Sy Hersh has been one of the foremost investigative journalist in America for the past 25 years. This revelation is a whammy, imagine if the script were turned, and a Muslim nation’s army was being accused of being run by “Jihadists.” We would never hear the end of it. Can we now blame Christianity for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Seymour Hersh: Military Branch Being Run By ‘Crusaders’
The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh alleged in a speech in Qatar that key branches of the U.S. military are being led by Christian fundamentalist “crusaders” who are determined to “turn mosques into cathedrals.”
Hersh was speaking at the Doha campus of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service earlier this week. He made the comments while discussing a forthcoming book he is writing. A writer for Foreign Policy magazine attended the event and reported his remarks.
“What I’m really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, radicals if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over,” Hersh said.
He said that the attitude that “pervades” a large portion of the Joint Special Operations Command, which is part of the military’s special forces branch and which has carried out secret missions to kill American targets, is one that supports “[changing] mosques into cathedrals.”
Hersh also said that Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC before his tenure as the top general in Afghanistan, as well as his successor and many other JSOC members, “are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta.” Blake Hounsell, the reporter for Foreign Policy, speculated that Hersh may have been referring to the Sovereign Order of Malta, a Catholic organization.
“Many of them are members of Opus Dei,” Hersh said. “They do see what they’re doing…it’s a crusade, literally. They see themselves as the protectors of the Christians. They’re protecting them from the Muslims [as in] the 13th century. And this is their function.”
He also criticized President Obama, saying, “Just when we needed an angry black man, we didn’t get one.”
The Washington Post asked Hersh about his comments after getting a denial from McChrystal that he was a part of the Knights of Malta.
“I’m comfortable with the idea that there is a great deal of fundamentalism in JSOC,” Hersh said. “It’s growing and it’s empirical…there is an incredible strain of Christian fundamentalism, not just Catholic, that’s part of the military.” He said the “angry black man” comment was a joke which the audience laughed at.
The Post also talked to New Yorker editor David Remnick, who said, “Sy is one of the greatest reporters the country has ever known, and that is all I need to know about him.”
January 25th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
This revelation is a whammy, imagine if the script were turned
Uh, if the script were reversed, we’d see feature articles of this ‘loon’ on this site and every other far left blog out there.
But since the moonbat is talking of Christianity, every Leftist will go to bat for him.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
LOL, I knew that Bob was going to interject himself on this thread. Crusaders, Leftists, Muslims…it was all too much for him to handle.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Let us understand something…
European occupation, no matter where is has been, has always used Christianity as a ‘righteous cause’ and a weapon of ‘assimilation’.
Look at the Americas as a good example. Notice all of the indiginous populations, languages and cultures lost because of ‘assimilation’ policies based on Christianity.
The only difference in Afganistan now is, the missionaries are the ones wearing the uniforms and holding the flags. Christianity is now ‘state sponsered’
January 25th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Yes! Glad LW posted this article. Here’s some more interesting articles and a video you guys could probably add to the article:
Bush believed the Gog and Magog was in Iraq so that’s why he invaded it as said by Jacques Chirac aka former PRIME MINISTER OF FRANCE:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
Secret bible verses on US military guns:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794
And my favorite, Iraq war briefings headlined biblical quotes:
January 25th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
I heard Christians eat babies.
And are pedophiles.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Far left? I don’t think this blog partakes in an outdated political naming system based on where people used to sit in the Estates General during and prior to the French Revolution… I’m certainly not ‘left wing’, nor are many others.
Anyway, if this were on the other foot, then yes, of course they would be featured here because if somehow less than 1% of the US Military were running it like that, it would be laughable. Just as people like Geller would be running up and down screaming if Muslims were forcing non-Muslims to go to Muslim concerts, take the Shahadda in front of people, intimidating non-Muslims, inviting fundamentalists to speak, and so forth, all on taxpayer money. But since it’s only Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelicals that do this, it’s all silent on the western front. May I suggest the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, run by a Jewish registered Republican before you accuse of bias, for more details on this:
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
January 25th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
I heard Muslims are conquering the Western world via Cambell Soup. They’ve already taken over Google, apparently. I guess it’s only a matter of time before 1% of the United States’ population destroys a nation of 300 million.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:38 pm
We got Hinze as well now Nassir, two soup brands, NO ONE WILL STOP US!
January 25th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Oh, and I had some of that Campbell’s Soup BTW, ‘soup’ is the wrong word, the appear to have got it mixed up with ‘jelly’ judging by the difficulty I had coaxing the stuff out of the tin.
January 25th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
“I heard Christians eat babies.”
http://badpope.com/blog/media/blogs/photos/pope%20eat.jpg
January 25th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Now the question is…is Barack Obama a Christian?
http://barackobamaeatsbabies.com/
January 25th, 2011 at 8:21 pm
The real fact of the matter is, for all of the right’s assertion that Jihadists are at the brink of taking over the west, the reality is the west is continuing an aggressive war against Muslim lands.
*Who occupies and oppresses Palestine? (Hint: a nation that is supported by another nation’s billions and unquestioned support.)
*Who occupies Iraq, and killed around 100,000 innocent people, and failed to office security after destroying the country’s infrastructure? Who did this based upon false claims of WMDs?
*Who occupies Afghanistan and supports a corrupt and unpopular regime?
*Who props up corrupt Arab regimes in Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia? (Hint: Al-Queda HATES these governments, even the Saudis who appear to have, in some ways, similar theology.)
*Who uses military drones to kill “suspected terrorists” in another nation and doesn’t weep a single tear for the “collateral damage”?
Is “Islamic” terrorism a threat? Perhaps, though technically there is very little ” Islamic” about killing innocent civilians. It’s clear that there are some very, very bad people–like bin Laden–who have caused and wish to continue to cause great damage to my country. But I also recognize that a “Christian” nation has created orders of magnitude greater innocent casualties in there (largely ineffective) response to terrorists than the terrorists ever caused to us.
And there is a far, far greater danger of “Christian” fundamentalists imposing their vision on America than Frank Gaffney’s boogyman “stealth Jihadists.”. Indeed, in many ways, they already HAVE.
January 25th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Don’t like it so much when the shoes on the other foot do you bob? I knew you’d be in here crying hypocrite. Of course hersch was only stating a fact about Christian fundamentalists in the military, people should be aware of it. I didnt see any hateful lies about Christianity like you repeatedly tell about Islam.
January 25th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
European occupation, no matter where is has been, has always used Christianity as a ‘righteous cause’ and a weapon of ‘assimilation’.
Happy to compare it Islam being used by Muslim majority nations to invade and occupy other nations.
Or, we can go to the heart of the matter and look at the texts and teachings of Christianity and Islam to see which religion advocates perpetual holy war against non-believers?
Look at the Americas as a good example. Notice all of the indiginous populations, languages and cultures lost because of ‘assimilation’ policies based on Christianity.
Yes, because English is a Christian language. Boy, aren’t you smart.
Anyways, I’m sure Arabic was the native language for the people of North Africa prior to the Arab conquests.
The only difference in Afganistan now is, the missionaries are the ones wearing the uniforms and holding the flags. Christianity is now ‘state sponsered’
Yeah, sure it is. That’s why the US military confiscated private property, Bibles, and burned them.
Oh wait, they did that so the Brain Trust over on LW wouldn’t figure out their plans to convert Afghanistan into a Christian republic.
Funny how none of the butt-hurt members have as yet taken issue with your comments.
Proves more and more the actual mission of this rag you call a site.
Don’t like it so much when the shoes on the other foot do you bob?
No, I’m pointing out the stupidity of you and the other members on here.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Just look at him rage! Good job Daniel, you really hit a nerve there. Say one bad thing about European Christian imperialism and he’ll start spazzing.
Funny how none of the butt-hurt members…
Projection much?
January 25th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Who occupies Iraq, and killed around 100,000 innocent people
Iraqi terrorists carried out the bulk of the killings in Iraq.
Who occupies and oppresses Palestine?
I don’t know, who? I know the UN created the state of Israel and on the day of its creation, the Arab nations attempted to drive the Jews into the sea.
They failed. And failed some more. Ever since then, Muslim supremacists and Leftist tools have attempted to monopolize all information and discussion concerning world events involving Muslims.
The current situation is that many are sorting truth from fiction. So we have Spencer et al addressing the media spin head on.
But I also recognize that a “Christian” nation has created orders of magnitude greater innocent casualties in there (largely ineffective) response to terrorists than the terrorists ever caused to us.
Orders of magnitude? So you’re willing to claim the US has 1,000 fold as many people than Muslim terrorists have in the past decade?
And what of Muslim majority nations such as Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc.,?
Why doesn’t anyone compare the number of Pakistani civilians killed by the Pakistani government in the past decade to the number killed by the Pakistani Taliban?
Why are these false analogies only applied to the US?
January 25th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
So we have Spencer et al addressing the media spin head on.
Oh, now I see where you’re coming from.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/04/robert-spencer-wanna-be-conquistador/
January 25th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Self determination of the natives against occupiers seems like a noble effort, indeed.
Of course, support for freedom fighters ends when the fighters for freedom are non-Muslim and the occupier Muslim.
Interesting that.
January 26th, 2011 at 1:42 am
European occupation, no matter where is has been, has always used Christianity as a ‘righteous cause’ and a weapon of ‘assimilation’.
Happy to compare it Islam being used by Muslim majority nations to invade and occupy other nations.
Or, we can go to the heart of the matter and look at the texts and teachings of Christianity and Islam to see which religion advocates perpetual holy war against non-believers?
!!!!!!!!!!!ARGUING WITH YOU OVER TEXT JB WILL BE A FUTILE EFFORT BECAUSE EVEN IF IT SAYS THE SKY IS BLUE YOU WILL ARGU IT SAYS SKY IS RED… YOU REALLY ARE NOT HERE TO LEARN OR DISCUESS U DON’T HAVE A REASON TO BE HERE OTHER THEN TROLL!!!!!!!
The only difference in Afganistan now is, the missionaries are the ones wearing the uniforms and holding the flags. Christianity is now ‘state sponsered’
Yeah, sure it is. That’s why the US military confiscated private property, Bibles, and burned them.
Oh wait, they did that so the Brain Trust over on LW wouldn’t figure out their plans to convert Afghanistan into a Christian republic.
Funny how none of the butt-hurt members have as yet taken issue with your comments.
Proves more and more the actual mission of this rag you call a site.
!!!!! YOU DID READ THIS ARTICLE CORRECT HOW EVENGELICALS ARE RUNNING THE MILITARY OR MAYBE “May, Al-Jazeera broadcast clips filmed in 2008 showing stacks of Bibles translated into Pashto and Dari at the U.S. air base in Bagram and featuring the chief of U.S. military chaplains in Afghanistan, Lt. Col. Gary Hensley, telling soldiers to “hunt people for Jesus.”” “Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), says this is not the case. According to the group’s president, Mikey Weinstein, a cadre of 40 U.S. chaplains took part in a 2003 project to distribute 2.4 million Arabic-language Bibles in Iraq.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/18/christian-soldiers.htm
Or maybe about William Boykin is a born-again Christian, who has cast the “War on Terror” in Biblical terms
l!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t like it so much when the shoes on the other foot do you bob?
No, I’m pointing out the stupidity of you and the other members on here.
!!!!!!! TO EASY BOB I WON’t GO THERE
January 26th, 2011 at 2:20 am
“Self determination of the natives against occupiers seems like a noble effort, indeed.”
So you support the Palestinian cause as well as the efforts of freedom fighters who liberated Muslim lands from the British Empire.
Oh and you must then support the right of the Native Americans to fight against the US government and regain their land.
Spencer is an idiot. The 150 mln people in Turkey are not invaders or occupiers but many are descendants of those who converted, yet he wants them all to be removed by military action and “mass sterilisation” and “voluntary euthanasia programmes”.
January 26th, 2011 at 2:54 am
@JihadBob
Your silence on the featured article tells me you can’t defend your boss Horowitz and his epigones’ incessant hatred and slandering of Muslims. You seem to carefully pick your battles.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:26 am
@JihadBob
“I don’t know, who? I know the UN created the state of Israel and on the day of its creation, the Arab nations attempted to drive the Jews into the sea.
They failed. And failed some more. Ever since then, Muslim supremacists and Leftist tools have attempted to monopolize all information and discussion concerning world events involving Muslims.”
Are you that retarded? Do you ever bother reading the news, or maybe it just escaped ur notice that Rabbis issuing rulings to stop Jews selling to Arabs & what the punishment is for those that do? Maybe you missed the countless articles about settler thugs burning down Palestinian Olive trees and uprooting them and pelting them with stones as they go to harvest.
You beloved Israel’s crimes are there for the whole world to see. You can blame islamic supremacists and leftists all you like – the truth is there, the plain for the world to see.
You retards will exterminate the muslims, then you’ll move on to the Liberals, then the foreigners residing in your country and then basically anyone who opposes your fascist ideology.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:28 am
Your silence on the featured article tells me you can’t defend your boss Horowitz and his epigones’ incessant hatred and slandering of Muslims. You seem to carefully pick your battles.
That Hersh is a loon?
No need.
Anyone who doesn’t drink the kool-aid can dismiss his conspiracy theories for what they are.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:02 am
What a tool you are bob. I suppose the MRFF is lying about the christian fundamentalists in the military. Or how about the soldiers being forced to take spirgtuality tests and then having to be counciled by someone who tells them theyll go to hell if they dont accept a certaim brand of christianity, are they liars as well?
January 26th, 2011 at 10:17 am
“perpetual holy war against non-believers?”
Sure. Explains why 1.5 billion Muslims are killing non-believes 24/7 and why numerous Muslim countries have actually fought alongside non-Muslim countries against common threats.
“Yes, because English is a Christian language. Boy, aren’t you smart.
Anyways, I’m sure Arabic was the native language for the people of North Africa prior to the Arab conquests.”
English is the language of the Church of England. I’m sure English was the language of the Native Americans prior to the stealth crusade and often open crusade by Christian settlers.
By the way, Arabs conquered my land a very long time ago and I can’t speak Arabic and neither do I know of anyone in Pakistan who does. Ich sprechen sie Urdu, which is derived mostly from Persian.
“Happy to compare it Islam being used by Muslim majority nations to invade and occupy other nations.”
Go for it. Like I said, all terrorists need to legitimise their terrorism by using religious terminology. e.g. Saddam Hussein often referring to his proposed attack on Israel as being holy, George Bush’s ‘crusade’, him trying to sell the idea of War on Iraq to the French by talking about “Gog and Magog” coming out of the Middle East, and of course Osama’s War on the West.
“I know the UN created the state of Israel and on the day of its creation, the Arab nations attempted to drive the Jews into the sea.”
What do you expect. Obviously war is wrong but what would happen if Muslims mass immigrated to Europe then declared independence and created Eurabia? Oops. Too late
“Muslim supremacists and Leftist tools have attempted to monopolize all information and discussion concerning world events involving Muslims.”
Ah yes. That mythical Leftist-Mooslim alliance. Would be more believable if Osama Bin Laden didn’t hate socialism and didn’t call all socialists “infidels”.
“That Hersh is a loon?”
This isn’t the featured article. How can you troll this site for so long and still not know the layout of the site.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:25 am
@JihadBob
You seem to have no problem drinking the anti-Muslim Koolaid. You cannot respond meaningfully to the featured Loonwatch article:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/david-horowitz%E2%80%99s-blog-spouting-propaganda-as-usual-part-2/
January 26th, 2011 at 10:41 am
JihadBob Says:
“January 25th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Who occupies Iraq, and killed around 100,000 innocent people
Iraqi terrorists carried out the bulk of the killings in Iraq.”
Even if I accepted this claim (which I do not), the “Iraqi Terrorists” only operated after the US destroyed the Iraqi government and utterly failed to provide proper security for the civilian population. As occupiers, it was the US who was responsible for maintaining order (that’s international law, Bob). We failed miserably. We let the country descend into chaos because we were not equipped to deal with The occupation.
Sure, Sadaam was brtual. But the anarchy created by the invasion was worse. The fact is that the majority of these people would still be alive today if we hadn’t invaded. Might some have been killed by Sadaam’s brutality? Sure…but keep in mind that WE OURSELVES indulged in torture and deliberately looked the other way when our Iraqi puppet government tortured as well.
“Who occupies and oppresses Palestine?
I don’t know, who? I know the UN created the state of Israel and on the day of its creation, the Arab nations attempted to drive the Jews into the sea.
They failed. And failed some more. Ever since then, Muslim supremacists and Leftist tools have attempted to monopolize all information and discussion concerning world events involving Muslims.”
Learn a little history, Bob. The Arab nations DID NOT make a serious attempt to liberate Palestine in ’48. The most powerful Arab military at that time, that of Jordan, was make a side deal with the Israelis to get the West Bank, and didn’t interfere with Israel until they attempted to betray that agreement and take the West Bank for themselves.
The other Arab nations sent the merest tokens of forces, and held back the vast majority of their military. They didn’t give a damn about Palestine, either. Nor do they now.
“The current situation is that many are sorting truth from fiction. So we have Spencer et al addressing the media spin head on.”
Riiiiight…Spencer and fellow bigots alone have “the TRUTH”, that “Librul media bias” canard is a little old.
“But I also recognize that a “Christian” nation has created orders of magnitude greater innocent casualties in there (largely ineffective) response to terrorists than the terrorists ever caused to us.
Orders of magnitude? So you’re willing to claim the US has 1,000 fold as many people than Muslim terrorists have in the past decade?”
Keep in mind I am speaking specifically of “a ‘Christian’ nation”, namely, the USA. I’m not counting the (largely Muslim) victims of “Islamic” terrorists overseas. On 9/11, we lost around 3,000 innocent people. Add other victims from other massacres and you come up with less than 4,000 total.
An “order of magnitude” is 10 x as much. If we are responsible for 100,000 Iraqi deaths–and we are–that’s 25 times as much. And even if “the vast majority” of Iraqi civilian deaths are “not our fault”, a mere 4% would have paid back for 9/11. That is, if you assume that it’s moral to be attacking a nation on falsified evidence, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and killing thousands of their innocent civilians, is justified because of what other very evil people did to us.
“And what of Muslim majority nations such as Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc.,
Why doesn’t anyone compare the number of Pakistani civilians killed by the Pakistani government in the past decade to the number killed by the Pakistani Taliban?”
Oh, those governments are often evil and undemocratic as well. I’ll criticize them as well. But it’s clearly tu quoque to assume that one oppressive and corrupt government’s actions make our actions somehow ok. I thought we were better than that.
“Why are these false analogies only applied to the US?”
They are not “false analogies”; they are indisputable facts. The fact is for the past several hundred years it has been “the Christian west” that has been invading Muslim nations and killing Muslins, not the other way around. And currently, it is the “Christian west” that is occupying Muslim nations, not the other way around.
The USA cannot cry victim. WE have overwhelming military and economic superiority and use (and abuse) it. While undoubtably there are evil Terrorists that must be defeated, our actions are completely asymmetric and are killing a lot of innocents in the process…as well as trampling on our own ideas of liberty and justice as well.
January 26th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Remind me again who’s the one who throws a hissy fit whenever the word Crusade is used in the same sentence as a Christian name, or group (as evidenced by the incoherent spamming of our resident troll today)? Butthurt? Bob seems to suffer from a chronic affliction of projection.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:19 am
I suppose the MRFF is lying about the christian fundamentalists in the military.
Perhaps someone can find Muslim fundamentalists in the Turkish military and a long forgotten ‘investigative’ ‘journalist’ can do a story of Turkey’s attempts to Islamicize the Kurds (not all Kurds are Muslims) in a desperate attempt at staying relevant.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:25 am
Perhaps you can face the facts head on bob, or keep moving the goalposts as you usually do. Why do you have nothing to say about your Catholic friend Mrs. Graas and her steaming irrational hatred of Muslims? Is it because you know Loonwatch is right?
January 26th, 2011 at 11:44 am
JihadBob…
Since you come to this forum to teach Muslims that thier religion is evil, and you ‘support’ Christiandom (whether you are Christian or not doesnt matter for this discussion), can you explain to me why you are not preaching against the ‘wars with no mercy’ within the contents of the Bible you have now?
Tell us how what is written in the Bible isnt as horrid as your personal perception of Islam.
Please join in a civil dialouge and answer a rational question.
January 26th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Nur, it’s hard to have a civilized conversation with JihadBob. He’s made up his mind he is going to hate and demonize Muslims. No enlightening facts or arguments will shake him. He’s not rational.
January 26th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Since you come to this forum to teach Muslims that thier religion is evil, and you ‘support’ Christiandom (whether you are Christian or not doesnt matter for this discussion), can you explain to me why you are not preaching against the ‘wars with no mercy’ within the contents of the Bible you have now?
I’ve been happy to compare Christian teachings on warfare to Islamic for a long time now.
Some members may recall when I asked for Muslim jurists who advocated pacifism during the classical period so we could compare what Christian Fathers had taught.
Disappointingly, none were provided.
January 26th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
At least Bob is showing his true colors by openly supporting ethnically cleansing Turkey of its Muslim population. I also recall that he believes Jerusalem belongs to Western European Christians instead of Middle Easterners. He probably holds similar views regarding other regions populated mostly by Muslim, i.e. he believes Muslims should be killed and replaced with Christians.
I’ve been happy to compare Christian teachings on warfare to Islamic for a long time now.
Speaking of which, Dawood has been waiting for you to prove your baseless assertions on the subject of jihad for a long time now. It seems that you ran away when you realized that, unlike on JihadWatch and AtlasShrugs, facts matter. Your amazingly poor performance on the [Lesley Hazelton] thread also highlights the weakness of your position.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/muslims-and-christians-condemn-baghdad-church-massacre/#comment-37591
Some members may recall when I asked for Muslim jurists who advocated pacifism during the classical period so we could compare what Christian Fathers had taught.
Disappointingly, none were provided.
Actually, numerous examples of pacifist Muslims were provided. Realizing it wasn’t working out to well, you changed the criteria and demanded that only medieval Muslims jurists be accepted as legitimate examples. By the way, some Ibn Taymiyya fans regard Al-Ghazali as a pacifist.
January 26th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
“Some members may recall when I asked for Muslim jurists who advocated pacifism during the classical period so we could compare what Christian Fathers had taught.”
I recall you asking for Muslim pacifists, not necessarily from the “classical period” (whatever that is). I mentioned a few. Abdul Ghaffar Khan is a famous example.
If you insist on someone from long ago then I can suggest Jalal ad-din Rumi, famous poet and philosopher from Turkey.
The existence of pacifists in Christianity does not automatically make it a peaceful religion. Many wars have also been fought in its name. I still cannot see the point you are trying to make by comparing Muslim pacifists and Christian pacifists.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
I’ve been happy to compare Christian teachings on warfare to Islamic for a long time now.
Great! Let’s compare 1 Samuel to the Muwatta (hadith):
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” [1 Samuel 15:3]
“Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”
[Muwatta, Book 21, Number 21.3.10]
January 26th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
If you insist on someone from long ago then I can suggest Jalal ad-din Rumi, famous poet and philosopher from Turkey.
Actually, Rumi isn’t a pacifist. Someone was helpful enough to provide a quote from Rumi speaking of the virtues of violent Jihad.
I suppose though I may have to qualify the meaning of pacifism. Pacifism is the complete rejection of violence. Even if we’re to allow violence in the form of self-defense (since that’s what this discussion will inevitably lead to), I am still unaware of a single classical Muslim jurist who advocated *only* defensive Jihad and condemned forms of offensive fighting against non-Muslims.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Great! Let’s compare 1 Samuel to the Muwatta (hadith):
You have a long way to go if quoting a specific, non-binding passage from the Bible is your idea of addressing the teachings of Christian laws regarding warfare, grasshopper.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
“One of Islam’s most famous and influential philosophers was Al-Ghazali, a pacifist.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=c8-xhCDuZJkC&pg=PA192&dq=al-ghazali+pacifist&hl=en&ei=-ZpATf-gGo2WsgOLy632CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=al-ghazali%20pacifist&f=false
January 26th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I am still unaware of a single classical Muslim jurist who advocated *only* defensive Jihad and condemned forms of offensive fighting against non-Muslims.
Again, your ignorance is on full display for the world to see. Al-Thawri is an eight century Muslim jurist who believed that only defensive jihad was justified.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“Someone was helpful enough to provide a quote from Rumi speaking of the virtues of violent Jihad.”
I think that someone was me. He was extolling the virtues of inner Jihad over violent Jihad.
“The lion who breaks the enemy’s ranks is a minor hero compared to the lion who overcomes himself.”
Wow. Stealth Jihad from the Middle Ages. Obviously, Rumi said that to trick the Dhimmis into thinking Islam is a “religion of peace”.
Rumi is remembered by many as a pacifist. The Peace Abbey in Massachussets, USA lists him on their Pacifist memorial alongside Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
JahilBob; non-binding passage from the Bible
According to Pslams 119:160, “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal”
Since the laws are eternal, they are binding at all times. Thus, all the laws of the Old Testament, including the brutal ones you are clearly ashamed of, are binding. There are two ways in which you escape from this predicament. One, you can say that the verse only refers to the “righteous” injunctions of the Old Testament specifically, and not the murderous ones. However, in doing so, you will be condemning Yahweh of immorality. Second, you can insist that the laws are not eternal and that Pslams 119:160 is most likely an interpolation. Come to think of it, the only way you can escape this predicament is by falling into another predicament.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“Pacifism is the complete rejection of violence.”
As usual, JihadBob is narrowing down the conditions for his “challenges”.
First it was a Muslim pacifist, then he had to be classical, and now he has to be completely against violence, not even in defence or extreme circumstances.
If we use that definition of pacifism that you have given then Jesus isn’t a pacifist.
“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
Overthrew the tables? Cast out the moneychangers? That’s not very pacifistic. Seems quite violent to destroy their businesses and kick them out of the Temple. Of course, as a Muslim I think it’s justified but according to your definition of pacifism, this just isn’t good enough even though he renounced violence on numerous occasions (apart from his “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword” quote, which Spencer does a poor job of justifying in his book).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CastingoutMoneyChangers.jpg
January 26th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
IbnAbu Talib, JihadBob will respond with the usual “well Christians don’t listen to the violent parts of the Old Testament anymore when the New Testament of peace has replaced it”.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/fischer-god-honors-those-who-inflict-massive-casualties-because-christianity-is-not-a-religion-of-pacifism/
He explicitly justifies war if it is for a good reason with “massive casualties” using the Old Testament. Must be another misunderstander of the “religion of peace”.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I’ve been happy to compare Christian teachings on warfare to Islamic for a long time now.
Me too, Bob. Let’s begin. In his book, The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, the Canadian historian, Norman Cantor, writes:
“In the early fifth century, the most prominent of the Latin Church Fathers, St. Augustine of Hippo, justified the shedding of blood on the behalf of Christ, citing Christ’s words to his immediate disciples: “Compel them to come in.” In the early Middle Ages, the use of violence to protect the Cross and defeat, convert, or obliterate pagans and other non-Christians was commonly justified by bishops, leading to such incidents as Emperor Charlemagne’s massacre of the heathen Saxons at the end of the eight century. The Song of Roland, the French nobility’s favorite epic, written around 1100, accepts religious war against Muslims in Spain as an inevitable and righteous course of action. Fully half of the poem is devoted to detailed accounts of war to the death between Christian and Muslims, who are depicted as Satanic.”
Unlike medieval Islamic jurists, the Papacy didn’t have any problem with killing civilians during wartime. In fact, those who killed civilians whilst on a crusade would be forgiven of their sins, including ones committed before the crusade. That Islam prohibited the slaughtering of noncombatants during wartime is one of the many holes in Robert Spencer’s argument. This fact is quite well-known in the Muslim world, and the impossibility of Spencer’s argument becomes only more obvious the more one learns about Islam and jihad.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Bob, I cited a medieval Muslim theologian who was a pacifist as well as classical jurist who believed that only defensive jihad was justifed–al-Ghazali and al-Thawri, respectively.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
According to Pslams 119:160, “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal”
A descriptive passage is not a law.
Try again, grasshopper.
January 26th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“One of Islam’s most famous and influential philosophers was Al-Ghazali, a pacifist.”
That’s pretty funny, have any other jokes for today?
January 26th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
First it was a Muslim pacifist, then he had to be classical, and now he has to be completely against violence, not even in defence or extreme circumstances.
Uh, non-violence in all situations IS the definition of pacifism.
January 26th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
What a coincidence:
Sufi Jihad?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/sufi_jihad.html
With quotes from Ghazali:
Al—Ghazali, a Sufi orthodox Muslim, and follower of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, wrote this about jihad war and the treatment of the vanquished non—Muslim dhimmi peoples, in the Wadjiz: [4]
[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year…one may use a catapult against them [non—Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…If a person of the Ahl� al—Kitab [People of The Book — primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need…
[T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non—Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [—work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue….��
January 26th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Hahaha. Andrew Bostom is guilty of academic deceit. Just shows how low the loons will go in order to demonize Muslims.
“However, alongside this negative passage several more positive ones can be set and it is worth pointing out that in the above-cited text, Al-Ghazali was outlining Shafi’s legal tradition, not stating his own views. The dominant legal device was taqlid (imitation), not innovation.”
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Al-Ghazali
The selectively quoted passage by Andrew Bostom contradicts al-Ghazali’s other writings on jihad that actually reflected his opinions. I’m pretty sure Shaybani’s Siyar does the same thing (i.e. give other views on various subjects like jihad). Try again, grasshopper.
January 26th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Andrew Bostom also seems to suggest that the Turks were influenced by the Shafi’i view jihad (as if trying to place some blame on al-Ghazali’s outline). In reality, the Turks were Hanafis, just like the Abbassids and Mughals.
January 26th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
What was that? Did you quote a passage from Ghazali dissociating from the concept of offensive Jihad or of any form of martial Jihad?
January 26th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“Uh, non-violence in all situations IS the definition of pacifism.”
So Jesus is not a pacifist. Nice to know.
January 26th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Hopefully someone will do something about Bostom’s academic deceit. I do remember how Dawood and Jack Cope posted a rebuttal of “Translating Jihad” and its shoddy and dishonest translations. Your hate site disallowed commenting after that.
Did you quote a passage from Ghazali dissociating from the concept of offensive Jihad or of any form of martial Jihad?
Al-Ghazali is pretty clear on his interpretation of jihad. Not a word of violence mentioned. Jesus wouldn’t be pacifist according to your ever-changing definition of pacifism.
http://www.sunnah.org/tasawwuf/jihad002.html
January 26th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Unless Jihadbob is a pacificst, as he defined the term, then is he arguing that Christians who incorrectly believe in pacifism are better than Muslims who correctly believe that sometimes violence is justified? Is he saying that if a Christian is mistaken it is better than a Muslim being correct?
January 26th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Bob is definitely not a pacifist. He calls people who want to ethnically cleanse Turkey of its Muslims, “freedom fighters”.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/seymour-hersh-military-branch-being-run-by-crusaders/#comment-53144
January 26th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
“He calls people who want to ethnically cleanse Turkey of its Muslims, “freedom fighters”.”
That is especially worrying because those “freedom fighters” want to make use of “mass sterilisation via sexual segregation” as well as “voluntary euthanasia programmes” to decrease the population of Muslims to make them easier to resettle. JihadBob’s response: ” I am happy to compare the tactics of these “freedom fighters” to those of Muslim terrorists”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/04/robert-spencer-wanna-be-conquistador/
January 26th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
NassirH: Thanks for your comments.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Anyone who knows anything about al-Ghazali knows that he investigated many schools of thought[philosophical, theological,mystical] and this is reflected in his writings. One who is aware of his writings and is not a cherry-picker or a deceiver will see this evolution, and realize that al-Ghazali became a Sufi who rejected violence. Nice try Jahil Bob. And it was also a nice try, attempting to control the terms of debate and set forth pacifism as superior to anything else.
i don’t think i can say it enough, don’t let non-Muslims, especially loons, monopolize the terms of debate on Islam. We have already seen them redefine “jihad” and “Shari’ah”. They are in the process of twisting the meaning of “moderate” to preclude the possibility of a “Moderate Islam”. Now we have Jahil Bob, despite the existence of Muslim pacifists, suggesting that lack of pacifism=violent religion. And NassirH thanks for calling out Jahil Bob for quoting someone very guilty of academic deceit such as Bostom
Allahu A’lam
January 26th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
—————-
Al-Ghazali wrote at least three books on the individual rulings or the substantive law (furu’) of the Shafi’ite school, the most voluminous being a book with the title The Extended [Al-Basit]. This large work and the less extensive Middle One [Al-Wasit fi al-Madhhab] , which became the subject of Muhammad ibn Yahya’s commentary, were written early in al-Ghazali’s life and are mentioned in books that he composed soon after 488/1095. The shortest of al-Ghazali’s books on applied law, The Succinct One (al-Wajiz [fi Fiqh al-Imam al-Shafi'i, to give its full title]), was completed in the year 495/1101 while he was teaching at his zawiya in Tus. The titles of these three works are inspired by three works of Qur an commentary (tafsir) by the Nishapurian commentator al-Wahidi (d. 468/1076), who lived two generations before al-Ghazali. As in al-Wahidi’s three works, these books represent three set levels of depth (miqdar makhsus) in which the subject is treated, and they do not imply, for instance, that the book The Middle One was composed after the longer and the shorter one. Muhammad ibn Yahya’s commentary, The Comprehensive Book about the Commentary on The Middle One (al-Muhit fi Sharh al-Wasit), is unfortunately lost.
Taken from: Frank E. Griffel, Al-Ghazali’s Philosophical Theology, p. 75
———-
Anyone who knows anything about Shafi’i fiqh knows that it is an abridgement and digest format of the positions taken in the Shafi’i school, used for teaching purposes. It also includes سخةث opinions of Malik, Abu Hanifa and al-Muzni (who was one of al-Shafi’i's students and a scholar in his own right). In that case, it does not go into great detail regarding the evidences for each position, nor the positives and negatives associated with each, nor do such texts show the scholar’s own position. Such texts are teaching tools, to then be opened up by the commentary and super-commentary traditions. One would be better served studying something such as al-Nawawi’s Rawdat al-Talibin wa ‘Umdat al-Muftin, which is a super-commentary of the text in much more detail, published in 8 volumes.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
@Dawood,
Wow @ Imam Nawawi…when I think of what he accomplished, all I can think is, Fa bi ayyi alaaee rabikuma tukadhibaan…and which of the favors of your Lord will you deny…the man was prolific. 8 volumes??
January 26th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Whoops, that should say “it also includes *some* opinions of Malik…”
And I have tried looking for the translation of Al-Wajiz that Bostom cites, and have as yet been unable to find it on any academic database I have access to, so I am assuming it was a personal communique between him and the translator in question.
But looking at the citation does give us a clue:
20. Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi?i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. [English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]
What strikes me straight away is the large number of page numbers. When we look at the “translation” Bostom cites, he uses a number of ellipses in the text (i.e. “…”) to move from one statement to the next. Combining that with the large set of page numbers, we can see that the topic in question was discussed over at least page 186-203, in other words, 17 pages. Bostom’s “quote” does not fill 17 pages of text, so it is immediately suspect.
Knowing as we do that the Ghazali text was reflecting the opinions of his specific school and also mentioning the other schools where applicable, I would imagine that each school’s position was presented and contrasted. I do not have access to the exact text to check, but this is common in these types of juristic texts.
January 26th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Oh that is nothing Averroe’s Ghost.
His commentary on Sahih Muslim is over 18 volumes, and others have written far more. Recently I was looking in the tafsir of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, which was over 30 volumes (a common number, 1 for each juz’), for example. The history books are usually the largest. I have looked into some fatwa collections, such as a famous Maliki text called Al-Mi’yar, which is 12 volumes alone, with 1 extra volume just as an index. And this was written before 1500, collecting thousands of fatwas by hundreds of different muftis and faqihs (over 6,000 at least).
There is an amazing little book written by the late hadith scholar Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda talking about the correct use of time. I forget its exact title, but in it he mentions that if you calculate the number of pages written by al-Nawawi and divide that by his age (he died young), then it means that he was writing on average something like 10 pages per day, since he was born until he died. I forget the exact figure, but it’s simply amazing!
It is very inspirational; I wish I had even just a little of their dedication and focus.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
Okay I’ve found a more recent edition of Ghazali’s Al-Wajiz, and the quote in no way represents the totality of the discussion, which includes variant opinions. It’s heavy stuff over 17 pages of solid text and footnotes.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
@Dawood,
There are so many commentaries. We are really suffering from a dearth of translations.
January 26th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
It also puts into perspective how many varying interpretations, opinions, insights we are missing out on…
January 27th, 2011 at 12:01 am
You have a long way to go if quoting a specific, non-binding passage from the Bible is your idea of addressing the teachings of Christian laws regarding warfare, grasshopper.
What I know is your book says God told his Prophets to kill women and children. Our book says God told his Prophets to protect women and children. You cite passages of the Quran out of context all day long and now you whine to me about citing the Bible wrongly? You are a hypocrite.
January 27th, 2011 at 12:02 am
Most definitely Averroe’s Ghost, and even outside of classical and pre-modern texts, contemporary scholars suffer from lack of translation and exposure in the wider world.
January 27th, 2011 at 12:04 am
@JihadBob
Imam Al-Tabari (popular classical jurist) records: Ibn Abbas said concerning verse 2:190: “Do not kill women, children, old men, or anyone who meets you with peace restraining his hand from fighting. If you did that, then indeed you would have committed transgression.” [Tafsir al-Tabari, verse 2:190]
عن ابن عبـاس: { وَقاتِلُوا فِـي سَبِـيـلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلا تَعْتَدُوا إنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُحِبُّ الـمُعْتَدِينَ } يقول: لا تقتلوا النساء ولا الصبـيان ولا الشيخ الكبـير ولا من ألقـى إلـيكم السلـم وكفّ يده، فإن فعلتـم هذا فقد اعتديتـم
Can you read that black and white statement in Arabic, Bob?
January 27th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Beautiful find Justin.
January 27th, 2011 at 12:14 am
@JihadBob
Narrated Ali: The Prophet said: “After me there will be many differences, so if you have a way to end them in peace, then do it.”
إنه سيكون بعدي اختلاف أو أمر، فإن استطعت أن يكون السلم، فافعل
[Tafsir Ibn Kathir, verse 8:61]
January 27th, 2011 at 12:16 am
Thanks, Dawood.
January 27th, 2011 at 3:36 am
JihadBob: A descriptive passage is not a law.
Did I say Psalms 119:160 is a law?
January 27th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Didn’t see any quotes from al-Ghazali distancing himself from Offensive Jihad warfare.
Maybe if I weren’t IP blocked (again), I would respond to the other comments.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Please respond to my claim regarding Pslams 119:160, JahilBob.
January 27th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
JihadBob: You make it sound like your being IP blocked (though somehow you can still post to tell us you’re IP blocked?) is what stops you from responding to other’s points and specific questions directed at you…
January 27th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
And as for the Ghazali text, it will take a time to do and verify, but hopefully I might be able to help in that regard.
January 27th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Yeah JihadBob. How is it possible for you to complain about being IP banned when you are being allowed to post that comment?
“Didn’t see any quotes from al-Ghazali distancing himself from Offensive Jihad warfare.”
He emphasised the Jihad-Al-Nafs over Offensive Jihad using the hadith:
“And our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) said to
some people who had just returned from the Jihad: ‘Welcome! You have
come from the lesser to the greater Jihad.’ ‘O Emissary of God!’ he was
asked. ‘And what is the greater Jihad ?’ ‘The jihad against the soul,’ he
replied.”
This “spiritual warfare” included “‘Fight[ing] your soul with the swords of self-discipline. These are four: eating little, sleeping briefly, speaking only when necessary, and tolerating all the wrongs done to you by men.”
Since I don’t have access to all of his works and don’t speak Arabic, I can’t help you further. I’m not really sure whether Ghazali was a pacifist but NassirH did give a link from David Churchman, writer of “Why we fight” who concluded that Ghazali was a “pacifist”.
And by the way, you didn’t answer me about Rumi. You said that he was a supporter of violent offensive Jihad yet the creators of the Pacifist Memorial disagree with you as they have included him in it.
All of this depends on your definition of pacifism. The definition that you provided means that even Jesus can’t be considered a pacifist.
January 27th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
JBoob – are you suggesting that some famous Catholic Crusaders (Richard the Lionheart) weren’t cannibals? http://www.opendemocracy.net/jen-paton/europe-and-its-cannibals. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/cannibalism.html
At least, you aren’t angling for a loooony angle “civilized” pagan Roman charge http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm
How about a more recent example Emperor Jean Bedel Bokassa?
http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/dvafricacfrcannibal.html
Keep your hair on Jboob, it’s all tongue in cheek!
January 27th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
If LW didn’t want JahilBob to post, they would have left his comments in moderation and deleted them.
January 27th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
bob, if you can’t respond to comments, man up and say you were wrong. I’ve made mistakes here, I say sorry and move on, correcting them if possible. Don’t whine about ‘IP banning’, heck, you’ve had it happen enough times to you! I wish the IP bans that get slapped on me on JW were so easy to get around…
January 28th, 2011 at 1:59 am
Mosizzle,
“Fight[ing] your soul with the swords of self-discipline. These are four: eating little, sleeping briefly, speaking only when necessary, and tolerating all the wrongs done to you by men.”
Where is this quote from?
Thanks in advance.
January 28th, 2011 at 7:02 am
It’s not worth it, guys. I was typing a rebuttal to JihadBob when I saw his comment on not knowing who is occupying Palestine (I only had to type “Who occupies Palestine?” and the topmost link has an answer). It’s pointless arguing with people so ignorant they don’t even know who is occupying Palestine and won’t even bother with a quick google search to correct that flaw. I mean, he was even given a hint, for crying out loud.
It’s like asking someone over the internet “Who invaded Iraq in 2003?” and have them reply, also over the internet, “I don’t know.”
Well go fucking google it, then!
January 28th, 2011 at 7:41 am
Justin
“Can you read that black and white statement in Arabic, Bob?”
Obviously not otherwise he would not post such rubbish on this site .
Dawood
Yes I agree I thought how can HabibBoob complain he is banned from posting ,by posting to complain? Would it not be easy to answer the questions ? Such a lack of logic I believe is used to avoid answering questions that would reveal his stupidity or falsehoods. Not sure which it is ,maybe he could answer and we have a vote which it is ?
-
January 28th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Did I say Psalms 119:160 is a law?
I understand that, but the passage is only referring to prescriptive passages – ie., Law.
That’s why my response to your citation of this passage in a conversation discussing the descriptive passages of the Bible (compared to the prescriptive passages in the Koran) was directed to you that way.
January 28th, 2011 at 11:41 am
“And our Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) said to
some people who had just returned from the Jihad: ‘Welcome! You have
come from the lesser to the greater Jihad.’ ‘O Emissary of God!’ he was
asked. ‘And what is the greater Jihad ?’ ‘The jihad against the soul,’ he
replied.”
That’s absurd reasoning you’re using.
If I can find a quote of a General or famous warrior who compared his love for wine or women to battles and fighting – and said former were greater than the latter – does that mean our General/warrior was some pacifist because he said wine is like a brilliant martial engagement, but much better?
January 28th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Loon fail.
All you asked for was evidence that Al-Ghazali distanced himself from Offensive Jihad. And I gave it. He emphasised Jihad on the Nafs (one’s own desires) over all other forms of violent jihad, not just offensive jihad. This is further expressed when he describes the spiritual warfare (Jihad al-Nafs) as including “‘eating little, sleeping briefly, speaking only when necessary, and tolerating all the wrongs done to you by men.” Tolerating all wrongs done to you by men? Sounds like a violent jihadi
“That’s absurd reasoning you’re using.”
No, that is absurd reasoning that you’re using. What you quoted wasn’t my reasoning it was a Hadith which Al-Ghazali used as evidence of the importance of spiritual warfare over violent warfare. Hence by doing so Al-Ghazali did indeed “distance himself from Offensive Jihad” which is what you asked. You asked for evidence he did so and I gave it.
January 28th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
JahilBob: I understand that, but the passage is only referring to prescriptive passages – ie., Law.
So you agree these prescriptive laws are binding at all times? You can’t get any more prescriptive than the following!
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
January 29th, 2011 at 12:51 am
I am confused about the “prescriptive laws which are binding at all times”. In the New Testament it says:
‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.’
Jesus is a prophet of Islam. Should the law be “binding at all times” in this case or not?
January 29th, 2011 at 2:51 am
“prescriptive laws which are binding at all times” AKA:
“I am allowed to ‘interpret’ my holy book but you are not allowed to do the same with yours. In that case, *I* will interpret it how I wish and will not extend the same to you r.e. mine.”
Or more simply:
“I am right, you are wrong.”
January 29th, 2011 at 4:19 am
@JihadBob
You ignored it, so I’ll post it again.
Imam Al-Tabari (popular classical jurist) records: Ibn Abbas said concerning verse 2:190: “Do not kill women, children, old men, or anyone who meets you with peace restraining his hand from fighting. If you did that, then indeed you would have committed transgression.” [Tafsir al-Tabari, verse 2:190]
عن ابن عبـاس: { وَقاتِلُوا فِـي سَبِـيـلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلا تَعْتَدُوا إنَّ اللَّهَ لا يُحِبُّ الـمُعْتَدِينَ } يقول: لا تقتلوا النساء ولا الصبـيان ولا الشيخ الكبـير ولا من ألقـى إلـيكم السلـم وكفّ يده، فإن فعلتـم هذا فقد اعتديتـم
Narrated Ali: The Prophet said: “After me there will be many differences, so if you have a way to end them in peace, then do it.” [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, verse 8:61]
إنه سيكون بعدي اختلاف أو أمر، فإن استطعت أن يكون السلم، فافعل
Please explain, Bob.
January 29th, 2011 at 4:21 am
I am allowed to ‘interpret’ my holy book but you are not allowed to do the same with yours.
A very accurate assessment of JihadBob Spencer’s hypocritical double standards.
January 29th, 2011 at 5:50 am
I disagree Justin .
Bob thinks that only he is allowed to interpret other peoples Holy Book as well as his own .
January 29th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Not suprised at all the US Military is being radicalised by Southern Baptist fanatics and needs to be deradicalised
January 30th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Just let me know when you’ve come across a passage from the Bible calling for perpetual warfare against non-believers, Ibn.
Thanks.
January 30th, 2011 at 9:59 am
Please explain, Bob.
The Koran contains many contradictions – unfortunately.
One verse says to make peace with non-Muslims, another forbids Muslims after Muhammad from forming peace treaties with non-Muslims and another passage says that Muslims must not seek peace if they are superior in strength than their opponents are.
This is, of course, a very confusing reality Muslim scholars must navigate to acquire the least inconsistent interpretation of the Koran.
Fortunately, the laws pertaining to warfare have been elaborated on for 1300 years and long since set in stone – making my job as someone who reports on these teachings much easier.
BTW, have you checked out Robert Spencer’s latest debate with Zayed Moustafa?
January 30th, 2011 at 10:09 am
“One verse says to make peace with non-Muslims, another forbids Muslims after Muhammad from forming peace treaties with non-Muslims and another passage says that Muslims must not seek peace if they are superior in strength than their opponents are.”
There are no contradictions if the historical context of the verse is understood. Would you mind actually quoting the verses you think contradict each other.
“Fortunately, the laws pertaining to warfare have been elaborated on for 1300 years and long since set in stone – making my job as someone who reports on these teachings much easier.”
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”
–Caliph Abu Bakr.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:11 am
“BTW, have you checked out Robert Spencer’s latest debate with Zayed Moustafa?”
Yeah, we talked out about it with Ahni over at Spencerwatch.
http://spencerwatch.com/2011/01/27/spencer-uses-supposed-anti-semitic-stance-amongst-copts-to-support-anti-muslim-rhetoric/#comment-3030
Have you seen Robert Spencer’s debate with Danios? Oh yeah, I forgot, Spencer is still buying time by adding two unnecessary conditions.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:12 am
By the way, Bob, I answered your question about Al-Ghazali “distancing himself from Offensive Jihad”.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/seymour-hersh-military-branch-being-run-by-crusaders/comment-page-2/#comment-53780
January 30th, 2011 at 10:16 am
JahilBob: Just let me know when you’ve come across a passage from the Bible calling for perpetual warfare against non-believers, Ibn.
Before I do, answer this question. Do you agree that according to Pslams 119:160 all laws are binding?
January 30th, 2011 at 10:36 am
No problem, the Koran forbids Muslims from making peace treaties with non-Muslims following the peace treaty Muhammad made with the Meccans:
Koran 9:7 – How should the idolaters have a covenant with God and His Messenger?
The Koran clearly forbids Muslims from treaties wit non-Muslims.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:43 am
““How can there be any responsibility of these agreements on God and His messenger, except those with whom you made agreements at the Sacred Mosque? Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous.” (Al-Taubah 9: 7)”
Nice. You just quoted the first half of the verse.
“Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous” [Second half you left out]
Whoops. Loon fail.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:45 am
“The Koran clearly forbids Muslims from treaties wit non-Muslims.”
Again, see the second half of the verse that you left out.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Wrong again. The second half of the verse deals with Muhammad’s treaty and Muslim obedience to it.
The first half clearly prohibits treaties with non-Muslims following the one specific treaty Muhammad was personally involved with.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Wrong.
“How can polytheists [that were treacherous and violated their treaties] have a covenant with Allah and His Messenger? Except for those with whom you entered covenants [i.e., the polytheists who did not break them and hence were not treacherous] in the Sacred Mosque. So as long as they are true to you [with their covenants and do not breach them] then be true to them [by also fulfilling your covenants]; verily, Allah loves those who fear Him [i.e., He loves those who fulfill covenants, since whoever fears Allah will fulfill his covenants, and the Prophet kept his word and upheld his side of the treaty until his enemies broke theirs].”
[Tafsir Jalalayn, Quran 9:7]
If you look at the Tafsir it clearly refers to the treat with Polytheists. As long as the Polytheists don’t break their treaty, Muslims should uphold their side of the agreement.
January 30th, 2011 at 11:24 am
I’m going by what the Koran says and how modern Jihadist groups have interpreted that passage.
January 30th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Now you’re just being obnoxious. As many other commentators have already pointed out, you’re under the impression that you have to sole right to interpret both the Bible and Qur’an.
I’m going by what the Koran says and how modern Jihadist groups have interpreted that passage.
Firstly, you’re not going by what the Koran says because you took the verse out of context. There are other parts of the Qur’an and Sunnah that deal with peace treaties, including one Hadith that explains, “Whoever killed a person protected by a treaty shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be found at a distance of forty years (of traveling).” Secondly, where is your proof that “modern jihadists” interpret the verse out of context like you do? This is an argument commonly used by Spencer et al. to justify lying about the Qur’an and Sunnah. Contrary to what you claim, “modern jihadists” like those in Mindanao and Hamas have concluded peace treaties with non-Muslim governments.
January 30th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Typical Spencerite response.
“Umm..Well if I was wrong about that verse what about all the terrorists who get it wrong too…Are they misunderstanding it too?”
You were wrong, simple. And you have shown your bad skills in interpreting the aims of “Jihadist groups” when you thought Jundallah wanted to impose a “Sunni Islamist Theocracy”.
January 30th, 2011 at 11:53 am
“Al Qaeda Offers ‘Truce’ to President Obama”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8242075&page=1
That was in 2009 in response to Obama’s speech in Cairo, Bin Laden had previously offered a truce in 2006.
January 30th, 2011 at 11:59 am
A treaty in Islamic law extending permanently or for an unlimited amount of time is call hudna abadiya or mutlaqa.
January 30th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
JahilBob: I’m going by what the Koran says and how modern Jihadist groups have interpreted that passage
Are the modern Jihadist groups a part of academia?
January 30th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Oh God, JihadBob has really gone downhill lately. He wants his interpretation and citation of half a verse to trump the Jalalayn, which clearly proves the exact opposite of what Bob is implying.
January 30th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“I’m going by what the Koran says and how modern Jihadist groups have interpreted that passage.”
Actually, you go by how you would like the “modern Jihadist” groups to interpret it. It’s the same delusional fantasy as you claiming that Jundullah wants to create a Sunni muslim state.
January 30th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
I just repeated your response, Mo. I should have read it first.
January 30th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Once again, v 9:7 is pretty clear to me:
(Pickthall) How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship?
The second part of the verse is simply talking of the requirements for the treaty Muhammad made with the Meccans that is mentioned in the first part of the verse.
Once gain, the first part of the verse clearly says Muslims are not to make treaties with non-Muslims but acknowledges the exception the prophet was given (similar to his marriage to ten women at one time).
January 30th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
(Pickthall) How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship?
Emphasis on ‘save’
January 30th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
BTW, Mosizzle, your commentary is discussing the second part of the verse.
So, no. The commentary you posted does not contradict the Jihadist interpretation of this verse (see Rudolph Peters, ‘Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam’, p 131) nor the clear language of the verse.
January 30th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Here are more translations:
How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque?
How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)?
How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque?
How can there be a treaty for these idolaters with ALLAH and HIS Messenger, Except those with whom you entered into a treaty at the Sacred Mosque?
How shall they who add gods to God be in league with God and with His Apostle, save those with whom ye made a league at the sacred temple?
How shall the idolaters be admitted into a league with God and with his apostle; except those with whom ye entred into a league at the holy temple?
January 30th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
^ Just look at the blatant copy/paste spam. Bob is obviously furious that he was proven wrong and is trying to drown out that inconvenient fact via spamming.
BTW Bob, why the silence on the doctrine of Christian holy war? Contrary to what you claimed, the Church allowed for offensive holy war (crusades). Unlike in jihad, civilians could be killed and forced conversions were allowed.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Its not the translation you moronic turd. Who are the people with whom the Muslims made a treaty, a treaty which the Quran orders them to respect? Go on have a guess. Who are the people who occupied the Holy Mosque at the time? Are your conclusions about the verse really more accurate then the Tafsir Al Jalalayn?
The non-Muslim pagans of the Quraysh. Hence your point that Muslims can never make a peace treaty with non-Muslims is false.
Are your conclusions about the verse really more accurate than the Tafsir Al Jalalayn? If so then I’m waiting for the release of Tafsir al-JihadBob.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
“Once gain, the first part of the verse clearly says Muslims are not to make treaties with non-Muslims but acknowledges the exception the prophet was given”
Once again, JihadBob is lying and twisting stuff. The verse does not say that Muslims are not allowed to make treaties with non-Muslims. It is talking about a specific group of people, but JihadBob wants to take this out of context so that it meets his needs.
It’s a bit like someone saying during the Second World War “Go and fight the Germans and do not stop until you destroy their leadership”. That sentence clearly has a context, and it would not mean that we’re saying we should go and remove Angela Merkel from power.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
NassirH, don’t pose him a question because he will use the opportunity to answer that question and ignore everything else.
Let’s settle this “Muslims can’t be ever at peace with Non-Muslims” thing right here.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
There is truly something wrong with JahilBob.
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
“The non-Muslim pagans of the Quraysh. Hence your point that Muslims can never make a peace treaty with non-Muslims is false.”
Pretty amazing the deceptive mind, isn’t it?
8:61: But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Seems pretty clear, ey Bob.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Contrary to what you claimed, the Church allowed for offensive holy war (crusades).
No, I’m not aware of that. The Crusades weren’t seen by the Church as offensive wars but military engagements on behalf of aiding their allies Eastern ally.
Unlike in jihad, civilians could be killed and forced conversions were allowed.
I’ll wait for your quotation from Ecclesiastical law that either of the above is true.
In reality, when Christians did accept a doctrine that allowed for warfare, it was always in defense of the Christian peoples.
Who are the people with whom the Muslims made a treaty, a treaty which the Quran orders them to respect?
No argument there. The Koran clearly says that Muhammad had made a peace treaty with the Meccans. But the Koran also clearly says Muslims, except the peace treaty Muhammad made before this passage was revealed, should not make peace treaties with non-Muslims.
That’s what the words ‘except’ and ‘save’ mean in the passage.
Maybe if you’re nicer, I’ll ship you ‘Hooked-on-Phonics’ this Christmas?
Are your conclusions about the verse really more accurate then the Tafsir Al Jalalayn?
I didn’t see where the Tafsir disagrees with what the verse says. I’m not disputing the passages says for Muslims to abide by the treaty they were currently in, but I stressed the obvious part of the passage that says henceforth Muslims are not to make treaties with non-believers.
In this case, the Koran abrogates the prophetic Sunnah.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
It’s funny, JihadBob is trying to promote his own tafsir of the verse as more accurate than a text written over 500 years ago.
JihadBob: Does the verse in question have an actual imperative command to never make a treaty? Hint: no, the Arabic does not contain any term for prohibition.
Interestingly, I just checked Tabari, Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi, and neither of them mention a blanket prohibition whatsoever. They simply contextualise the verse as referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, and the context surrounding it, namely, that some of the Quraysh aided by their allies the Bani Bakr, killed some of the Khuza’a (non-Muslim allies of the Muslims) in the Sacred Precinct, breaking the treaty which was drawn up for 10 years.
Ultimately, it is as al-Tabari states:
وأما قوله: { إنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ المُتَّقِينَ } فإن معناه: إن الله يحبّ من اتقى وراقبه في أداء فرائضه، والوفاء بعهده لمن عاهده، واجتناب معاصيه، وترك الغدر بعهوده لمن عاهده
And it is as He [God] said: (And God loves the pious). It is of the meaning: Truly God loves those who are pious, [who] monitors their individual obligations, fulfils their treaties with those they gave covenant to, avoids sins, and turns away from treachery in covenants towards whoever is treatied with.
Now the question is, if treaties with non-Muslims were completely forbidden, why would al-Tabari highlight the importance of traties and covenants twice in his explanation of “And god loves the pious”? It simply doesn’t make sense. Why didn’t al-Tabari say: “All treaties are dissolved and we have to fight them wherever we find them; this is piety”? The answer is simple, yet JihadBob would still like to promote his tafsir of the ayah over what the Muslim exegetical tradition itself says.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Sorry Mossizle, we all know that when Bob loses or starts losing he simply moves goalposts. I’ll be silent on holy war in Christianity until the subjects comes up again. Telling from Bob’s rant, he’s again not excepting any evidence that contradicts his preconcieved notions, e.g. my quotation of a Canadian historian on holy war in Christianity.
January 30th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
“but I stressed the obvious part of the passage that says henceforth Muslims are not to make treaties with non-believers.”
“So as long as they are true to you [with their covenants and do not breach them] then be true to them [by also fulfilling your covenants]; ”
–Tafsir al Jalalayn. [Same verse]
Are you seriously stupid. If the Quran is so clear to you then why the hell is there a concept known as a hudna, or a peace treaty, in Islamic law.
And why is Al-Qaeda, known to you JWers as the true representatives of Islam, proposing a truce with America if the Quran is so clear.
January 30th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I was just reading up on some Islamophobes opinions on the hudna and it seems JihadBob is going against the ijma (consensus) of the Islamophobes.
From genocidal Fitzgerald:
“The “hudna” that Muslims make with non-Muslims can never be more than temporary, and is entered into only because the Muslim side feels it is too weak to conduct open warfare, and would benefit from a respite from open hostilities. ”
JihadBob: Peace treaties are not allowed by the Quran.
Islamophobes: Muslims make peace treaties only or a short time and then they will break them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan%E2%80%93American_Treaty_of_Friendship
Morrocan American Treaty of Friendship signed in 1786. As of 2011, the Morrocans have not invaded.
January 30th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“As of 2011, the Morrocans have not invaded.”
Or have they?
January 30th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Bob contemplating how he’s going to slither his way around this one.
January 30th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Mossizle, JihadBob is going against the ijma of the Islamophobes because he’s performing Islamophobic ijtihad (independent interpretation).
January 30th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Don’t forget about the Franco-Ottoman alliance which lasted for about two and a half centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Ottoman_alliance
January 30th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Mosizzle:
Are you seriously stupid. If the Quran is so clear to you then why the hell is there a concept known as a hudna, or a peace treaty, in Islamic law.
Wait a minute… I thought according to Bob and others there is only Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, with nothing inbetween… hence the Muslim takeover of the world to make shari’a reign supreme etc. etc.
But then again, Bob believes he can take one part and leave others due to it containing contradictions.
By the way Bob, you forgot the part where Peters stated that “The divergence between the modernist and the fundamentalist view on the doctrine of jihad goes back to an essential difference in political outlook.” (p. 131-32)
In other words, it is political outlook that is the differing factor, which influences the interpretation developed. Both those who want to coexist with others in the world, and those who want to fight due to them believing Islam has to be “supreme” in the world, can find support from the Qur’an.
Though I would say, Peters’ only quote being from Sayyid Qutb on this point, and also his citation for the part-ayah quoted being that of a Saudi, Ahmad Nar and his Al-Qital fi al-Islam [Warfare in Islam] published straight out of the Saudi Press (Al-Dar al-Sa’udiyya li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’) – check the notes on page 189 of the book – does not do justice to the entirety of the Muslim discussion on this doctrine, nor the tafsir tradition generally. The tafsir of a journalist and a Saudi text by an unknown scholar hardly counts as marshalling superior proof to prove your point, JihadBob.
January 30th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Dawood, I agree. The book seems sort of neutral but quoting Sayyid Qutb wasn’t appropriate, especially since it might confuse amateurs like JihadBob
January 30th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
According to always reliable Wikipedia, the longest lasting treaty in history was between the Muslim rulers of Egypt and Christian Makuria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Dongola_Treaty
There’s also the Abbasid-Carolingian alliance during the 8th and 9th centuries, the Treaty of Tripoli between the United States and the Barbary pirates, the Franco-Ottoman alliance which I already mentioned, etc…
January 30th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Mosizzle: Although, Peters does make clear that he’s talking only about jihadi groups and their ideology. He also has a chapter on Mahmud Shaltut and his views etc. One cannot be read in isolation of the others.
What it basically comes down to is JihadBob believing that a journalist (Qutb) and unknown Saudi scholar (Ahmad Nar) are more representative of the mainstream Muslim position than the Shaykh of al-Azhar (Shaltut – and the numerous others since then), Rashid Rida (the ‘founder’ of the Salafi movement), ‘Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf (graduate of and teacher at Azhar and the Cairo School of Law, Cairo University, whose texts are still relied upon today in Islamic legal theory), Abu Zahra and numerous others including Wahba Zuhayli.
January 30th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
I honestly can’t believe it’s come down to having to show our resident loon that Muslims can and do have treaties with non-muslims. In fact, just about every Muslim nation is at peace with pretty much all non-muslim countries. I mean, the US and several non-muslim countries attacked a Muslim country to protect two Muslim countries. I mean, how much more friendly can you get than US and the Saudis?
http://www.danwei.org/2008/03/31/bush_saudi1.jpg
I guess the 1.6 billion Muslims didn’t get the JahilBob memo.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
So robbie, what wars ‘in defense of Christianity’ were the Christians fighting when they invaded and pillaged the Americas, black Africa, India, East Asia, Australia and the South Pacific? Were Christians being ‘oppressed’ by the Aztecs and Incas? When Perry ‘opened’ Japan by threatening them with violence was that in defense of Christians? Were the natives of Tierra del Fuego and Tasmania oppressing the white Christians (better armed and immune to European diseases) who slaughtered them almost to a man? Were the Yoruba and Kongo slaves shipped across the Atlantic and forcibly converted to Catholicism being too oppressive?
January 30th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Would someone please remind our friend that during the Modern Ages when the State took control and relegated the Church to lower interests, Spanish Christians acted in the interests of Spain, French Christians for France, etc.
I’d also like to remind our newcomer to please go back several months and provide quotes from historians to support his claim that the Orthodox Church had accepted St. Augustine’s concept of Just War (which can, as always, be compared to the Islamic conception of war developed several centuries later).
Apart from that, I refer our newcomer friend to refer to my request to Nassir to quote Ecclesiastical Law.
January 31st, 2011 at 12:01 am
JihadBob! LOL. Re-read your last comment. You are losing your acerbic touch
January 31st, 2011 at 12:11 am
Ouch. That is an all-time low from JihadBob.
January 31st, 2011 at 12:41 am
Bob is just displacing his anger. He got humiliated several times in this post, and all the other compounded humiliations takes a toll on a weak soul.
January 31st, 2011 at 1:07 am
Swim to Iran lolwut?
January 31st, 2011 at 1:34 am
Yeah, there is the little problem of Africa being in the way if you want to make it from the US, I can’t imagine swimming round the Cape would be much fun…
January 31st, 2011 at 2:10 am
Like I said, JihadBob needed an excuse to change the topic. Let’s deal with the “treaties” issue now and we can get on to Just War later, which I remember having discussing already on another thread.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:06 am
The Koran contains many contradictions – unfortunately.
More like the Qur’an contradicts your own self-serving “interpretation.” We’ve contradicted you several times from classical Islamic sources, most notably the citation of Al-Tabari from Ibn Abbas prohibiting warfare against “whoever meets you with peace.”
In this case, the Koran abrogates the prophetic Sunnah.
Where is your proof? Muslim jurists rejected that argument long ago, including Al-Tabari (d.923) whom I cited (and you ignored). In addition, Ibn Kathir (d.1373) said concerning verse 8:61 (the verse of peace) that “it is not negated, it is not abrogated, and it is not made specific” ( فلا منافاة ولا نسخ ولا تخصيص ).
Here is some real scholarship for you Bob:
“The assumption of inherent conflict between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds also ignores a variegated pattern of war and alliance, competition and cooperation, across the centuries. Although they did not concede that Western states were equal to them, Muslim states regularly entered into territorial agreements and concluded peace, as in an Ottoman treaty with Russia in 1739. In the sixteenth century, Muslim practice closed the earlier debates among Muslim jurists as to the length of a truce between Muslims and non-Muslims. Invoking the Ḥudaybīyah treaty, jurists of at least two legal schools argued that such agreements could last no more than ten years. But the treaty of 1535 between the Ottoman ruler Süleyman the Magnificent (r. 1520–1566) and Francis I of France endorsed the idea of “valid and sure peace” between them for their lifetimes, and from this point historical experience redefined the theoretical approach.”
[Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, International Relations and Diplomacy]
So, classical authorities and history clearly contradict your claim, Bob. Please explain, O scholar of Islam.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:15 am
But the Koran also clearly says Muslims, except the peace treaty Muhammad made before this passage was revealed, should not make peace treaties with non-Muslims.
If that is true, why did Imam Al-Bukhari (d.870) devote an entire chapter of his Sahih to peacemaking? Sort of pointless if peace treaties are prohibited, like you said.
Please explain, O scholar of Islam.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:17 am
This is exactly why JihadBob shouldn’t be blocked/banned from this site.
January 31st, 2011 at 11:12 am
Great job Justin and everyone else. Another thread, another loon fail. It’s all following a formula.
1)Bob makes accusation
2)Bob shown he was wrong
3)Bob persists with accusation
4)Bob shown evidence using real scholars and history
5)Bob insists his own interpretation is correct and supersedes scholars and history
6)Bob shown even more evidence
7)Bob changes subject
8)Bob cries about being IP banned
9)Bob laughed at
10)Bob runs away to fight another day
January 31st, 2011 at 12:48 pm
And Rob that is why I never try it with Bob.
January 31st, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Calm down, Bob. First let’s settle the matter at hand—can Muslims make treaties with non-Muslims? History and the rulings of Islamic jurists say they can. In fact, as I’ve already pointed out, the longest treaty in history was [arguably] made between Muslims and Christians in northwest Africa. If you want to learn about holy war in Christianity then refer to my post citing a Canadian historian, otherwise, try to stay on topic. Again, we can discuss Just War later, but first let’s settle the matter at hand.
January 31st, 2011 at 3:10 pm
@JihadBoob
You Anti muslim bigots like to think you’re such experts because you can quote Quranic verses and a few commentaries. You don’t even know the 1st thing about Islamic law or what Islam teaches on Peace treaties or anything else for that matter. So do yourself a favour and shut yer trap.
You’re not clever just because you can copy and paste the crap from your pathetic narcacist self proclaimed scholar Robert Spencer
January 31st, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“I’ll remind the others here that I simply said that the Koran advises Muslims against establishing peace treaties with non-Muslims in v9:7 and acknowledged other contradictory passages in the Koran that Muslims must reconcile with.”
Blatant lie. The discussion is only about 9:7. You only quoted the first half of the verse and then stated, “The Koran clearly forbids Muslims from treaties wit non-Muslims.”
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/seymour-hersh-military-branch-being-run-by-crusaders/#comment-54117
Then we had a look at the Tafsir, so it was clear that from the second part anyone who does not break treaties, Muslims still have to follow treaties, and the specific incident of the Prophet Muhammad’s treaty with the pagans at Mecca is cited. In your original defence you claimed that the treaty the Muslims were being commanded to follow in 9:7 was one between Muhammad and the Muslims. Your conclusion was incorrect when we look at the Tafsir.
You were wrong to say that the Koran forbids Muslims to make treaties with non-Muslims. Even your Islamophobic friends recognise the existence of the hudna. Also, before you start screaming something about abrogation, remember that surah 9 is one of the last surahs in the Quran.
Hence, Muslims can have treaties with non-Muslims, they have had such treaties in the past, and all Muslims countries currently have some treaties with some country non-Muslim country at least. No conflict between anything at all unless your Sayyid Qutb.
January 31st, 2011 at 3:19 pm
lol @ JahilBob. He went from ‘forbids’ to ‘advises’. What a deceptive loon.
January 31st, 2011 at 3:41 pm
JahilBob:
“I never mentioned anything regarding Islamic Law”
Well, when you say “clearly forbids” than you’re implying a law like laws forbidding alcohol or gambling. Now, you change your “interpretation” after two days claiming the verse “advises Muslims against”. lol. Pretty clear to you, huh? What a pseudo-intellectual huckster. You don’t even have the conviction to stand by your original statement.
January 31st, 2011 at 3:46 pm
”I never mentioned anything regarding Islamic Law, so everyone who has mentioned what Islamic Law says has set up a nice strawman. Kudos and bravo.”
Actually, you claimed that it was your “job” to “report on these teachings [of Islamic laws pertaining to warfare]” and that the Islamic scholars who set the laws “in stone” made it “easier” for you to do such. Of course, you completely ignored what Islamic scholars like Jalalayn had to say regarding the Qur’an and instead decided to misinterpret the verse as you saw fit, because apparently the verse was “clear” to you. There’s also the fact that you initially quoted the verse out of context, which makes your intentions obvious.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Nice find Nasser. Bob digs himself deeper and deeper.
January 31st, 2011 at 5:58 pm
JihadBob said (without citation) that Ibn Abbas said verse 8:61 was abrogated but I know this is a lie. His comment must have been deleted.
January 31st, 2011 at 7:57 pm
You guys should really stop embarrassing yourselves. Click the link below to find out that Ibn Abbas did indeed consider v8:61 abrogated. But hey, why listen to a companion/cousin of prophet Muhammad and scholar during the rightly guided caliphs?
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?58514-Ibn-Abbas-says-the-verse-quot-if-they-incline-towards-peace-quot-is-abrogated.is-this-Ikhtilaf
Btw, who are you people quoting?
Is this another pathetic attempt to claim I wrote the comments you’re responding to when I can’t find anywhere in this thread where I actually said them?
Funny that, another attempt by the members here to distort or indeed outright fabricate quotes and attribute them to me.
January 31st, 2011 at 8:28 pm
“Btw, who are you people quoting?”
We’re quoting you silly. Aren’t you supposedly IP banned? How many different computers are you using to post here? Not sure why that post is gone, but it sure looked like the narcissistic, arrogant and deceptive posts of yours we’ve come to cherish and love.
January 31st, 2011 at 8:31 pm
“Btw, who are you people quoting?”
1.) We’ve provided links where you’ve made false claims such as “The Koran clearly forbids Muslims from treaties wit non-Muslims.” Then, when you realised you were blatantly wrong, you added another comment in which you sent the Koran “advised”, hoping that we would forget.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/01/seymour-hersh-military-branch-being-run-by-crusaders/#comment-54117
2.)Then you starting talking about Islamic Law, only to later start crying when we talk about the section of Islamic law that deals with peace treaties. The very existence of the hudna destroys your previous argument that peace treaties are forbidden by the Quran. NassirH has given you the link to that comment.
To conclude, you were wrong about peace treaties being forbidden, your conclusion that the peace treaty the Prophet signed at the Holy Mosque was with other Muslims when the Tafsir clearly states it was with the Polytheists. Hence, v9:7, does not forbid or advise against treaties.
Note also, how, whilst Allah is condemning the Polytheists for violating the Treaty, and hence military action after a period of 4 months will be allowed, He stresses that peace treaties are not forbidden. Once before the v9:7 in v9:4, which Rob quoted, and once in the second half of v9:7 which you “accidentally” forgot to quote in your original comment.
“You guys should really stop embarrassing yourselves”
On the contrary, it is you who should stop embarrassing yourself, get off this thread and start spamming another as you usually do.
January 31st, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Actually Bob, the verse (8: 61) is only abrogated in context to the Arab polytheists, which the so-called verse of the sword (9: 5) specifically refers to. Medieval Islamic scholars such as Zamakhshari and Biqa’i have already established this hundreds of years ago, and I do believe that we have already pointed this out on Loonwatch several times also. If you check the tafsir it clearly states that the verse applies to Christians and Jews.
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=8&tAyahNo=61&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
Perhaps it’ time to bring Narnian back to the debate after she was already refuted several times, eh Bob?
January 31st, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Here’s a nuanced discussion about abrogation or Naskh (hat tip: Justin). Read it and you’ll realize that Islamophobes misuse the so-called “Verse of the Sword” for profit and political gain.
http://seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2010/11/06/clarifications-concerning-abrogation-in-the-quran-and-the-verse-of-the-sword/
January 31st, 2011 at 8:46 pm
NassirH, good find. It seems that Tafsir Al Jalalayn is not on Bob’s side this week.
Let’s check this with Tafsir Ibn Kathir (from the site that Spencer quotes):
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20505
On verse 8:61
“Abdullah bin Al-Imam Ahmad recorded that `Ali bin Abi Talib said that the Messenger of Allah said,
(There will be disputes after me, so if you have a way to end them in peace, then do so.)
(and trust in Allah. ) Allah says, conduct a peace treaty with those who incline to peace, and trust in Allah. Verily, Allah will suffice for you and aid you even if they resort to peace as a trick, so that they gather and reorganize their forces,
(then verily, Allah is All-Sufficient for you).”
Ibn Kathir, interprets the verse as meaning that we should “conduct a peace treaty with those who incline to peace” EVEN if the enemy is “resort[ing] to peace as a trick, so they gather and reorganize their forces”. He even cites a hadith,in which the Prophet recommends peace as a solution to all conflicts, as supporting his interpretation.
In fact the title of that part of the Tafsir is “The Command to Facilitate Peace when the Enemy seeks a Peaceful Resolution”.
That pretty much says it all, really.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Actually Bob, the verse (8: 61) is only abrogated in context to the Arab polytheists, which the so-called verse of the sword (9: 5) specifically refers to.
That’s right, Nassir. As is proven by my citation of Ibn Abbas’s tafsir of verse 2:190 (recorded by Tabari). Loon fail.
January 31st, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Now that JahilBob has been thoroughly humiliated, let’s see what God thinks of idolaters in the Bible:
Corinthians:
5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
So don’t make friends with them.
21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Ouch
The LORD said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech. (Leviticus 20:1-5)
Mamamia!
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you. If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. None of those condemned things shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes. (Deuteronomy 13:2-18)
January 31st, 2011 at 10:10 pm
If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)
Sounds pretty clear. God doesn’t like idolaters.
January 31st, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Rob, I wouldn’t cite passages from the Bible just to miff Bob off. He’s learned his lesson. In my opinion, we should hesitate from posting seemingly negative sections of the Bible because proof-texting is the job of Islamophobes and people can get offended when we do such.
Just my two cents…
January 31st, 2011 at 10:51 pm
You’re right about everything except Bob learning his lesson.
February 1st, 2011 at 11:44 am
As I said, thanks for confirming that Ibn Abbas held v8:61 abrogated.
I’ll still wait, patiently, for the citations from the teachings of Ecclesiastical Law on perpetual holy war so that we may compare it to Islamic Law on perpetual holy war.
February 1st, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Who knows maybe it’s true, but they are doing a very poor job at it.
Afghanistan is filled with mosques and madrassas funded,build,and protected by US and ISAF forces.
Likewise the Afghan constitution says no law can be allowed that goes against Islamic Sharia law.
You see Afghan apostates being put into jails protected by US and ISAF forces.In general the USA has no problem with Islamists as long as they follow US orders and open up their markets and resources for foreign exploitation.
Iraq is another good example of this, the US biggest ally in the Middle East Saudi Arabia is also Islamist.
February 1st, 2011 at 12:19 pm
JihadBob is not a Christian, I am 101% positive of that. Secondly he is not going to learn anything EVER. I am 101% of that too. He probably has some sort of retentive disorder that places him in continuous turmoil. Why are we pasting Christian verses at the risk of offending Christian readers on this site just for the sake of pleasing this ignorant jack ***.
Most importantly to debate whats in the book that came with Jesus 2000 years ago or what came in the book with Muhammad (PBUH) 1400 years ago whether its true or false or contradictory is not the purpose of this site.
To debate the continous disenfranchisement of a certain group of law abiding ciizens of the USA and of the world is the topic.
February 1st, 2011 at 2:05 pm
As I said, thanks for confirming that Ibn Abbas held v8:61 abrogated.
Ibn Kathir narrated on the authority of Imam Ahmad that the Prophet said:
“After me there will be many differences, so if you have a way to end them in peace, then do it.”
عن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إنه سيكون بعدي اختلاف أو أمر، فإن استطعت أن يكون السلم، فافعل
According to the principles of Tafsir, the Sunnah is more of an authority than a questionable tradition from Ibn Abbas. Therefore, Ibn Kathir concludes the verse is not abrogated. We also provided you a stronger citation from Ibn Abbas that explicitly prohibits warfare against “anyone who meets you with peace restraining his hand.” [Tabari 2:190] Let’s include this from the Encyclopedia of Islam:
“Rubin shows that the early Muslim exegetes preferred to interpret the sword verse in its context, that is, in relation to the situation of the Prophet when it was revealed and in association with the verses surrounding it. Verse 9:1-5 are believed to have been revealed on the eve of the raid on Tabūk, when many of the pagans and hypocrites who had treaty obligations with the Prophet resisted joining him on the battlefield. Though al-Suddī explains the verses as a repudiation of Muḥammad’s agreement with all pagans, al-Ṭabarī, al-Zamakhsharī, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, and al-Bayḍāwī deny that the Qurʾān could decree such intolerance. They divide Muḥammad’s non-monotheist allies into offensive and inoffensive groups and insist that the repudiation (barāʾa) applied only to those non-monotheists who had violated their agreements. Al-Ṭabarī supports his interpretation with a tradition from Ibn ʿAbbās: “…If they remained loyal to their treaty with the Prophet,… [he] was ordered to respect their treaty and be loyal to it.” Significantly, Muḥammad’s treaty with the (pagan) Khuzāʿa, who remained loyal to him, was for an unlimited period of time.”
[Encyclopedia of the Quran, "Expeditions and Battles"; McAuliffe, J. D., & Brill Academic Publishers. (2005) Leiden: Brill.]
JihadBob failure again!
February 1st, 2011 at 2:12 pm
To debate the continous disenfranchisement of a certain group of law abiding ciizens of the USA and of the world is the topic.
You are right. JihadBob (who is Robert Spencer) wants deflect the debate. But no one would think such tactics against Muslims are necessary without Spencer’s bogus Quran-abrogation perpetual-war cut-and-paste Orientalist myths that sustain his self-righteous hostility against Islam. I prefer not to let his slander go unanswered. Each time we debunk his points he has to grasp for different straws. He’ll run out eventually. The Truth will catch up to you, Bob.
Thanks to my friends who have helped us debunk Spencer’s propaganda.
February 1st, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I’ll still wait, patiently, for the citations from the teachings of Ecclesiastical Law on perpetual holy war so that we may compare it to Islamic Law on perpetual holy war.
Medieval Sourcebook:
Pope Urban II (1088-1099)
Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
“On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.”
Sounds like divinely sanctioned genocide to me. At least the Abbasids let the Jews and Christians keep their religions.
February 1st, 2011 at 2:53 pm
The Encyclopedia of the Qur’an refers to the same quote from al-Tabari I mentioned above.
February 1st, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Bob is coming off as a sore loser. We’ve already explained the context of Ibn Abbas’ abrogation via the ‘verse of the sword’ of 8: 61 yet he still can’t expect reality. His silence on treaties in Islamic Law is also telling.
I’ll still wait, patiently, for the citations from the teachings of Ecclesiastical Law on perpetual holy war so that we may compare it to Islamic Law on perpetual holy war.
This is a bad strawman. I never said anything about Ecclesiastical Law (or anything about ‘perpetual war’ either), rather I said that forced conversions and killing civilians was practiced by Christians when they carried out divinely ordained or inspired violence, and that the Papacy forgave the sins of those participating in its holy wars. These are undeniable facts. Again, look at the work of Norman Cantor—which I cited.
Now let’s turn the tables around. Bob, you claimed that you would report on the teachings of Islamic scholars, yet throughout this whole thread your claims contradicted those of Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn, etc. Thus, while you claimed our talk of Islamic Law was a srawman, in actuality it wasn’t and your talk of Ecclesiastical Law was.
February 1st, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel#Infidels_under_Canon_Law
In Quid super his, Innocent IV, asked the question “[I]s it licit to invade a land that infidels possess or which belongs to them?” and held that while Infidels had a right to dominium (right to rule themselves and choose their own governments), however the pope, as the Vicar of Christ, de jure possessed the care of their souls and had the right to politically intervene in their affairs if their ruler violated or allowed his subjects to violate a Christian and Euro-centric normative conception of Natural law, such as sexual perversion or idolatry.[18] He also held that he had an obligation to send missionaries to infidel lands, and that if they were prevented from entering or preaching, then the pope was justified in dispatching Christian forces accompanied with missionaries to invade those lands, as Innocent stated simply “If the infidels do not obey, they ought to be compelled by the secular arm and war may be declared upon them by the pope, and nobody else.”[19] This was however not a reciprocal right and non-Christian missionaries such as those of Muslims could not be allowed to preach in Europe “because they are in error and we are on a righteous path.”[18]
A long line of Papal hierocratic canonists, most notably those who adhered to Alanus Anglicus’s influential arguments of the Crusading-era, denied Infidel dominium, and asserted Rome’s universal jurisdictional authority over the earth, and the right to authorize pagan conquests solely on the basis of non-belief because of their rejection of the Christian god.[20] In the extreme hierocractic canonical discourse of the mid-twelfth century such as that espoused by Bernard of Clairvaux, the mystic leader of the Cisertcians, legitimized German colonial expansion and practice of forceful Christianisation in the Slavic territories as a holy war against the Wends, arguing that infidels should be killed wherever they posed a menace to Christians.[21] When Frederick the II unilaterally arrogated papal authority, he took on the mantle to “destroy convert, and subjugate all barbarian nations.” A power in papal doctrine reserved for the pope. Hostiensis, a student of Innocent, in accord with Alanus, also asserted “… by law infidels should be subject to the faithful.” and the heretical quasi-Donatist John Wyclif, regarded as the forefather of English Reformation, also held that valid dominium rested on a state of grace.[21]
The Teutonic Knights were one of the by-products of this papal hierocratic and German discourse. After the Crusades in the Levant, they moved to crusading activities in the infidel Baltics.[22] Their crusades against the Lithuanians and Poles however precipitated the Lithuanian Controversy, and the Council of Constance, following the condemnation of Wyclif, found Hostiensis’s views no longer acceptable and ruled against the knights. Future Church doctrine was then firmly aligned with Innocents IV’s position.[22]
The development of counter arguments later on the validity of Papal authority, the rights of infidels and the primacy of natural law, led to various treatises such as those by Hugo Grotius, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes, which in turn led to the transformation of international law’s treatment of the relationship between Christian and non-Christian societies and the development of human rights.
[edit] Colonization of the Americas
During the Age of discovery, the Papal Bulls such as Romanus Pontifex and more importantly inter caetera (1493), implicitly removed dominium from infidels and granted them to the Spanish Empire and Portugal with the charter of guaranteeing the safety of missionaries.[23] Subsequent English and French rejections of the bull refuted the Popes authority to exclude other Christian princes. As independent authorities such as the Head of the Church of England, they drew up charters for their own colonial missions based on the temporal right for care of infidel souls in language echoing the inter caetera.[23] The charters and papal bulls would form the legal basis of future negotiations and consideration of claims as title deeds in the emerging Law of nations in the European colonization of the Americas.[23]
The rights bestowed by Romanus Pontifex and inter caetera have never fallen from use, serving as the basis for legal arguments over the centuries. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1823 case Johnson v. M’Intosh that as a result of European discovery and assumption of ultimate dominion, Native Americans had only a right to occupancy of native lands, not the right of title. This decision was upheld in the 1831 case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, giving Georgia authority to extend state laws over Cherokees within the state, and famously describing Native American tribes as “domestic dependent nations.” This decision was modified in Worcester v. Georgia, which stated that the U.S. federal government, and not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs, but it maintained the loss of right to title upon discovery by Europeans.
In recent years,[when?] Native American groups including the Taíno and Onondaga have called on the Vatican to revoke the bulls of 1452, 1453, and 1493.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:05 pm
http://www.hyw.com/books/history/War__jus.htm
There were certain exceptions to the law against killing, made by the authority of God himself. There were some whose killing God orders, either by a law, or by an express command to a particular person at a particular time who speaks with Gods authority. The pope, for example. One who owes a duty of obedience to the giver of the command does not himself “kill,” he is an instrument, a sword in Gods hand. For this reason the commandment forbidding killing was not broken by those who have waged war on the authority of God. This standard also applied for those who have imposed the death-penalty on criminals when representing the authority of the state, recognized by the church as the just and most reasonable source of power. The Old Testament offered many examples of this use of Gods authority. When Abraham was ready to kill his own son, so far from being blamed for cruelty, he was praised for his devotion. It was not a criminal act, but one of obedience. In an other example, one is justified in asking whether Jeptha is to be regarded as obeying a command of God in killing his daughter, when he had vowed to sacrifice to God the first thing he met when returning victorious from battle (Judges 11 29ff). And when Samson destroyed himself, with his enemies, by the bringing down the building, this can only be excused on the ground that the Spirit, which performed miracles through him, secretly ordered him to do so. With the exception of these killings prescribed generally by a just law, or specially commanded by God himself (the source of justice) anyone who kills a human being, whether by himself or anyone else, is involved in a charge of murder. That was how St Agustine put it, and this interpretation was widely accepted throughout the Medieval period.
February 1st, 2011 at 6:14 pm
http://books.google.com/books?id=EZYVf8h6YekC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Just+War+in+the+Middle+Ages&hl=en&ei=eqFITZWHBoOCgAf4mZmlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 23, 2nd paragraph
February 9th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Bob, can you please go crawl back into your hole. Stop spreading hate and misinterpretations. I’m sure you’re arguing with many educated Muslims who have read the Qu’ran in Arabic, because clearly you understand your, most likely poorly translated, copy of the Qu’ran better than all of them. I see right through your hypocritical thinking and you are not a scholar but a bias trying to force your views on other people. If your here to spread correct information I’m sure you would not have so much opposition.
December 15th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
“‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.’”
this doesn’t make any sense, why would the pharisees who according to jesus SIT IN MOSES’ seat ,bring a fornicator to jesus and ask him his opinion when THEIR OWN LAWS , ACCORDING TO THE jews , WOULD HAVE FREED the woman? the jews say that there so many CONDITIONS created that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to kill the fornicatress. jesus then talks about anyone being WITHOUT sin
now listen to this. had the pharisees KNOWN that jesus was WITHOUT SIN, wouldn’t they have ASKED him to PICK up the first stone? “you think your a big timer without sin, so you PICK UP THE first stone” if the pharisees KNEW that jc was WITHOUT sin i am SURE THEY would have FIRED this response at the “son of god”
and if your supposed to be a god who communicates DAILY with the spirit and FATHER god, then shouldn’t you know in ADVANCE that the woman was a FORNICATOR and that the law you send in ANCIENT days was applicable for all times?
for example:
yhwh TOLD moses to STONE TO death a person who picked up a few sticks on the day of sabbath
the people STONE the man to death
but the god in flesh says “pick up the 1st stone” ?what?
and what the f u … does “go and sin no more ” mean?
if she did the crime AGAIN then jesus advice was flushed down the toilet.
and what happens when jesus goes into america and witnesses the fornication in porn industries? “go and sin no more”
LOOK at the pharisees, they don’t seem to be people who HIDE or run away from a debate. that they didn’t grab jesus and take him to the jewish courts is proof that the story in john is a fabrication
they , the pharisees , let jesus get away with a stupid response?