James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam said:
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.

Your response is irrelevant. I'm discussing new issues. Do you have the ability to understand that?

Mawdudi - great choice of philosopher, Sam. Do you also understand the tiny distinction between Hitler's discussing his philosophy on propaganda, and citing your approbation of a known fascist demagogue on his definition of a pejorative connected to discrimination and supremacism?
 
Anyway, the thread title is interesting:

James R "Kaffir" is not an insult.

ie. 'James R (whose title is "Kaffir") is not an insult'

'James R is not an insult'


We shall deliver him the happy news! James R is not an insult!!
 
Your response is irrelevant. I'm discussing new issues. Do you have the ability to understand that?

Mawdudi - great choice of philosopher, Sam. Do you also understand the tiny distinction between Hitler's discussing his philosophy on propaganda, and citing your approbation of a known fascist demagogue on his definition of a pejorative connected to discrimination and supremacism?

Hmm so which part of his philosophy of takfir do you disagree with?

The notion that for some people islam is sufficient? The notion that such brevity of faith is not enough for those who delve deep into religious philosophy? The notion that those who appear outwardly religious may be hypocritical while those who appear outwardly kufr may be deeply religious?

I'll be happy to debate you on those ideas of his which I concur with

here is a repost for you to counter with rational and logical statements which show why you disagree with his ideas which I have posted here. I'm sure he has said a lot of other stuff, but since I only stated my concurrence with these opinions [not facts, opinions] please state your philosophical rebuttal of them. I'll add all the ones I agree with in relation to the topic of Muslims and religious expression within Islam.

Once again, the source is Fitna-e-Takfir. It is in Urdu but English translations are available

For the man not capable of deep thought, it is sufficient to accept that God is one, Muhammad is His Messenger, the Quran is His Book, and that we have to appear before Him on the day of Judgment. For the man who can think, this brevity contains such breadth that he can follow numerous paths in the search of truth, in accordance with his capability and aptitude. He can go as far as he likes. He can spend his entire life in this search, without ever reaching a stage where he could say that he had understood all that he could. Whatever path a thinking man may take for his enquiry and search, and however far he may go, as long as he walks within the limits which the word of Allah has drawn between Islam and kufr, he cannot be declared as excluded from the fold of the faith, no matter how much we may differ with the wanderings of his mind.

For instance, the essence of belief in Allah is only that there is God Who is the Creator and Maintainer of the universe, and only He is worthy of worship. The way in which a simple peasant can accept this, it is not possible that a thinking man could also accept it in the same simple way. Then, the detailed concepts of God, His attributes, and the nature of His relation with the creation, which a man of a particular type of aptitude will develop in his mind through thinking, will not be exactly the same as the concepts of a man of a different aptitude about these matters. But as long as all of them believe in the real basic belief, they are all Muslims, no matter how widely their thoughts differ about the details, and no matter how much they may have stumbled in various places.

Similarly, as regards the Islamic beliefs in revelation, prophethood, angels and the Last Day, there are only a few points of principle which should be called the essentials of faith. The rest are details, for some of which man can find explicit or implicit indications in the word of God, and some are created by man himself in his mind in accordance with his thinking. It is very possible that in determining most of these details a man’s reason may be at fault, and his ideas may stray very far from the truth. But so long as he does not let go of the essence of these beliefs, no error of reason or thought can possibly expel him from the fold of the faith, however far he may go from the centre of the faith, and however much we may have to rebuke and reproach him for these deviations of belief.

At this point, we can understand with a little thought how sects in Islam came into being. The Quran and Hadith contain simple and brief statements about the essentials of the religion. The subtle references that are given about the details of these matters have been understood by different people in different ways, in accordance with their mental capabilities and natural inclinations. In understanding these details by the use of inference and reasoning, people deduced separate types of secondary matters and side-issues. So far, there was no problem, nor was there anything wrong in one group considering its own stand-point to be true and arguing with other groups to draw them towards the same. But the calamity was that, by going to an extreme, people added their own derived and reasoned beliefs to the principles and essentials of the religion, and then every group started to call all those groups as kafir who denied their derived beliefs. Here began the war of beliefs, and this was the starting point of that injustice. It is true that many of the ways followed in the matter of beliefs, by the use of inference and interpretation, are wrong. But every error is not necessarily kufr. It is undoubtedly permissible to call an error an error, and to believe its perpetrator to be misguided and at fault, and to try to bring him to the right path. 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.
.

Every person who is a Muslim and believes that there is no god but Allah, it should be presumed in his favour that he has faith in his heart. If he does something which contains a semblance of kufr, one must believe that he did not do it with the intention of kufr, but merely out of ignorance and lack of understanding. Therefore one must not straightaway issue a fatwa (verdict) of kufr on hearing what he says, but must try in a goodly manner to make him see sense.

If he still does not accept, and insists upon his view, we must put it to the Book of God to see whether or not the thing on which he is so insistent is contrary to the clear directions which distinguish between faith and disbelief. And also whether or not the man’s belief or action in question can be regarded as an interpretation. If it is not against the clear directions, and there is room for interpretation, then the verdict of kufr cannot be applied. The most that can be said is that he is misguided, and even that in relation to that particular issue, not in all matters.

However, if his belief is contrary to clear teachings, and even after finding out that his belief is opposed to the Book of God he continues to adhere to his stand, and one is unable to treat his belief as an interpretation, then in such a case the judgment of wrong-doing or kufr could be applied to him, while bearing in mind the nature of the issue involved. But account must be taken of degree and gravity. All crimes and all criminals are not equal. They differ in seriousness, and it is a requirement of justice that the punishment which is awarded must take account of the degree of seriousness. To use the same rod on everyone is certainly unjust.

As we explained at the outset, one aspect of the issue of kufr and Islam is internal and another external. The internal is related to the heart and the intention of man, and the external is related to his tongue and action. From a man’s words and actions we can, to a certain extent, estimate his inner condition. This, however, would be mere conjecture and inference, not knowledge and certainty. Without knowledge and certainty, to make a judgment about someone’s faith or kufr on the basis of mere conjecture and inference would be definitely unjust, even though such a judgment might coincide with the truth. Therefore, the right way is to leave the question of faith to Allah. No one but He can know whose heart has faith and whose heart does not:

“Surely your Lord knows best who strays from His path, and knows best who follows the guidance.” (The Holy Quran, 53:30)

Our sight extends only to the outward, and from looking at apparent words and deeds we can form an opinion as to who is a Muslim and who is not. It is possible that the man who outwardly is talking heresy, out of ignorance and stupidity, is inwardly a true and firm believer, and has in his heart a greater love for God and the Messenger than many preachers and religious teachers. It is similarly possible that the man who proclaims his faith loudly and forcefully, and obeys the laws of the religion fully to the outward eye, is in reality a show-off and a hypocrite. So, in passing a judgment of kufr upon someone based on outward conduct, one must greatly fear the chastisement of God. Before issuing such a judgment, we must ponder a thousand times as to the responsibility we are taking upon our heads, and whether we have reasonable grounds on the basis of which it is better for us to take this responsibility rather than to avoid it.

Now these are the only opinions of his which I have read and agreed with, in relation to some other discussion I was having with an Indian Muslims forum. I have not read any other opinions by him, although I am aware that he was a conservative and hence not likely to agree much with me. Still, I can appreciate an idea or a philosophy on its own merit.

So lets hear GeoffP's opinions on islam, iman and ihsan
 
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?

Well, it's a good thing you never went and started layering on positive character descriptions of him, as though you were some kind of subscriber to his nonsense.

S.A.M. said:
The current Sunni Shia split is a wholly political contrivance. Perhaps you should take your own advice and step out of your entrenched views about Protestants and Catholics. In Islam, as long as you follow the general rules of any of the Madhabs, there is no wrong way, so all discussions about differences between Sunnis Shias Wahabis Sufis etc are just academic. Islamic scholars study all all Sunni and Shia Madhabs as relatively equivalent forms of worship, rather than as unique and separate instiitutions. In fact, of all the forms of thought that have originated, including the Bahai (who keep insisting they are not Muslims, in vain), no one has yet been considered as not sufficiently Islamic. Even apostacy as a "crime" is a fairly recent issue that has gained prominence due to mischief. Eminent and highly conservative Islamic scholars like Maudoodi have frowned on takfiri or declaring people as not "real" Muslims. The entire situation is one that exists because of the external manipulation of societies in the ME, since in the last 800 years before that, they were political non-issues.

Personally, I would prefer to do away with the denominations altogether, except they represent the rich diversity of thought in Islamic opinions and we may end up the poorer for it if we did attempt standardisation.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1806078&postcount=54

So he's "eminent". It's a good thing you disagree with him so strongly, Sam; otherwise I'd say you were sympathetic to his philosophies.

Right about now you're scoring somewhere between Sandy and Pat Robertson.
 
If I can have a moment of Zen with Hitler, I can surely have one with Maududi, especially when he says something I agree with.:p

Now what part of his quoted opinion which I have posted do you disagree with? Pick a Pat Robertson statement from post 205. I dare you.

em·i·nent
   /ˈɛmənənt/ Show Spelled[em-uh-nuhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
high in station, rank, or repute; prominent; distinguished: eminent statesmen.

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.[

How do you define eminent Geoff?
 
Last edited:
Well, I usually refrain from calling Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and now Syed Maududi "eminent".

I also note again that your moment of shared Zen with Oberst Maudoodi is about a concept on basis of which he happily create an Islamic state replete with the persecution of non-Muslims. Which is troubling.

Ok. Sorry, but I have to ask: who is it you think you're fooling? Signal?
 
Die Gedanken sind frie Geoff.

And I'm not fooling anyone, merely giving you the rope with which you proceed to hang yourself.

Do pick a statement from post 205 that you find particularly abhorrent, now there is a dear
 
Die Gedanken sind frie Geoff.

And I'm not fooling anyone, merely giving you the rope with which you proceed to hang yourself.

Do pick a statement from post 205 that you find particularly abhorrent, now there is a dear

That's "frei".

Please do demonstrate where pointing out your questionable citation of a known reactionary religious bigot in support of the use of a pejorative to different belief groups corresponds to me hanging myself. There's a dear.

And as for your new clinging post: I'm pretty sure I could find ol' Pat having a similarly innocuous thought or two on a good day. Dunked.

Seriously: do you get tired of the disingenuousness of your arguments and the specious way you carry them on?
 
So which one of his statements in post 205 do you disagree with?

Because I'll repeat here, I agree with all of his statements in that post. ALL OF THEM.

Would you like to debate any of the arguments?
 
Oh, I think it might be this one:

These are the marks of the borders of Islam. As to those who are within these borders, we are commanded to treat them as Muslims. No one has the right to expel them from the community. As to those who have gone outside these borders, we must deal with them as required by Islamic teachings. In neither case are we empowered to judge what is in the heart.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/takfir.htm

Gawd. "Deal with those who have gone beyond the borders of Islam". Sounds ominous, doesn't it? What's he planning to do? Could it be in any way related to

Popular Islamist author Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi argued that verses [Qur'an 9:11] of the Qur'an sanction death for apostasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
 
Hey, check this out: he also is condensing the idea of "kafir" and "wrong-doer". :eek:

Then these servants of God (may God forgive them) gave so much importance to their own invented side-issues that they made them the criteria for faith, and on the basis of these they tore Islam to pieces, and made numerous sects, each sect calling every other as kafir, wrong-doer, misguided, doomed to hell, and God knows what.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/takfir.htm

It's...whut's them word..."indicative", doncha think?
 
Oh, I think it might be this one:



Gawd. "Deal with those who have gone beyond the borders of Islam". Sounds ominous, doesn't it? What's he planning to do? Could it be in any way related to

You oppose this?

As to those who have gone outside these borders, we must deal with them as required by Islamic teachings. In neither case are we empowered to judge what is in the heart.

You think we are empowered to look into the hearts of people and determine their faith?
 
Still, it's only outward signs that Maududi's interested in, if we're to infer anything from this citation he gives:

The Holy Prophet said:

“Woe to you! Who on earth is more obliged to fear God than me!”​

Khalid Ibn Walid was present. He said:

“Messenger of Allah, should I not kill him?”​

The Holy Prophet said:

“No, perhaps he says his prayers.”​

Khalid said:

“Many are they who say their prayers, but do not have in their hearts what they say with their tongues.”​

The Holy Prophet said:

“I have not been commanded to open up the hearts of people or to cut open their insides.”​

He's interesting (in a sick kind of way) in that he only seems to be interested from a legal perspective in adherence to Islam as an expression of belonging: not to a state, but to the community. The sick part - which he appears to share with Mohammed himself if there's anything to that citation - is that he'll gladly kill you for disagreeing, which is in line with the part I mentioned above.

Aber Gedanken - und nur Gedanken - sind immer frei! :D
 
Still, it's only outward signs that Maududi's interested in, if we're to infer anything from this citation he gives:



He's interesting (in a sick kind of way) in that he only seems to be interested from a legal perspective in adherence to Islam as an expression of belonging: not to a state, but to the community. The sick part - which he appears to share with Mohammed himself if there's anything to that citation - is that he'll gladly kill you for disagreeing, which is in line with the part I mentioned above.

Aber Gedanken - und nur Gedanken - sind immer frei! :D
Are we still talking about post 205 and those opinions of his which I agree with or are you off on your own tangent which has nothing to do with my response to quinnsong again?

You realise that unless he personally met the Prophet he is quoting a hadith - which is what religious clerics do? As opposed to his OWN WORDS in Fitna-e-Takfir?
 
Last edited:
You oppose this?

Do I oppose dealing with people who leave Islam. And since you're defending Mawdudi, this means: do I oppose killing people for leaving Islam?

Well, shit: yes, I think I do.

You think we are empowered to look into the hearts of people and determine their faith?

I think I'm happier imagining that you were empowered to determine nothing at all, so I could actually partway agree with this sentence. Of course, the ones around it are a little more troublesome. Don't you agree?
 
Are we still talking about post 205 and those opinions of his which I agree with or are you off on your own tangent which has nothing to do with my response to quinnsong again?

Oh, I'm sorry: I thought you weren't going to defend the opinions of those you didn't agree with. Yet you defended:

These are the marks of the borders of Islam. As to those who are within these borders, we are commanded to treat them as Muslims. No one has the right to expel them from the community. As to those who have gone outside these borders, we must deal with them as required by Islamic teachings. In neither case are we empowered to judge what is in the heart.

You can say you didn't, if you like: but you avoided it, rather than refuting any sympathy for it outright, so too late.
 
Oh, I'm sorry: I thought you weren't going to defend the opinions of those you didn't agree with. Yet you defended:



You can say you didn't, if you like: but you avoided it, rather than refuting any sympathy for it outright, so too late.

Too late for what? Agreeing with his opinion in Fitna-e-Takfir? Sorry, still agreeing here. Still agree with ALL statements in post 205. Now what?
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Too late for what? Agreeing with his opinion in Fitna-e-Takfir? Sorry, still agreeing here.

And thus, your ultimate opinion can be rapidly concluded.

Thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top