphate. Last month, it was reported that 150,000 people had been displaced from the province.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/10/12/Yemen-claims-control-of-Sadah-province/UPI-10921255385298/

“After what happened yesterday, it is clear they have lost track of reality and it has got to a point where there is no other way. They have got to be finished,” said a Saudi official.

It says something odd that in this day and age there is a spot on the planet where we can not know what happened…

But it is a believable narrative that some Muslim group decided that God would reward them as they attack the population of a larger, stronger neighbor. And since Muslim culture makes it impossible to solve problems civilly and make peace (or perhaps to even care about life), it is normal for the response of a Muslim nation to solve they problem through genocide.

Lovely religion, lovely values.

You are very kind, Abu, and also AOS.

How do these events fit in with the separation barrier the Saudis built along at least part of the border with Yemen?

Also, as I recall, it was Shi’ite Yemenis who were responsible for driving about 200 Yemenite Jews out of their homes to seek refuge in the capital, probably the same Jews who are now being slowly evacuated either to Israel or the US.

Great stuff Adrian – thank you.

@ LynneT

As Abu Fari noted, “The Zaidiyyah’s Imams were also infamous for their often extreme intolerance of the Yemeni Jewish population.” The Ottomans took control in 1872. While still under Ottoman rule, in 1910 an accord between the Turks and the Zaidi imams (the Da”an agreement) ensured that Zaidi sharia was enforced, and the Jews were deprived of the rights accorded them elsewhere in the Ottoman empire, including rights to education etc:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=G0bE2eQx8gUC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=zaydi+jews&source=bl&ots=SRdD9p8sdW&sig=HmgULCF3viQWtObcoOm2mCIUmGI&hl=en&ei=uav0SpaRI5Sw4Qa-zvTfAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Da”an&f=false
A brief resumé here:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/yemenjews.html
A good account here:
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/as/jemen/EncJud_juden-in-Jemen01-araber-tuerken-ottomanen-ENGL.html

The current delimitation between Saudi Arabia and Yemen was established on June 12, 2000, but apparently, before then there were several shiftings of the demarcation line -
http://www.al-bab.com/bys/articles/schofield00.htm

Sarah Leah Whitson, director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa Division, was recently raising money in Saudi Arabia. She said there was a need to distinguish between a government and its people.

As far as I know, HRW has been silent on the Saudi attacks, although reports suggest that they have inflicted massive civilian casualties.

Is there a possible connection between the reticence of HRW in condemning egregious Saudi breaches of the laws of war and the largesse of Saudi donors to HRW?

@ Lynn T

As you say, it’s not only Yemenite Muslims who are under attack.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N31432528.htm

I wonder how soon the ancient Jewish Yemenite community will be purged from the country, making it yet another judenrein spot in the Middle East?

Thank you Abu Faris for finding for me the link on the B.B.C.’s web site about this.

Without casting aspertions on you or indeed anyone else on this fascinating thread, I wonder if had Israeli planes and artillery struck at a neighbouring country whether it would not have been highlighted? Correctly so. But where is the proportionality in reporting? Are Saudi Arabia or Yeman ‘Lesser breeds without the Law”?

“SAUDI ARABIA has unquestionable sovereignty rights over its territory and can protect its nationals in any way it deems fit.” says Arab News

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/kuwaitnews/faqdetails.asp?faid=2119&faqid=9

Latest news update – Al Jazeera reports that the Houthis have kidnapped some Saudi military personnel:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/2009117618909512.html

Saudis say 40 Houhis/Huthis were killed in Thursday’s incursion, and that one of their own had been killed.

In a worrying development, it looks like the al-Houthi rebels are now turning to suicide bombing to prosecute their war. The Yemeni journalist, Nasser Arabyee, reports on his blog:

A 14-year old boy with explosives in his possession working with Al Houthi rebels was arrested while he was attempting to explode a refugee camp around the Sa’ada city, security officials said Saturday.

The 14-year old Abdul Wahab Ahmed Al Kawkabani was arrested nearby the Sam refugee camp while he was attempting to explode the camp, the state-run media quoted an unidentified security official as saying.

The rebels and terrorists of Al Houthi exploited the child to blow himself up inside the camp of Sam, which harbours between 500-100 displaced persons, the official said.

http://narrabyee-e.blogspot.com/

Perhaps OT:

If the above account of a foiled suicide bombing is true, this is still more evidence against RezaV’s bizarre view (RezaV, 6 November 2009, 6:41 pm) that suicide bombing is an exclusively “Sunni thing” on another thread (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/06/a-jihadist-attack-in-the-usa/). The al-Houthi rebels being, of course, Shi’a insurgents.

Abu Faris – an excellent link.
Notice in the preceding article that when arrests were made in the Saudi village of Al Karan, “about 40 of the arrests were disguised in women’s clothes.”

This is a tactic that was used by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Al Qaeda of the Two Rivers to avoid detection by coalition forces.

One must wonder at what associations the Al Houthis may be currently making. Abdel-Malkik al-Houthi claims that they gain most of their weaponry from raids on Yemeni military checkpoints. Al Qaeda does certainly have a presence in Yemen (and also Saudi Arabia) – after the USS Cole incident, the USA has been supportive of the Yemeni government in its “War on Terror”, which would give common cause to the southerners, Al Qaeda, and also the Zaydis who have been badly treated in botched peace deals offered by Saleh.

Additionally, weaponry from Iran must come from the Gulf of Aden through the south of Yemen to reach them. The southern Yemenis tend to be Sunni and many support socialism, but the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” maxim has often been used by extreme Islamists (after all, 12er Iran funds the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Hamas).

There is a possibility that they get some support from across the Saudi border and dissidents from tribal groups in Arabia who never approved of Abdul-Aziz’s appropriation of “Saudi” Arabia as his “kingdom” in 1932. After all, your linked blog by the Yemeni journalist states that 100 Houthis had already crossed over the Saudi border. That particular border did not really exist before the Treaty of Jedda in 2000.

A 14-year old boy with explosives in his possession working with Al Houthi rebels was arrested while he was attempting to explode a refugee camp around the Sa’ada city, security officials said Saturday.

The people who promote this kind of mass murder of innocents, including of the boy who was going to carry the bomb are the purest evil that mankind has ever been capable of.

We need to start making our opposition felt, publically as strongly as possible. It’s our moral duty to castigate, to humiliate everyone who would even apologize for this unspeakable crime. I think our attitudes DO eventually effect the world, if we have the courage to stand up and be forceful.

Every time someone says that suicide bombing is permissible in his religion, call him filthy. Call evil, evil. If islamism promotes mass murder and child abuse then call it a gutter religion. When they speak out, yell them back down. Shame them.

Punish incitement to violence as strongly as possible. Have no tolerance at all. If a man tells a child to that he has enemies that god hates, put that man in jail and make sure he is never allowed near another child as long as he lives.

Make a luminous line between civilized people and and barbaric practices and values. And make sure that everyone who comes here knows what is unacceptable on our side of the line, and make sure they know what we think of the other side and exactly why.

If we are articulate enough and loud even, even the children of barbarians will hear our arguments and the line of disapproval and shame between the civilized and the barbaric will move to be within their countries.

Maybe it already is there. But if so, what are we doing to strengthen the civilized there now?

What ever happened to useful outrage? How did we get to the point where we decided to avoid offending people who strap bombs on children and drop them off in markets?

@ Josh Scholar

You write: “Every time someone says that suicide bombing is permissible in his religion, call him filthy. Call evil, evil. If islamism promotes mass murder and child abuse then call it a gutter religion. When they speak out, yell them back down. Shame them.”

I agree entirely, but in order to condemn we must also educate ourselves. When people commit acts of political terrorism, there are reasons. One should never forgive terrorism, murder, etc.

But in order to condemn the extremists, we also have duty to understand the background to their grievances, and the grievances of their enemies in as informed and open-minded manner as possible.

Nothing ever happens in a vacuum. As I have tried to explain in my posts here, the problems that erupted on Thursday did not begin on that day – they relate to problems from 2004 when the al-Houthis felt they could take no more of their government, they go back to 1990, to 1872, to 740 AD when Zayd ibn Ali was killed on his fight against corruption.

We must all educate ourselves. If we do not, we may condemn individual atrocities but in doing so, we could miss sight of events in the bigger canvas that led to the atrocity taking place.

Adrian Morgan,

Thank you for your comment. The links you make between Shi’a insurgents, jihadi-takfiri Sunni Islamists and various state players make a great deal of sense.

Certainly, from anecdotal evidence, there remains a considerable residual disgruntlement with rule from Riyadh on the part of Hijazi in general – and certainly there are strong connections between Zaidiyya in north western Yemen and co-sectarians in south eastern SA.

The annual “politicisation” of Hajj on the part of the Iranians, founded as it is on genuine grievances presented by Shi’a pilgrims about their treatment at the hands of the (Wahhabi Sunni) Saudi authorities, togeher with long-standing complaints about the treatment of the late Shafi’i grand mufti of the Two Cities (effectively under house arrest) would tend towards common ground between the traditionally Shafi’i Sunni Hijazi and the (quite substantial) Shi’a minority inside Saudi Arabia.

More intriguingly, the peace treaty previously brokered between the Yemeni state and the al-Houthi rebels was overseen by the Qatari – of course (and despite US military presence in that state), the Qatari have been implicated quite strongly with links to al-Ikhwaan. As is known, al-Ikhwaan have a decades old linkage with radical Islamist Shi’a groups both in Iran and beyond.

Adrian Morgan, you are wrong in every possible sense:

1) “grievances” can not turn a society into promoters genocidal massacre

2) it is only dogma which can prevent human beings from developing normal human values

3) you are wrong that “understanding” can defuse dogma. A belief that dehumanizes outsiders, and promotes their slaughter is no more susceptible to understanding than slavery, or aristocratic contempt for the commoners or a carnivore’s eating of meat is vulnerable to “understanding”. What exactly are the “grievances” that meat eaters have against chickens?

And finally, part of putting evil in it’s place is a clear refusal to consider the wishes of evil as long as they remain evil.

I may be wrong in every possible sense, but I may also be right in some senses. I do condemn suicide attacks, and I condemn the use of children, women, (downs syndrome sufferers as happened in one Iraqi market double suicide bombing) but when I talk of “understanding” this is not condoning. It is about understanding.

Too many people nowadays are running around sticking labels on others. A sociology professor from Strathclyde University has been busy writing articles on me as a “Neo-Conservative”. He published an article on one of his websites that declared that I was a racist and that my “tactics” were those of Mussolini. The young “journalist” who wrote the article had never met me, nor even spoken to me, but as I write against Islamism I had to be a fascist in his limited worldview.

I may be wrong about trying to see things from all perspectives, but when so-called “academics” sink to levels of cheap slander to silence those who do not buy into their particular propaganda, my approach brings me a feeling that I am on the right path, trying to find the truth before I rush to judgement.

We should all be projecting less, and learning more.

I may be wrong about trying to see things from all perspectives, but when so-called “academics” sink to levels of cheap slander to silence those who do not buy into their particular propaganda, my approach brings me a feeling that I am on the right path, trying to find the truth before I rush to judgement.

We should all be projecting less, and learning more.

I didn’t say that you were wrong in trying to understand other perspectives, what I said was that you completely failed to understand the perspective of the Islamist.

Thinking that “grievances” are a primary (rather than tertiary) cause of Islamist violence is precisely the sort of error caused by “projecting” more and “learning” less.

I do think that I do understand the perspective of the Islamist – having been given death threats I understand the perspective of one type of Islamist quite well. But Islamism is just that – political Islam. It seeks to establish a “pure” Islamic territory (Dar-ul Islam) while it strives to control the territory of the infidel (Dar-ul Harb). But like any political objective – Islamism has various flavours. Some Islamists want purely political means to establish their “Caliphate”, others want war, and others still want a form of genocide against the unbeliever. Some want a small Islamic state, others want a world-wide Caliphate.

History has shown that there has never been any theocracy that has not abused its power – and that includes every Islamic Caliphate and every Christian theocracy, from Byzantium to the Holy Roman Empire to Calvin’s Swiss theocracy where he happily burned “heretics”. Even a perfect society ends up being administered by imperfect human beings.

I will not condemn all of Islam or all Muslims merely because I vehemently disagree with the various goals and strategies of Islamists. Should I condemn all socialists because Trotsky and Stalin were murderers, or wage war on my local church because Christians once burned witches or Joseph Konye still turns children into genocidal maniacs?

Can we get off the subject of my “morality” and keep on the topic here – which is what is going on in Yemen? That is much more important, and this thread could be a good vehicle to present the facts of what is going on.

There is an underlying factor here which is worrying, and that is the politico-religious ambitions of Iran under its current leadership. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is of the particular strand of 12er belief (of the Hojjatieh Society), exemplified by his original sponsor Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi. This maintains that Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th imam who vanished from the face of the earth is currently “in occultation”. Some maintain that he is currently living at the bottom of a well in the holy city of Qom, and people write letters which they drop down the well. Only this is not like writing to Santa.

The Hojjatieh Society believe that the only way to bring the 12th Imam back to earth to place it under a period of benign theocratic governance is to impose total chaos on the earth. At present, Iran under Ahmadinejad is doing a bloody good job of stirring up this chaos. Helping Syria and North Korea to develop long-distance missiles, sharing nuclear secrets with Pyongyang, who have now detonated two nuclear devices.

His calls for the destruction of Israel, his refusal to play ball with nuclear inspectors, is all part of a ploy to introduce more chaos into the world. Beyond the machinations of political stirring, the greatest chaos comes from war.

Which is why what is happening in Yemen needs to be taken seriously, without generalisations or moralising. Please.

Adrian Morgan,

On the Hojjatiyeh Society (and Ahmedinejad’s links to the same), you may be interested in this piece I recently wrote over on The Spittoon

“A Very Islamist Coup – Iran and the Hojjatiyeh Society”

http://www.spittoon.org/archives/3313

@ Abu Faris

An excellent article. Do you know the meaning of “pins” or “nails” in relation to the Hojjatiyeh Society? As in people being as pins?

I read something a few years back – I think by Amir Taheri – that stated that these nails were related to the means by which the “Grand Occultation” of the 12th Imam would come to an end.

I have found it – from the Telegraph in 2006. Amir Taheri wrote:
“According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or “nails”, whose presence, hammered into mankind’s existence, prevents the universe from “falling off”. Although the “nails” are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad’s more passionate admirers insist that he is a “nail”, a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations’ General Assembly in New York, the “Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light”.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624382/The-frightening-truth-of-why-Iran-wants-a-bomb.html

Good find, Adrian – I had not come across this tradition before.

This Shi’a hadith often motivates the likes of Ahmedinejad:

The Messenger of Allah (peace of Allah be upon him and his family) has said: “A group of people will rise up from the East and will prepare the groundwork for the government of al-Mahdi.”

Biharul Anwar, Volume 51, Page 87; Kashful Ghammah

Hello all and esp. David T and Adrian! Basically the “nails” are also the “righteous men” of Jewish lore, right? Correct me if wrong but it rang a bell.
PS Shooter from our lot is a Twelver, drop her a line and wind her up!
xxx

I do not know, I sorry to say. I think in Jewish lore, the association of nails with righteous men (zadik) is to do with fingernails – the righteous Orthodox bury nail clippings. But apparently the pious buries them. I have no idea:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/224,521/Why-do-some-orthodox-Jews-burn-their-finger-nail-clippings.html

In Staffordshire and other places in the UK, folk customs dictated that hair clippings should be burned or buried, rather than thrown outside. Apparently, people once believed that toads ran off with them, and this caused the owner to have a permanent headache or toothache. The UK folklore has more to do with sympathetic magic – the animal was associated with transference of sickness.

I know very little about Jewish traditions beyond the most basic things.

Which is why what is happening in Yemen needs to be taken seriously, without generalisations or moralising. Please.

It’s funny how you keep saying that you agree with me and then utterly obliterate that agreement and disagree with the very core of what I’m saying.

Of course what I started out saying is that we need to very loudly and resolutely promote a moral point of view.. By now your “yes, but…” has gotten so far as to say we should avoid “moralizing”…

Anyway my point of view is that we Islamist violence is of a piece everywhere, whether it Yemen, or the slaughter of 115 teachers in Thailand. I’m saying that Islamism needs to be under siege period.

I will not condemn all of Islam or all Muslims merely because I vehemently disagree with the various goals and strategies of Islamists. Should I condemn all socialists because Trotsky and Stalin were murderers, or wage war on my local church because Christians once burned witches or Joseph Konye still turns children into genocidal maniacs?

You have to oppose the promotion of the beliefs and attitudes on which Islamism rests. And those ideas are widely and commonly taught because they really do stem from Mohammad’s words and horrible example.

Certainly you should not condemn every Muslim, but neither can you be so sanguine as to assume that Islam is just like Christianity in an earlier, untamed state. Islamism is common and parts of it run deep in the beliefs of many apparently moderate Muslims.

It is unfortunately their own rules that make Islamist more likely to be violent if they feel unfettered – if they feel they can get away with it, that they can talk their way out of responsibility. It is better to make Muslims uncomfortable, to keep them looking over their shoulders than it is to weep over the attacks.

You have to oppose the promotion of the beliefs and attitudes on which Islamism rests. And those ideas are widely and commonly taught because they really do stem from Mohammad’s words and horrible example.

I tink the issue which most concerns me about this paragraph is the identity you are drawing between Islam and Islamism. You are aware that Islamism trades on exactly this (false) identification of itself with Islam in toto?

It is better to make Muslims uncomfortable, to keep them looking over their shoulders than it is to weep over the attacks.

Bigot.

Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam. If Muslims are free to promote it, some will. Period.

Besides I meant something very specific when I said “it is unfortunately their own rules that make Islamist more likely to be violent if they feel unfettered…”

There are specific rules in Islam that say that it is a duty to participate in Jihad unless doing so would bring harm to your own community. Mohammad(?) made that rule, not us, but we had better make use of it. We had better make sure that Muslims feel that if they support Jihad they will significantly harm their community.

To talk about a specific policy for a moment, what necessity forces upon everyone is that Islam needs to be policed everywhere.

In some Asian countries, they long ago faced that need, and I remember reading that in some of those countries religious teachers need to get their lesson plans approved by the government.

So I’m not just saying that non-Muslims need to watch what Muslims teach and preach, and police it… That would what happens here. I am also saying that majority Muslim countries need secular governments and need to have secular people police everything clerics and teachers do.

This is because Abu Faris was wrong, the identification between Islamism and Mohammad’s works and words is not false. Much of what is brutal and oppressive in Islam are pillars of Islam that can not be expunged – at best they can be nuanced, interpreted, softened with examples, counter arguments and external sources of morality.

Our normal liberal toolset of making nice and making nice, trusting people and never interfering in their religious and cultural affairs is the best for other communities. It has served us well. It is not capable of defusing Islamism either here nor in majority Muslim countries. We need to face that fact.

sigh, ignore the two obvious mistakes i made when I went back to change what I wrote but forgot to proofread.

“You have to oppose the promotion of the beliefs and attitudes on which Islamism rests. And those ideas are widely and commonly taught because they really do stem from Mohammad’s words and horrible example.”

Do I?

I have a duty to question everything, included all religious revelations, all political dogma. But that is my chosen sense of duty to my sense of values, and I expect no-one else to be bound by such precepts, if they do not feel that way.

When I meant “moralising” I meant “imposing your own moral standards” onto what had been a perfectly reasonable inquiry by this thread’s participants to elucidate some truth. I found your imposition of your blanket assumptions on “how things are” somewhat ruined that spirit of respectful and open inquiry. I learned new things here, but I think you did not want to embrace any new facts or perspectives.

In the real world people do follow Islam and most Muslims are peaceful people getting on with their lives. There is a separatism that is taught in many mosques that I think damages the good relations that could exist, and I can see certain ayats, Hadiths that promote this. But you are attacking a fundamental principle of democracy – the right of a person to believe in ANYTHING that person chooses to.

I cannot agree with making all Muslims look over their shoulders. I believe in secular pluralist democratic states, where Muslims, and those of faith or no faith, get no more and no less privileges than anyone else.

What you are promoting is to demonise them. I disagree with changing laws to accommodate religious groups unless the whole nation supports such changes in law – but that is because I believe in true democracy, not PCism, not discrimination (positive or negative), cultural relativism, multiculturalism or anything like that. One law for all. Universal and fundamental rights under the law.

Whatever I say, for you I am a blank canvas onto which you throw your paintballs. I feel your attitude is so fixed that it gives no-one the right to be an individual, with the freedom to choose their political or religious beliefs. I do try to warn against Islamism. Abu Faris seems to be doing the same, but as he appears to be a Muslim you apparently want to diminish his – or anyone’s – fundamental rights.

There is too much caricature of others in today’s times. The far left paints those who disagree as neo-fascists, and the far right labels all others as Quislings or subversives.

Where the is the middle ground where reality can be dealt with objectively, where people can discuss their differences without fear or threat, rather than people treating each other as cardboard bloody cut-outs?

“I learned new things here, but I think you did not want to embrace any new facts or perspectives.”

Did you? You said “But in order to condemn the extremists, we also have duty to understand the background to their grievances, and the grievances of their enemies in as informed and open-minded manner as possible.”

Well, understanding their background is reasonable, but – in this thread, for instance, we learned that the Iranian regime may subscribe to an elitist belief that the 12th imam won’t return to right the world until the world is sufficiently unjust and ruined – and thus they see it as their duty, not to bring justice to their people or to anyone, but to sow seeds of suffering and violence…

Hard to believe stuff, but perhaps consistent with Mohammad’s own explicit championing of terror and oppression.

In any case, the only grievance I see there is that the 12th Imam hasn’t returned and taken over the world. Or perhaps that we haven’t been sufficiently unjust as to provoke his return.

Well that’s one of the thinks I learned from this thread.

Should we see our way clear to holding talks with the Imam’s ghost down at the bottom of that well in Qom where he is rumored to preside?

Or how about crux of Shaism? I read here that it is based on the feeling that Muslims do not sufficiently worship Mohammad’s decedents nor fight their enemies. That’s nice. A lot we can to for that one.

I read this these articles too, long tales of insane beliefs and barbaric acts and I think the only solution is to put irrationality in it’s place and promote sane ideas and workable morals – that means promoting ideas and morals that never fell out of Mohammad’s lips.

I am attempting to find an prescribe the best solution.

I am attempting to find an prescribe the best solution.

I would suggest that what you are doing is projecting your fear of something (Islam), about which you clearly know very little (and admit as much) onto an entire community.

You are demonising on the basis of conjecture and proscribing on the basis of fear.

Abus Faris

I am attempting to find an prescribe the best solution.

I would suggest that what you are doing is projecting your fear of something (Islam), about which you clearly know very little (and admit as much) onto an entire community.

You are demonising on the basis of conjecture and proscribing on the basis of fear.

……………Page one straight out of the manual how to defuse and deflect the infidels fear of Islam. OK. I live in Camden Lock. Abu Faris now describe how you will defuse the fear of the Indian who was beaten to death by muslims for wearing sandals purporting to stamp the word Allah onthe holy sand of Dharan. After you have done that explain the fear of the teacher shot in a drive by in Songhkla?

Jihad is one of the pillars of Islam.

Jihad most certainly is not one of the pillars of Islam – unless you happen to be an Isma’ili Shi’a; and then one runs into the very obvious issuet that Isma’ili are single-mindedly a deeply pacifist sect, dedicated to some of the finest and most expansive charity and humanitarian work (especially in Central Asia, but also elsewhere).

Both Sunni and Shi’a have five pillars of the Faith, or obligations upon Muslim believers:

(1) Shahada – public affirmation of monotheism and the status of Muhammad as the final prophet of this one God;

(2) Salat – the obligation of five daily prayers;

(3) Zakat – the obligation of giving alms (and more broadly acting in a charitable manner);

(4) Sawm – the obligation of fasting during the holy month of Ramadan;

(5) Hajj – the obligation of making (if possible) pilgrimage to Makkah during the month of Pilgrimage at least in one’s life.

The Twelver Shi’a have a set of what is known as “secondary principles” . These are not obligations upon the Muslim Believer (as the Five Pillars are). These “secondary principles” do indeed include jihad.

Equally, the entirely benign and most often highly put upon Isma’ili Shi’a also include jihad in their “Seven Pillars” – however, it is quite hard to imagine the Agha Khan, or his followers, ever engaging in violent jihad against anyone.

This is going to degenerate into “am not!” “are too!”

In any case I am talking about the religion of Mohammad, not about Muslims. His religion is the creation of a single man. Its pretension to be related to Christianity and Judaism are merely that, the man was clearly illiterate and knew nothing of the religions he invented stories about.

What he wrote an what he did is well known and understood. Unfortunately his nightmare fetters a billion people and the hatred and oppression he preached will cause strife until men take the responsibility to beat back it’s barbarism and outgrow it.

This is not an indictment of Muslims at all – they did nothing more than be born in the wrong place into oppressed and unfree countries or into converted families.

It is a silly modern conceit to pretend that abhorring Mohammad’s brutal fantasy and his brutal rules is akin to racism. Rather one can not care about Muslims as humans without pitying them for their fettered minds. I don’t hate Muslim. I deplore Mohammad’s inhumane creation that denies them their potential, and denies the world it’s right to peace and harmony.

Of course Muslims teach their children to actually hate unbelievers like myself and that is not called racism. Why the double standard?

I hate no one yet I’m called a racist. I have supposedly moderate Muslim clerics say that they are required to hate me (what makes them moderate is the lie that hatred doesn’t have to lead to violence)… yet they are allowed to teach that bigotry unmolested.

If I say that hatred is unacceptable, I am the monster.

Just to make it clear, Islamic religious law has a spectrum of injunctions – ranging from the obligatory upon the Believer, all the way to the permitted but disapproved. Jihad is not obligatory; however – and this depends heavily upon the particular scholar (or school of scholars, madhab) it may be permitted, or even encouraged under certain conditions.

This is not even to touch upon the various senses of the term “jihad” – which are multiple.

Such considerations have led some modern liberal and progressive Muslims (for example some fo the writers over on The Spittoon website) to raise the question whether we really even need to include this notion at all in contemporary Islam, as it is apparently subject to a range of interpretations – some of which are extremely damaging to the Faith itself (for example the addiction to the reduction of the term to aggressive and premeditated violence against non-Muslims on the part of both Islamism and its more wild opponents).

Of course Muslims teach their children to actually hate unbelievers

What fantastic rubbish. Do you make these things up as you go along?

In any case, this thread is about the (renewed) civil war and disorder in Yemen and Saudi reaction to the same.

Unfortunately, what was a fascinating thread, full of really useful information, has been derailed by Josh Scholar’s perennial one-man crusade against Islam and its followers.

What a shame.

Fine “Pillar” is the wrong arbitrarily chosen phrase from some barely readable, rambling, repetitive mad raving.

I’ve read so many Islamic clerics who say that Jihad or at least the material support of Jihad is a duty for all Muslims…

I’ve read that quote from Koran so many times that if a Muslim sides with the non-Muslims then god will deny his blessing.

I’m sorry. This is Islam whether you can admit it or not. I do understand that since Mohammad essentially forbade Muslims from reasoning for themselves, being moral apart from his horrible example, or reinterpreting interpreting his words you are forced couch every argument for improving Islam in the lie that it was always the way you wish it were.

But this kind of lying is too onerous a straight jacket. A democracy can not function withing a tissue of lies, no matter how well intentioned.

With respect, Josh, perhaps you would like to address the issues of this thread. These issues, IMHO, do not include your ill-informed and highly prejudiced views about the contemporary Muslim community, formed on the basis of your equally ill-informed and quite often hysterical take on the history of the Faith.

I might also, where I not so concerned for your mental state, take some exception to your implication that because I (and others, it would seem) to not uphold your ridiculous and often unfounded views on Islam that I am confabulating or lying.

But that is just me, you understand.

Apologies for typos. Can’t find my specs.

Oh dear – this is getting nowhere.

You write: It is a silly modern conceit to pretend that abhorring Mohammad’s brutal fantasy and his brutal rules is akin to racism. Rather one can not care about Muslims as humans without pitying them for their fettered minds. I don’t hate Muslim. I deplore Mohammad’s inhumane creation that denies them their potential, and denies the world it’s right to peace and harmony.
Of course Muslims teach their children to actually hate unbelievers like myself and that is not called racism. Why the double standard?
I hate no one yet I’m called a racist. I have supposedly moderate Muslim clerics say that they are required to hate me (what makes them moderate is the lie that hatred doesn’t have to lead to violence)… yet they are allowed to teach that bigotry unmolested.
If I say that hatred is unacceptable, I am the monster.

These are your opinions, and in a liberal democracy, you should be allowed to express them. But what is bugging me here is the manner in which you have effectively trashed this thread and trolled it out of its “purpose”, all because you have been preaching and not engaging with what this thread is about.

I have many criticisms of how Islam began and how it is practiced now, and around the time of the cartoon protest I saw things in exactly that polarised manner that you, Josh, seem to be arguing here – I was furious that people were being killed over a cartoon, or killed over a speech by Pope Benedict XVI which quoted Manuel Paleologos. Faced with such intransigence I too was intransigent and fuming.

But there is a time and a place for all things. I am now trying to go beyond having a caricature view of Islam and though I remain highly critical of those who take it’s strictures and injunctions too literally, I am finding more understanding of how Islam is not one monolithic ideology by studying the years immediately after Mohammed’s death.

I am still shocked when I read certain Hadiths, or works such as “Reliance of the Traveller”, I still find it impossible to accept the excuses made by people like Karen Armstrong for the slaughter of the males of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe – excuses made by almost all kaffir commentators on Islam. Such things are used by extreme Salafists as justifications for their behaviour – an ignorant criminal thug like Zarqawi saw no problem in decapitating innocent hostages. But at least the Banu Qurayza were decapitated cleanly and quickly – unlike the slow neck sawing that was used by Zarqawi.

The Ridda Wars which engaged Abu Bakr in the 27 months of his Caliphate were all about apostasy – Arabs loyal to Mohammed decided they were not Muslims any more, and this “apostasy” had to be challenged.

In Britain we have a problem with Deobandi ideology, promoted by the missionary group Tablighi Jamaat (founded in Mewat India in 1927). This Sunni ideology – which is shared by the Taliban – maintains that girls over the age of 8 should not be educated, and in Afghanistan numerous schools have been destroyed, and teachers of girls have been slaughtered in the most barbaric manners imaginable. No wonder there is such confusion in Britain’s war with the Taliban – beyond the blatant dishonesty of Labour politicians. Apparently 600 out of Britain’s estimated 1350 mosques are controlled by Deoband clerics:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece

But when people stand at two sides of a room throwing jeering insults, no-one benefits, and no peace or conciliation will ever happen. There is a very good article here, Josh, and I urge you to read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201152.html

It was written by Gus Dur – Abdurrahman ad-Dakhil Wahid – who was briefly president of Indonesia. He leads the Nahdlatul Ulama – the largest Muslim grouping in Indonesia and far more democratic and supportive of pluralism than its rival group (Muhammadiyya, led by Din Syamsuddin).

He spoke of two principles of Islamic Fiqh -
“al-umuru bi maqashidiha” – Every problem [should be addressed] in accordance with its purpose
and
“al-hukm-u yadullu ma’a illatihi wujudan wa adaman” – The law is formulated in accordance with circumstances.

He wrote: “Not only can Islamic law be changed — it must be changed due to the ever-shifting circumstances of human life. Rather than take at face value assertions by extremists that their interpretation of Islamic law is eternal and unchanging, Muslims and Westerners must reject these false claims and join in the struggle to support a pluralistic and tolerant understanding of Islam.”

Sadly, in Indonesia recently Din Syamsuddin of the Muhammadiyah supported the legal oppression of Ahmadi Muslims. In 2005 when a grouping of Ulamas had declared that only orthodox interpretations of Islam were valid (which had led to attacks on Ahmadis in Java and Lombok) Gus Dur had been a vociferous opponent of the fatwa.

Please read the article, Josh. It may not change your mind, but it could help you to broaden your imagination slightly.

What the world desperately needs now is people who can stand in the centre-ground and draw diverse people together in order to find solutions. .

Islam is not one monolithic ideology by studying the years immediately after Mohammed’s death.

How monolithic is a “faith” where every early caliph was killed by his successor. (I’d make a silly emote here but you might not recognize it).

Meh I have read the “muslims are required to hate nonmuslims” so many times.. And I’ve been in arguments with Muslims so many times where they refuse to repudiate that…

I was in the process of looking up exactly who says that for our friend in denial, Abu Faris but I have too many people taking my time right now. Maybe I’ll look it up later.

Abu Faris is not in denial at all, Josh. Really. He is tuned in to reality. But you are denying him his wisdom and knowledge.

I think you are looking for Verse 5:51 of the Koran, Josh.

Thank you for your kind words, Adrian.

Qur’an 5:51 is a notorious example of the sorts of mess one gets into when one translates from one language to another.

In the ayat (verse) quoted, the word “Awliya” is used. It is a plural and its singular is “wali”. Here is the ayat transliterated:

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tattakhithoo alyahooda waalnnasara awliyaa baAAduhum awliyao baAAdin waman yatawallahum minkum fa-innahu minhum inna Allaha la yahdee alqawma alththalimeena

The correct translation of the word “”wali”" is not “friend” but it is someone who is very close and intimate. It is also used to mean “guardian, protector, patron, lord and master”.

In the Qur’an this word is used for God, such as:

Allah is the Protector (or Lord and Master) [waliof those who believe. He takes them out from the depths of darkness to light…

(Al- Baqarah 2: 257)

There are many other references in the Qur'an that give this meaning. The same word is also sometimes used in the Qur'an for human beings, such as

And whosoever is killed unjustly, We have granted his next kin [wali] the authority (to seek judgement or punishment in this case)

(Al-‘Isra’ 17 :33)

The correct translation of the ayat 5:51 is:

O you who believe! Do not take Jews and Christians as your patrons. They are patrons of their own people. He among you who will turn to them for patronage is one of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.

(Al-Ma’dah 5: 51)

The ayat, when correctly translated, is not telling Muslims to hate Jews or Christians, but it is telling them that we should take care of their own people and they must support each other.

And even this injunction is, of course, itself open to various interpretations.

Certainly, however, it is most certainly not the case that Muslim parents teach their children to hate non-Muslims. Even a single case where this is not so would be enough to disprove your sweeping assertion about all Muslims. I assure you my children are not so taught.

I think you are looking for Verse 5:51 of the Koran, Josh.

That is one of the “don’t take friends with” verses as are 3:28, 3:118, 5:80, 9:23, 53:29.

It is not a duty to hate which is a much more specific and dangerous injunction. I’m sure that the Salafis and some other have that injunction, not sure how universal it it among the rest.

It may come from verses that says that Allah hates unbelievers. So it is the duty of Muslims to hate what Allah hates.

However I have argued with many Muslims including Shiites, and none has ever denied that he has a duty to hate unbelievers.

And I’ve put that to them repeatedly.

Abu Faris, careful with the translation games, they don’t always go in your favor http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23841&highlight=fight

also about your friends/protectors claim, there are a few hadiths that are taken to mean that a person who converts to islam can not maintain his or her relationship with his parents and relatives, let alone with friends.

Ishaq 252 and Muslim 1:417

Josh,

I am well aware of what you call “the translation game”. However, might I ask do you take such a sceptical view of the various translations of, for example, the Koine Greek of the New Testament?

Modern Biblical exegesis relying on exactly the sort of “translation games” you would appear to disparage.

I was simply pointing out, as fairly as I could, that there is more than your interpretation of scripture.

As for ahadith – where shall we start? Certainly there are extremely unpleasant traditions – but I think we need to stop there and consider the word “tradition” – or rather latterly recorded orally transmitted traditions, as subject to mutation, interpolation and plain adulteration or forgery as, for example, any of the oral traditions embedded in other scriptures of similar antiquity.

Scholarship is not the instrumentalist fitting of conveniently interpreted “facts” to pre-formed, prejudiced (in the proper sense), pre-judgemental opinion, IMHO. It is, as Adrian has been quite gently suggesting, a clearing, an opening up to interpretations, then a weighing up and then a judgement on those bases.

But what would I know, eh?

Ishaq is not a collection of ahadith, for your information. It is a modern, reconstruction of a lost Siirah (history, biography) of Muhammad. Ishaq was its author.

Ishaq’s version is lost anyway and only known through what was repeated by Ibn Hisham, I believe.

And on the term “wali” – that surprised me. I have only come across that word being used in marriage dealings – as the “guardian” of the bride.

In Britain we have a problem with Deobandi ideology, promoted by the missionary group Tablighi Jamaat (founded in Mewat India in 1927). This Sunni ideology – which is shared by the Taliban – maintains that girls over the age of 8 should not be educated, and in Afghanistan numerous schools have been destroyed, and teachers of girls have been slaughtered in the most barbaric manners imaginable. No wonder there is such confusion in Britain’s war with the Taliban – beyond the blatant dishonesty of Labour politicians. Apparently 600 out of Britain’s estimated 1350 mosques are controlled by Deoband clerics:

Well that’s a catastrophe. I would like to say that should not be allowed. But the occasional bus bombing and the loss of privacy as you put all of London and much of the country under surveillance is a small price to pay for being able to say you were always too liberal to oppose the spread of religious fascism.

There is a collection of Hadiths here, called Hadith al­Thaqalayn:
http://www.al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/

There is a chapter on ’sahih’ Hadiths, but as far as I am aware, only Bukhari and Imam Muslim were regarded as sahih (authentic).

But I think this collection contains Shia Hadiths. Hopefully Abu knows the background of this collection and can explain.

Adrian

You are correct, the al-Thaqalayn collection of ahadith is a Shi’a collection. Unlike Sunni collections, the Shi’a also accept traditions transmitted from their Imams, as well as those transmitted from the Prophet.

There is a magnificent collection of sermons, letters and sayings of the Fourth Caliph and First Shi’a Imam, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. This is known as the Nahjul Balagha, “The Peak of Eloquence”.

A truly erudite and learned man, his sayings include the magnificent and haunting couplet of sayings:

Loving one another is half of wisdom. Grief is half of old age

A good translation of the Nahjul Balagha is here:

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/index.htm

You are also correct about the Sirah of Ishraq.

On “Wali”, its sense as “ruling”/”governing” is also given in its (still extent) use as the title of a regional or provincial governor in many Arab states. It also forms the root for the region or province over which they govern, al-wilayah.

Two You Tube videos allegedly showing the Saudi air attacks on al-Houthi rebels:

Part One:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj6hsua81SA

Part Two of the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrI4ZyKW9ys

“Waq al Waq” -This is a fantastic blog about all things Yemeni and political:

http://www.islamandinsurgencyinyemen.blogspot.com/

“Waq Waq” is rather the Arabic version of Erewhon, incidentally.

Adrian Morgan 7 Nov 5:05pm >In every generation the Imam chooses 36 men…<

This reflects the belief in the tsadikim nistorim (the lamedvovniks= 36 righteous men in every generation) of the Talmud. Is this conceit one of the reasons Sunnis accuse the Shia of crypto-Judaism…? I think we should be told.

Lupin,

Wait for this one: the Saudi (uber-Sunni) Wahhabi are, in fact, Jews!

Oh yes! At least according to a well-worn piece of moon-battery that does the rounds in the region – and is rather popular in Shi’a circles.

As exemplified by this utterly deranged article:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/livingstone.htm

In fact, it is rather telling that a common theme of sectarian mudslinging in Muslim circles in the Arab world is the accusation that one’s opponents are Jews, or are descended from Jews, or are – at the very least – in the pay of Jews.

Consequently, for many Sunni hostile to Shi’a, Shi’a are “Jewish” and for many Shia, Sunni (or at least ones hostile to the Shi’a) are “Jewish”.

Thanks Lupin Pooter

I must explore that. I also wonder if it is true that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is descended from Jewish converts to Shia Islam, as was reported recently. Or was that a politically-motivated piece of “disinformation”?

36 righteous men in each generation. Interesting. The name of God in Medieval Kabbalism (not the cult Madonna buys into) had 72 characters (36×2). And once a year, only one priest would be allowed to utter the complete name of God (Shemhamphorasch) that had 216 characters (36×6 or 6×6x6).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shemhamphorasch

According to Plato in his “Republic” in Book 8, the number 216 is described as “The number of man”. In one commentary, this is said to derive from a belief that a youngest that a child can be born and survive is after seven months of pregnancy (216 days if the month is worked out at 30.8 days).

Another way of looking at it is that all these numbers are multiples of 12 – a number that seems to play a rather important part in quite a number of theologies.

Duodecimal theologies include, of course, the 12 Shi’a Imams… as well as the neoplatonic political philosophy of al-Farabi’s “al-Madina al-Fadil, written in the 9th Century CE.

One might also mention the 12 Apostles and – of course – the 12 Tribes of Israel.

Certainly – but the multiples of 12 originally derive from Babylonian numberings – where we derive our 360 degrees of geometry and also astrology.

60 (5×12) was the soss
600 – the ner
3600 – the sar
216,000 – the great sar</i? (60×3600)

Oh -and as owed to Pythagoras – the ontology of triangles in Plato’s Timaeus (all mortal being constructed from triangles) may well point to the right angle triangle with sides of length in the ratio 3:4:5 … a triangle through which the construction of the right angle was known to many ancient cultures. It is easy to see that the sum of sides of such lengths (or multiples thereof) will be themselves multiples of 12.

I misphrased that 0 obviously multiples of 12 were in existence long before being tied up in Babylonian numerological systems.

But they are interesting – I will try to find Plato’s quotes online, to save retyping. But it involved 3600 squared as a number of note.

Talking of circles, we appear to have made one. I recall David T, far above pointing out the connection to be made between the Imam-e Mahdi and Shayoshant of the Zoroastrians.

We are, after all, dealing with one and the same region over a vast period of time.

I recall from distant undergraduate days that quote, Adrian. It has puzzled philosophers for millennia. Most assume that it is signal of Plato’s addiction to mathematics as the core of his metaphysics. Some suggest that it is to be taken as a metaphor for the same, rather than a serious comment by Plato – or rather, as an example of his use of extended scientific metaphors to articulate para-scientific, probably Orphic, mystical issues.

The section is here:

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html

But the mathematics is worked out differently to my 1950s edition. But the text outside of the section on how the numbers arise is this:

“Now that which is of divine birth has a period which is contained in a perfect number, but the period of human birth is comprehended in a number in which first increments by involution and evolution (or squared and cubed) obtaining three intervals and four terms of like and unlike, waxing and waning numbers, make all the terms commensurable and agreeable to one another…..

…..Now this number represents a geometrical figure which has control over the good and evil of births. For when your guardians are ignorant of the law of births, and unite bride and bridegroom out of season, the children will not be goodly or fortunate. And though only the best of them will be appointed by their predecessors, still they will be unworthy to hold their fathers’ places, and when they come into power as guardians, they will soon be found to fall in taking care of us, the Muses, first by under-valuing music; which neglect will soon extend to gymnastic; and hence the young men of your State will be less cultivated. In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us. “

I feel the theory of ideal forms fast approaching…

*scuttles to back of cave and shuts his eyes to the shadows dancing on the back wall thereof*

There is a lovely symmetry about pure Platonism. It sponsored some magnificent architecture. The Pantheon in Rome’s dome, if understood as part of a sphere would as a complete sphere fit exactly inside the cube upon which it sits. this is not accidental: the cube (as a solid whose faces may be derived from triangles) represents the mundane; and the sphere the divine. Thus the temple is the place where these two realms intersect. The sphere is connected to the notion of the divine when we recall that Aristotle (for example) argued that circular motion was the motion of the gods.

I would have loved to know what went on at Ephesus too. It clearly moved Plato deeply.

I think the idea of the Great Circle has always had an importance. In Christianity, Platonic thinking was tied to the Gnostics and was suppressed. Only now are Gnostic and Neo-Platonic texts from Nag Hammadi in being seen as part of a continuum that links ancient Western philosophical ideas with later Islamic philosophical treatises.

The Crusades, for example, brought Hermetic and neo-Platonist texts and ways of thinking back to Europe. The Emerald Tablet – Tabula Smaragdina – with its famous note “As above, so below”was brought back in that time of war, and became a cornerstone of Alchemical thinking, along with alchemy itself. Which – as we all know – derived from Islamic science continuing when Europe was in its own period of darkness. Algebra too.

Apollonius of Tyana is said to have been the author of the Arabic versions of the Emerald Tablet, and in Islam, he was known as Balinus or Abulunias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

I suppose the place that inspired Heraclitus (whose notions of constant change and the exact meaning of the “logos” are still subjects of discussion) would have moved Plato.

The Temple of Artemis would have been already completed by the time Plato visited. I went to Ephesus years ago. Very beautiful but no longer an Ionian port as silting up has caused it to now be landlocked.

All that remains of the Temple – once one of the Seven Wonders of the World – is a vast and empty field. Some of its columns (the twisted ones) were taken to Rome and are in St Peter’s Church.

I tink the issue which most concerns me about this paragraph is the identity you are drawing between Islam and Islamism. You are aware that Islamism trades on exactly this (false) identification of itself with Islam in toto?

Muhammad’s words and example were appalling. That’s why there is nothing un-Islamic about “Islamism”. It’s all Islam, grist to the same mill.

Oh dear,

This thread has gone through a Great Circle and starts a new revolution. Well some of the attributed comments recorded in Hadiths are a bit shocking. But considering the first written Hadith collection by Bukhari was not written down until 200 years after Mohammed died, and most of the Hadiths he encountered did come from reliable lines of oral transmission, some caution must be kept.

Bukhari threw out far more Hadiths than he recorded on paper. But yes – some things there are disturbing, as are certain Koranic passages. I know of Koran-only Muslims, who find Hadiths to be unreliable distractions.

But – much as I hate this sort of comparison – there are things in the Bible that are nasty. Take Numbers 31: 17-18

“17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Moses, talking about the slaughter of the Midianites.

But – much as I hate this sort of comparison – there are things in the Bible that are nasty. Take Numbers 31: 17-18

Adrian Morgan, as much as I have contempt for all religion I can’t let you get away with insulting my intelligence.

You know perfectly well that an open religion like Judaism with lots of sources to play off of each other can not be compared with Mohammad’s single sourced, closed off cult-of-personality

If you even imply there’s an equivalence you’re entirely dishonest.

>But – much as I hate this sort of comparison – there are things in the Bible that are nasty. Take Numbers 31: 17-18

“17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

Moses, talking about the slaughter of the Midianites.< Adrian Morgan 9 Nov 1:11am

The comparison you try to make is untenable; such horrors in the Bible are time- and place-specific. Jews do not follow the example of Moses in their treatment of modern-day Midianites or Canaanites, or of any other people they come into contact with, by killing the males and keeping the bereft virgins for themselves. Such barbarity was never codified into Jewish law. And even if it had been, it would be irrelevant, after the razing of the temple and the expulsion of the Jews, to all but a few religious nutters who can be found in any population. As for Christians, most laws of the Old Testament were abrogated by Jesus’ overarching command to Love one’s neighbor as one’s self.

You are disingenuously confusing history and theology: Islam commands the killing – or if expedient, the subjugation – of infidels, and I have never read an islamic cleric who has denied this. Could you possibly quote one pacifistically, love-thine-enemy-preaching cleric? I can find hundreds who will knock your chosen dove down in flames (then issue a fatwa for his death because of heresy). Qaradawi says that the conquest of Rome – foretold by the Prophet – and after that the conquest of Europe, will *probably* take place next time through demographics and dawa (missionizing) and not by the sword. Shia clerics preach the same message. The Koran sets out also how the spoils of war – including female captives – are to be distributed or treated. The Prophet, who is the Perfect Man and the Model for all Behavior, is to be followed. To criticize him can lead to death in sharia Pakistan, Iran or Saudi etc. Thus, during the demonstrations against the cartoons outside the Danish Embassy one of the cries of pious, koranically-faithful Muslims was: We will take your wives as war booty as the Prophet (pbuh) allows us.

“Much as I hate this sort of comparison” … there is nothing in Judaism or Christianity that can compare with the horrors of unchecked Islam.

Ishaq’s version is lost anyway and only known through what was repeated by Ibn Hisham, I believe.

And also al-Tabari. (For example, the “Satanic Verses” story, which was not retained in Ibn Hisham’s expurgation, but worked back in by Guillaume in his translation.)

And on the term “wali” – that surprised me. I have only come across that word being used in marriage dealings – as the “guardian” of the bride.

The notion of love/closeness/bond in the semantic field of the root is closer, in Christian terms, to agape than to philia. The root also appears in the phrase al-wala’ wa’l-bara’, “Loving and Hating (for the sake of Allah)”. (Elaborated, inter alia, in Section w59.2 of the Reliance, if you have it handy.)

You are verging on being personally insulting and I have the choice of ignoring you or – for this occasion only – having to again explain myself to satisfy your rather limited powers of comprehension.

Judaism went through changes – stoning for adultery and other things which remained in the sacred texts ceased to be practised. But they are still there in the sacred writings.

In Islam, the sacred writings were compiled after Mohammed died, and their order was not placed chronologically. Even though the arrangement was compiled from other people’s recollections, in some cases long after the events, there can – for Muslims – be no changing of the Koran. Where there is contradiction between two ayat, the earlier one is abrogated. Therefore, with a book that is written down in non-chronological order, there is often confusion about what has been abrogated and what was stated later.

Therefore people had to study the tafsir and other exegeses of the book – yet disputes over the exact date of certain sayings – such as 2:256 (there shall be no compulsion in religion) continue because this is an early text, and has apparently been abrogated by 9:73. (O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.)

Again – it is all a matter of interpretation. And Arabic has multiple meanings for the same word. But without getting mired in things becoming “lost in translation”, let us stick with this one Sura – 2:256.

Now according to Victorian Orientalist Sir William Muir (1819 – 1905) this Sura was revealed at Mecca and was the 21st such revelation. Muir claimed it was written immediately after Mohammed’s “fatrah” (intermission) – his period of self-doubt. At this time his wife Khadija was still alive.

German scholars Dr A. Sprenger in 1865 (Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammed) and Gustav Weil in 1864 (Das Leben Mohammed) maintained that this Sura had been revealed immediately after the Fatrah.

However, when Pope Benedict (drawing on the above sources) mentioned in the 2006 Regensburg address that Sura 2:256 had been written straight after the Fatrah, when Mohammed was in a position of weakness at Mecca, he was criticised. Muslim scholars maintain that this Sura was written after the Hijrah, in the 24th year of Mohammed ’s prophethood, when he was in Medina – at around 624-625 AD.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article640613.ece

Surah 9 (at-Taubah or “repentence”) was revealed in the 9th year of the Hijrah. The Hijrah was in 622, so this Surah was written around 631, about a year before Mohammed died.

So even if Sura 2:256 was not written when Khadija was still alive, it appears to have been abrogated by a much more warlike Sura.

The warlike elements of Islam are inescapable, and Sua 8 (Al-Anfal – the “Spoils of War”) is all about caravan-raiding which was done by Mohammed and his followers.

So yes – there problematic aspects of the Koran, which are obviously justified or excused by followers of Islam and its apologists. Some of the worst behaviour of Islamists has been sanctioned by them as precedents have already been set for killing and warfare against perceived enemies, from the Koran and the sunnah.

But I am not going to agree with your rather simplistic notions unless you show some willingness to educate yourself properly and stop making your own “equivalence” between Islam and Islamism.

And if you think that by making equivalence to the personality of Mohammed and Moses (who also engaged in warfare and lawgiving) that I am being “entirely dishonest” then you need to ask yourself how honest you are being. You have more or less admitted that you know diddly squat about Islam, its history or Islamic pluralism.

You seem to be trying to make a virtue out of your ignorance and prejudices, resorting to ad hominem defamation when others don’t agree with you.

Project less, and study more.

And if you think that by making equivalence to the personality of Mohammed and Moses (who also engaged in warfare and lawgiving) that I am being “entirely dishonest” then you need to ask yourself how honest you are being.

No, I accuse you of making an equivalence between Judaism where no prophet is God’s final arbiter and Islam which is about the ravings of a single man.

I don’t care if Moses was Mohammad squared, he is only one figure in Judaism and it is perfectly acceptable for Jewish scholars to argue that Moses was wrong.

The claim that there are any prophets in Islam other than Mohammad is one of Mohammad’s frauds. Mohammad was obviously illiterate and his versions of older stories are, well, horrible. And Muslims do not study the actual Jewish or Christian texts.

@ qidniz

Tabari is even later (838-923). He was born five years after Ibn Hisham died. Edward Gibbon described Tabari as the “Livy of the Arabians” and even though I have been tempted to buy certain volumes (at £18.50 minimum from Amazon) of his work, I do not have any, and have only read snippets quoted second-hand.

I do have “Reliance of the Traveller” and I think that this is fast becoming a source-book for anti-Islam activists as it contains so many ghastly things in amongst chapters that superficially appear “fair”.

I have just read w59.2 and where it quotes the hadith “Whoever sees something wrong and accepts it is as though he had committed it” it then diverts away from what had thitherto been sound to saying that it is OK to dislike something in one context but like the same thing elsewhere, and to say it is OK to be glad when someone dies as he was the enemy of one’s enemy and also one’s own enemy – one should celebrate that one has died.

There is nothing in there that equates to Christian “morality” at all. Which is why that little bottom-feder Anjem Choudary likes to set himself up as a Sharia judge – he can just exercise his most base instincts, drawing on the Fiqh of someone like al-Misra, and pleasure himself accordingly – all the while deluding himself that he is being “moral”.

There is nothing moral about following rules.

<>

If you really hated this sort of comparison you wouldn’t make them.

@ Lupin Pooter

Very well-made points. I think of some of the horrors carried out by Christianity, whose tenets are officially peaceful, and then look at the warlike Suras (1 through 9) and I am surprised that Islam has not been more violent.

I think that the current global resurgence of the violent form of Islam will ultimately signal its undoing as a monolithic and immutable force.

You are right about clerics – they generally do not set good examples and do not criticise what is bad – unless forced to. The Deobandi clerics at Birmingham Central Mosque set terrible examples – Mohammed Naseem tried to pretend that the 7/7 bombers were innocent, his preacher Riyadh ul-Haq wanted a second wife and when that caused dissent two people from the mosque community got shot on separate occasions, with one guy dying.

Clerics and so-called “community leaders” never condemn. They are like politicians – it is always the fault of the other party.

But I still think Islam, if it is allowed to accept a more personal relationship of the individual with God – as Sufism purports to do, and with a bit of reform, could be peaceful and enlightening.

But it has to reform. In its current manifestation, with so-called representatives of Islam (CAIR, MCB, MAB and a host of others) pretending to be supportive of democracies while shilling for the Muslim Brotherhood or the Jamaat-e-Islami party (who tried to introduce the death penalty for apostasy into the Pakistani Penal Code), we have a problem.

If it were just a question of violent Salafists/Islamists versus secular, nominal Muslims engaging in their Tasawwuf communions with God, there would not be too much chaos. Eventually the violence would revolt enough people to turn them away from the violent clerics and their followers, and their creeds.

But while the MCN- or CAIR-type people in suits and ties pretend to be mainstream while playing politics on societies – they will eventually force a violent Western backlash against anyone who remotely looks Muslim. And that is what I fear.

The only hope is for reform, for brave Muslims to nail their own manifestos to the doors of national Mosques, in the manner of Luther.

Islam will reform or it will become a byword for backwardness and barbarism. How long before it will be forced to reform I do not know. 50 years, one century, or two?

I think the current resurgence of violent forms of Islam is a sign of a culture in crisis. There is nothing glorious in trying to mount a war, thinking one is doing God’s work.And when Islamists bomb Muslims, they are sealing their own fate in traditional Muslim countries

@ Anat

More projection. I do not like the “tu quoque” approach, but if in order to explain my position to someone who is constantly telling me what my position is – I will use that method to make the person stop and assess.

If the Bible has violent texts and these are not taken seriously, and the Koran has violent texts which are taken seriously then the Koran (and Islam) must reform completely (Salman Rushdie said that there would be virtually nothing left of the Koran if the violent passages were removed). If it cannot, then it must go to war.

There seem to be only two choices for Islam. Reform or wage war (and probably lose).

If reform really is impossible, then reinterpretation is the only solution that will allow Islam to continue in a peaceful manner.

Where there is contradiction between two ayat, the earlier one is abrogated.

Yes, but abrogation is generally an argument of last resort. That is, a reconciling explanation (if and when found) is to be preferred, and one should not go around looking for contradictions, or trying to force them. So, the tendency over time has been to whittle down the set of mansukh verses.

[...]such as 2:256 (there shall be no compulsion in religion) continue because this is an early text, and has apparently been abrogated by 9:73. (O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.)

Or by Q9:5, among others.

One fascinating aspect of most modern discussions is that Q2:256 is rarely quoted in its entirety, quite probably because then it doesn’t sound anywhere near as categorical, or come across to goodthinkful audiences as some ringing declaration of a universal principle.

The verse states the reason for “no compulsion”: that the Final Truth Has Been Revealed. Therefore, every rationally competent person will See.

But, of course, not everyone is Rational Enough To See The Truth. Why is this?

Because Allah has closed the minds of unbelievers, blinded them, made them deaf, confounded them. (Q4:87, Q2:16-17, Q13:33, Q17:97-98, Q21:45, Q54:38, etc. etc. etc.)

So, what does this mean?

It means that, by the Will of Allah, only some will See when presented with The Truth.

The remainder will have to be fought, because Allah’s Truth Must Prevail (Q8:39, Q2:193, Q9:29).

Of them, some will submit to dhimma and pay jizyah.

And the rest will have to die.

No compulsion needed, and no abrogation involved.

There is nothing moral about following rules.

But that is the entirety of Islamic ethics and law. It is a comprehensively and completely deontic system: everything is subject to Allah’s Will alone, and Allah is so sovereign that even Rationality cannot and does not constrain that Will. Hence the centrality of occasionalism and the Ash’ari credo. (Reliance: w57, w3, and a1.3-5 for a summary of the “proper” relation between the Good and the Rational.)

Adrian Morgan I want to thank you for actually, through alteration of your argument, showing that you’re at least thinking about the criticisms you’re getting. I’m afraid engaging people that much is entirely unheard of on the internet.

I know i accused you of other flaws in your arguing style, and I stand by those, but in this sense, you’re the most open person I’ve seen on a blog in years.

The only way for Islam and Islamism to be discussed objectively is for the parties to be open.

I have some knowledge of some things, but I am knowledgeable enough to know I am ignorant.

I want to learn more, and I want others to learn more. I respect disagreements as long as disagreements are open and honest – I have found it harder to deal with public campaigns of deliberate disinformation than even being threatened.

Open discussion is the only practical way forward in these strange PC times, without having people – and their societies – polarising under the flags of opposing ideologies or politics.

Hi, I came across this site due to what’s currently going on in Yemen and although I have only read this one comment thread I find it to contain some very nice and intelligent discussion with little whargarbl. If I can remember (info overload) I’ll return for more reading. Thanks.