James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

[GeoffP]

I suspect Geoff is in denial.
(And denial is something its power we should not underestimate.)

I suspect Signal is in delusion. A grand distraction, surely.

 

[S.A.M.]

It certainly isn't. I think I've made myself quite clear, both in the modern and ancient senses of the word. Que sera serais, if you'll excuse the pun.

But only in Arabic. You are okay with being called a non-Muslim, a disbeliever in Islam, a rejector of Islamic theology. So its the language you object to. I believe that is called xenophobia.

I suspect Geoff is in denial.
(And denial is something its power we should not underestimate.)

I suspect Geoff is suffering from the inability to actually think through his beliefs with any clarity. Its a chronic problem.

If you note his constant attempts to deflect the topic to Maududi without addressing the points I agreed with him on kufr, you'll see why I refuse to induge his diversions into topics no one is addressing here

 

[wynn]

I suspect Geoff is suffering from the inability to actually think through his beliefs with any clarity. Its a chronic problem.

Well, I actually feel a bit better after having participated in this thread, because I used the opportunity to investigate my own discomfort with being accused of being a disbeliever and such.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, I actually feel a bit better after having participated in this thread, because I used the opportunity to investigate my own discomfort with being accused of being a disbeliever and such.

Thats good, I think everyone has the right to feel comfortable with their own opinions. I fervently recommend not giving a damn. People can't really offend you without your permission.

 

[GeoffP]

Unkind words

But only in Arabic. You are okay with being called a non-Muslim, a disbeliever in Islam, a rejector of Islamic theology. So its the language you object to. I believe that is called xenophobia.

Rather, non-Muslim is innocuous, whereas kafir has marked negative connotations. This is not really in dispute. Even Muslim scholars seem to be discouraging the word! (Perhaps they also are xenophobes...the sadder in this case since they are, thereby, actually apparently afraid of themselves. Crazy world, isn't it?)

In recent times it is more of a "discriminatory" term against "unbelievers", "disbelievers" or "non-believers" in the Islamic faith. Muslim scholars have discouraged its use due to the Quran's command to use kind words.[2]

^ Sheikh Muhammad Al-Mukhtar Al-Shinqiti (2005). "General Fatwa Session". Living Shariah > Live Fatwa. Islamonline.net. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...sh-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE. Retrieved 2007-02-23. The scholar quotes Al-Baqarah 2: 83.

I see not everyone is so kind as they.

I believe what you're engaging in would be called bigotry, or racism (since you introduced the unsucessful contrast earlier), or maybe even xenophobia. Like: actual, real xenophobia, via the use of a demeaning term.

For shame, Sam. The ironic thing is that Islam does have philosophical space to avoid the term, seemingly. There's no need for it. Do you follow?

********************************************************************************************

Now, onto your source: you are refusing to identify this individual further, is that right?

Shall I just conclude falsification, and then fill in the blank?

 

[wynn]

Thats good, I think everyone has the right to feel comfortable with their own opinions. I fervently recommend not giving a damn. People can't really offend you without your permission.

Sure. But are theists not in a special group?

I mean, once a person makes some kind of reference between themselves and God, they can't be treated like "just another person" anymore (ie. ignored and such), as that reference gives them a special place, a known or at least declared relation to The Supreme Being - and that is not something to take lightly.

 

[S.A.M.]

Shall I just conclude falsification, and then fill in the blank?

Sure why not? Its not like you actually addressed any issue in the quoted segment. Make it up as you go along, why not? Which part should we consider falsified? My response to quinong? Since it wasn't addressed to you in the first place, thats fine.

Sure. But are theists not in a special group?

I mean, once a person makes some kind of reference between themselves and God, they can't be treated like "just another person" anymore (ie. ignored and such), as that reference gives them a special place, a known or at least declared relation to The Supreme Being - and that is not something to take lightly.

That sounds like the - you are special because you are an individual, just like everyone else - argument to me.

 

[GeoffP]

Sure why not? Its not like you actually addressed any issue in the quoted segment.

Speaking of false: that's false too. :shrug:

Make it up as you go along, why not?

Er: because it's considered poor or fraudulent debating?

Which part should we consider falsified?

Your references. Or else answer this very simple question: what is Maududi's first name? It's a guy, since you refer to it as "him", but for some reason it sounds like you know exactly who it is and are afraid of identifying him further. Why?

 

[GeoffP]

Don't you worry your pretty head my lil Geoff Geoff. Mummy will smack down the big bad Muslim devil woman who called you a lemon.

Uh, thought personal insults were against forum rules? We're big on that now, or so some mods have told me.

 

[wynn]

That sounds like the - you are special because you are an individual, just like everyone else - argument to me.

To me, it doesn't sound like that at all.

My experience is that theists have almost always been considered a special group (usually to mean that they can get away with all kinds of shit, while the "regular folk" need to take responsibility for their own actions).

 

[S.A.M.]

Speaking of false: that's false too. :shrug:



Er: because it's considered poor or fraudulent debating?



Your references. Or else answer this very simple question: what is Maududi's first name? It's a guy, since you refer to it as "him", but for some reason it sounds like you know exactly who it is and are afraid of identifying him further. Why?

The name is irrelevant because I am expressing my opinion of an opinion. Perhaps this is difficult for you to comprehend but you cannot falsify my opinion since it is my opinion. As clearly expressed in the post where I responded to a clear question by quinsong on a topic of theological opinions, there is the mainstream opinion of what constitutes the process of being a Muslim. And then there is my opinion, which is reflected in these words by some random chap.

There is no "debate" here. I am merely offering an opinion.

But do carry on flapping, its most entertaining.

To me, it doesn't sound like that at all.

My experience is that theists have almost always been considered a special group (usually to mean that they can get away with all kinds of shit, while the "regular folk" need to take responsibility for their own actions).

Strangely enough, that sounds exactly like my experience with men. [even here on sciforums]

 

[GeoffP]

Who likes cats?

The name is irrelevant because I am expressing my opinion of an opinion.

Oh? Are you sure?

Ah well. I think my amusement has gone on sufficiently. Let's let the cat out of the bag, shall we?

The Mawdudi or Maududi you're referring to is

Syed Abul A'ala Maududi[2] (Urdu: سید ابو الاعلىٰ مودودی – alternative spellings of last name Maudoodi and Modudi) (September 25, 1903(1903-09-25) – September 22, 1979(1979-09-22)), also known as Molana (Maulana) or Shaikh Syed Abul A'ala Mawdudi, was a Sunni Pakistani journalist, theologian, Muslim revivalist leader and political philosopher, and a major 20th century Islamist thinker.[3] He was also a prominent political figure in his home country (Pakistan) and was the first recipient of King Faisal International Award for his services to Islam in 1979. He was also the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, the Islamic revivalist party.[4]

The question is: why is this guy so special? One might ask: why are you making such a big deal out of this, Geoff?

Classically, and in the modern era, jurists have been divided between two groups, which al-Qaradwi calls the hujumiyyin (proponents of offensive jihad) and difa`iyyin (proponents of defensive jihad), proclaiming his proud adherence to the second group. The hujumiyyin consider it an obligation for the Muslim nation to attack the land of the non-believers at least once a year in order to call to Islam and expand its territories. They hold disbelief per se as a sufficient reason to initiate war and legitimate killing, even if non-believers do not attack or harm Muslims, to the extent that Muslims would be sinful if they do not do so. The proponents of this view, a large number of jurists, most prominent of which among classical scholars is Imam al-Shafi`i, and among contemporary thinkers are Sayyid Qutb and al-Mawdudi, support their view with evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah, and from historical practice. The Quranic texts used call for fighting against all polytheists, such as verse 36 of surat al-Tawba "and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together", verse 5 "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them", and verse 29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day... until they pay the Jizya with willing submission". They differed as to which of those verses is the one they called Ayat al-Sayf, or verse of the sword, which, according to them, abrogated all contradicting verses, over 200 such verses calling for mercy, forgiveness and freedom of belief, prohibiting compulsion in faith and severity, and considering the judgment of people's faith a matter to be left to God alone. They also sought support from prophetic sayings such as "I have been commanded to fight people until they say 'there is no God but Allah'" (narrated by Bukhari). They also consider the early Islamic conquests as evidence for their view that war, rather than peace, is the natural state in Muslims' dealings with others.

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=21082

Oh dear. Sort of a call for offensive jihad. Nice. Sam...you're not following a effective neo-Nazi, are you?

And then there is my opinion, which is reflected in these words by some random chap.

Oh. You don't follow Maududi then? Have I mistaken you?

 

[GeoffP]

On reflection, I do have to ask: have I got your connection with this fellow wrongly? I realize now that, frankly, it is a bit easy to locate some random text on the internet and insert it into the conversation. I expect it was just an accidental mention?

 

[S.A.M.]

Amazing! How completely irrelevant to my response to quinsong!

Here is another quote from another source which I completely agree with:

"Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea"

Don't look now but it was ADOLF HITLER

/swoons

Now back on topic.

Do you have anything to say on the quoted text from Fitna-e-Takfir in my post to quinsong?

On reflection, I do have to ask: have I got your connection with this fellow wrongly? I realize now that, frankly, it is a bit easy to locate some random text on the internet and insert it into the conversation. I expect it was just an accidental mention?

Not at all, it was quite deliberate. I copy pasted it from the original discussion on takfir and Maududi is one of the few people who has written on it in a way that makes sense to me. He was traumatised by the partition of course, having lost his home and country and behaved much as minorities displaced by political violence do. Like Allama Iqbal you can see the clear change in their opinions pre and post partition

All of which is completely irrelevant here.

 

[Enmos]

In Dutch "kaffer" is as much an insult as, for instance, "idiot" or "dumb fuck" is in English.

Edit: We also have a verb "uitkafferen" which means "to verbally abuse (someone)".

 

[GeoffP]

Here is another quote from another source which I completely agree with:

"Propaganda works on the general public from the standpoint of an idea and makes them ripe for the victory of this idea"

Don't look now but it was ADOLF HITLER

Good point. So the Maududi quote was just some random chap that you just found, and don't read much about.

 

[GeoffP]

Cat's Maududi

Not at all, it was quite deliberate. I copy pasted it from the original discussion on takfir and Maududi is one of the few people who has written on it in a way that makes sense to me. He was traumatised by the partition of course, having lost his home and country and behaved much as minorities displaced by political violence do. Like Allama Iqbal you can see the clear change in their opinions pre and post partition

All of which is completely irrelevant here.

Nice scramble. That post changed three times in as many minutes, I think.

Anyway, there's no reason to keep the forums in suspense any longer. You've had more than a fleeting association with this 'random chap on the internet':

You might be interested in this:

...

According to Maududi, the traditionists and commentators have agreed that this incident took place at Mina in Makkah about five years before the Holy Prophet's Hijra (migration) to Madinah.​

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1099387&highlight=maududi#post1099387

What the mixed responses pointed to was that, right from the start, The Satanic Verses affair was less a theological dispute than an opportunity to exert political leverage. The background to the controversy was the struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran to be the standard bearer of global Islam. The Saudis had spent a great deal of money exporting the fundamentalist or Salafi version of Sunni Islam, while Shiite Iran, still smarting from a calamitous war and humiliating armistice with Iraq, was keen to reassert its credentials as the vanguard of the Islamic revolution. Both the Saudis and Iranians saw a new constituency, ripe for exploitation, in the small British protest groups that initially responded to The Satanic Verses with book-burning demonstrations. But in fact the protesters who took to the streets in Bradford and other mill towns were themselves the offspring of other far-off theocratic politics in the subcontinent.

The Satanic Verses was published on 26 September 1988 and, after pressure from the Janata party, banned in India by Rajiv Gandhi's government nine days later. Flushed with this success, Indians working for the Saudi-financed Islamic Foundation of Leicester suggested trying to get the book banned in Britain. According to Malise Ruthven, author of A Satanic Affair, the campaign was then orchestrated by Jamaat-i-Islami, the party founded in Pakistan by Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi. A journalist-cum-theologian, Maududi preached that "for the entire human race, there is only one way of life which is Right in the eyes of God and that is al-Islam".​

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2465657&postcount=47

A man as conservative as Maududi has written on the topic of kufr [unbelief] in Muslims:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2060586&postcount=24

I guess I never had any issues with Christianity, since I was brought up among Hindus who took Ganesha through the streets and put him in the sea and called him God. Later as I began to understand Hinduism and exactly what it meant, it occured to me that they were right: some people need to visualise a God and assign his attributes to people and things because the concrete is more acceptable for them than an abstract. Maududi said much the same about Muslims and Islam and kufr [its a bit preachy, being the words of a cleric]:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2021505&postcount=20

As for the rest of the bells and whistles, I fond [sic] Maududi makes an excellent case, when discussing the question of what constitutes belief or apostacy:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1797074&postcount=210

Just read the quote from Maududi in post #11; although I do not agree with much of his synthesis, in this part he and I are in agreement.

No one can decide what another Muslim should believe.

As Maududi elaborates in his Fitna-e-Takfir

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1787479&highlight=maududi#post1787479

Actually the Bahai insist they are not Muslims.

But there are many Islamic scholars who believe as Maududi does:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1787439&postcount=11

In that last one, you link to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_Ala_Maududi

Which is the Wiki webpage, which I'm willing to bet actually mentioned some of his thoughts on the whole kufr/kafir thing.

So you seem pretty invested in this one random bloke off the intertubes.

Now, I note at one point you do actually say that you disagree with much of his teachings. Hey, great! Except that Maududi's teachings on kufr/kaffir jive perfectly with how great an Islamic state would be, and how the nasty kafir would be suppressed because they're evil, and that those very definitions - and the negativity that go with them - are central to the idea. And, while you were happy to give out his details previously, this time you shied away from your investiture in this guy's philosophy. I mean, it's a level of dishonesty I hadn't reckoned on, and I discovered it when I did a small bit of investigation after your off-hand cite.

Now, I could suppose you were very stupid, and just didn't i) get Maududi's central tenets, or ii) forgot that you cited him several times already. Yet, I don't agree with either of these. Which leaves something else.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you seem pretty invested in this one random bloke off the intertubes.

Now, I note at one point you do actually say that you disagree with much of his teachings. Hey, great! Except that Maududi's teachings on kufr/kaffir jive perfectly with how great an Islamic state would be, and how the nasty kafir would be suppressed because they're evil, and that those very definitions - and the negativity that go with them - are central to the idea. And, while you were happy to give out his details previously, this time you shied away from your investiture in this guy's philosophy. I mean, it's a level of dishonesty I hadn't reckoned on, and I discovered it when I did a small bit of investigation after your off-hand cite.

Now, I could suppose you were very stupid, and just didn't i) get Maududi's central tenets, or ii) forgot that you cited him several times already. Yet, I don't agree with either of these. Which leaves something else.

So what is the argument here, exactly? Do you have any argument regarding the parts of his writings I stated that I agree with? All of his writings which I have quoted are from the same source, so I am baffled about what your POV is. That if I agree with his opinion on takfir I MUST agree with his opinion on everything else? I don't even agree with everything Bells says and we are pretty much in harmony on a wide variety of issues.

I would say rather that precisely because he is so fiendishly conservative on so many issues, his opinion on takfir holds much more weight for its moderation, especially since he was in a position of political authority as well. Wouldn't you?

 

[GeoffP]

So you agree with his definitions, but not as they're applied? There's little fascist/Nazi elements all over the webpage you like to cite from.

But as long as a person does not deny the basic fact which Allah has commanded one to believe, it is not at all permissible to call him a kafir, no matter how extensive his error becomes.

So unbelief = error. Okay. Completely non-judgmental.

And you really have no other source to draw your distinction from? What exactly is your differentiation from Maududi's philosophy (this 'random chap'), exactly? And how far does your dishonesty go?

 

[S.A.M.]

So you agree with his definitions, but not as they're applied? There's little fascist/Nazi elements all over the webpage you like to cite from.



So unbelief = error. Okay. Completely non-judgmental.

And you really have no other source to draw your distinction from? What exactly is your differentiation from Maududi's philosophy (this 'random chap'), exactly? And how far does your dishonesty go?

I think you're confusing two separate issues. I doubt you read quinsongs question which is why you continue to make a fool of yourself.

hint: what is the definiton of those that believe in the Islamic God but do not have the ability to understand the Islamic God?

Now go back and read my response to it.