What is a Muslim?

[Prince_James]

SamCDKey:

Hmm must be an American innovation?

the word is from islam so it should ideally be mu-slim, that is the correct way.
the word "mu" basically says "one who"

as in
mujrim (one who is a criminal, jurm=crime)
muntazir (one who waits, intezar=wait)

I think it is a Anglicization. We used to call Islamic people "Muhammadans". That is how the US Congress contacted the people of Tunisia over the pirate war Jefferson fought with them.

The best you can of course. The ideal is to improve by knowledge and practice, and learn from previous errors so as not to repeat them.

So a normal person can expect what in the afterlife, according to Islam?

 

[S.A.M.]

SamCDKey:



I think it is a Anglicization. We used to call Islamic people "Muhammadans". That is how the US Congress contacted the people of Tunisia over the pirate war Jefferson fought with them.

Ok

So a normal person can expect what in the afterlife, according to Islam?

If they follow the right path, they can expect an absence of fear and grief.

 

[Prince_James]

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[GeoffP]

So is fight in the way of Allah a direct translation of jihad?

Weeeell the word "jihad" doesn't occur per se in the Quran, so I would say that indeed translates to the concept of violent jihad, yes. Why not?

That appears to cover a multitude.

i.e those who
-believe
-left their home
-striven with wealth
-striven with lives

sort of covers everyone whos a Muslim?

Does it? "Striven with their lives" sounds a bt more specific to me, especially considering all of Sura 9 is about war on the unbeliever. Are we concentrating on specific trees again, the better to ignore the forest?

As a comparison, how many times does knowledge occur in the Quran?

And peace? And forgiveness?

And hell? And fire? And unbeliever?

 

[GeoffP]

If his translations were viable, a great deal of credence.

Yet this is not the issue. There are several translations of the Quran, both by Arabic speakers and not, by muslims and non-muslims, and they agree in very large part. So how can it be argued that the Quran is only understandable in Arabic? And if we find the definitions slide around there, too, can criticisms of islamic belief finally be accepted? What about Arabic speakers who have left islam? Is their understanding of the Quran in Arabic then, at last, canonical? Or do they too misunderstand? Maybe they don't speak the right "kind" of Arabic.

It would be best to come out and admit the faults and failings of islamic theology, accept that the Quran is not more or less "directly revealed" than anything else, and simply tout up what needs to be changed to bring it in line with a humanist perspective. Islam must embrace rationalism; we are a species with no more time for narrow thinking, theological or otherwise. To paraphrase the Quran: it may be that this is a thing some do not like, but it is best for them.

Brother Geoff

 

[S.A.M.]

Weeeell the word "jihad" doesn't occur per se in the Quran, so I would say that indeed translates to the concept of violent jihad, yes. Why not?

Gasp, no jihad in he Quran? are you sure?

So whats the word for fight?

Does it? "Striven with their lives" sounds a bt more specific to me, especially considering all of Sura 9 is about war on the unbeliever. Are we concentrating on specific trees again, the better to ignore the forest?

How about if I say dedicate their lives. Does that still sound like war?

And hell? And fire? And unbeliever?

Is unbeliever one who is not a momin? can that include one who is a Muslim?

 

[S.A.M.]

If his translations were viable, a great deal of credence.

Yet this is not the issue. There are several translations of the Quran, both by Arabic speakers and not, by muslims and non-muslims, and they agree in very large part. So how can it be argued that the Quran is only understandable in Arabic? And if we find the definitions slide around there, too, can criticisms of islamic belief finally be accepted? What about Arabic speakers who have left islam? Is their understanding of the Quran in Arabic then, at last, canonical? Or do they too misunderstand? Maybe they don't speak the right "kind" of Arabic.

It would be best to come out and admit the faults and failings of islamic theology, accept that the Quran is not more or less "directly revealed" than anything else, and simply tout up what needs to be changed to bring it in line with a humanist perspective. Islam must embrace rationalism; we are a species with no more time for narrow thinking, theological or otherwise. To paraphrase the Quran: it may be that this is a thing some do not like, but it is best for them.

Brother Geoff

Whose translations? I asked about critique.

The thing is, anyone can translate the Quran and while there are "acceptable" translations available, the rule remains that it is the original Arabic that is the correct version, which is why it always accompanies every translation, because translations are interpretations of words from the original.

Take any verse and write down the first ten translations you get of it online and you'll see what I mean.

Plus I've seen people translate and publish parts of verses which make no sense when the whole verse is read, so its not like translators are without bias, even Muslim ones. Another problem is bilinguality, the ones who are fluent in Arabic (written and spoken) may not be fluent in English and vice versa.

The "failings" of Islamic ideology are those caused by half-baked scholars that count some words but not others, selectively read verses and pretend to know the whole ideology and read the Quran in a foreign language and pretend to have understood its ideology. Does not matter if its a Western educated Muslim who is convinced he is fighting jihad or a pineapple under the sea who is promoting the very beliefs he thinks he is fighting against.

The internet is a powerful medium and a lot more people can access the translations than could in previous times. Ultimately, though a translation is just someone else's idea of what the original means. And if its just translations you want to bicker over, well, what makes yours more valid than mine?

As for Arabic speakers who have left Islam, how do you know who they are? Have you met them or is their sob story online so close to what you believe in that you accept unquestioningly it must be true? See, you are still going by someone else's idea of what it must be like.

Islam must embrace rationalism, true, but so must its critics. Painting all Muslims with a broad brush, giving the clergy and clerics the same importance as Christians give theirs, assuming that all Muslims open a Quran before every decision is pure fantasy, not reality. It really amazes me how Western people have demonised all Muslims for fighting back when the crux of the issue is that they never would have got involved if they had not been targeted in the first place. There has never been the same attempt to export culture and values in the Muslim world as there has been in the self-aggrandising Western world, and yet comments by muftis and clerics are given air time in order to chastize and comments by politicians and religious leaders in the West (much more powerful and capable of preemptive wars) are cheered.

Most people don't even take into consideration the fact that the language problem works both ways and Islamofascist does not translate all that well into Arabic.

 

[Huwy]

do any of you recognise the satire in that article?

 

[GeoffP]

Whose translations? I asked about critique.

You just asked about Shakespeare! Are you on crack? On a Saturday?

The thing is, anyone can translate the Quran and while there are "acceptable" translations available, the rule remains that it is the original Arabic that is the correct version, which is why it always accompanies every translation, because translations are interpretations of words from the original.

Well, all the translations I've ever seen seem to keep exactly the same meaning as the others.

Take any verse and write down the first ten translations you get of it online and you'll see what I mean.

I have. They're usually the same.

Plus I've seen people translate and publish parts of verses which make no sense when the whole verse is read

I've seen a couple of these which seem strange out of context, but I disagree that there's sections in there that don't follow some philosophical pattern.

The "failings" of Islamic ideology are those caused by half-baked scholars that count some words but not others, selectively read verses and pretend to know the whole ideology and read the Quran in a foreign language and pretend to have understood its ideology. Does not matter if its a Western educated Muslim who is convinced he is fighting jihad or a pineapple under the sea who is promoting the very beliefs he thinks he is fighting against.

All right; assuming you're correct, how do we stop such people?

The internet is a powerful medium and a lot more people can access the translations than could in previous times. Ultimately, though a translation is just someone else's idea of what the original means. And if its just translations you want to bicker over, well, what makes yours more valid than mine?

What if all the translations come out the same, as they generally do?

As for Arabic speakers who have left Islam, how do you know who they are? Have you met them or is their sob story online so close to what you believe in that you accept unquestioningly it must be true? See, you are still going by someone else's idea of what it must be like.

Well, I have to take some things prima facie. I accept, prima facie that these scholars indeed have these opinions, that some individuals have left islam (some being, of course, well documented ones rather than a mere voice on the internet - Warraq, Darwish, Weah, Hirsi Ali, Menem, Rushdie, Shoebat, and others), that you are a moderate. I do not know for certain, but this is a leap of 'faith' I make. Criticize it if you will; if I can accept no one else's "idea of what it must be like, then I can accept nothing, finally. But if the Arabic translation is so critical to comprehension, then I do wonder at the fervent belief of so many non-Arabic muslims (85% of the total, including yourself, Sam) in a religion that grounds its literature in a language spoken by a people with a noted tendency for the distain of non-Arabs. The Christians gave up Latin and have done well accordingly. Why not the muslims Arabic?

Islam must embrace rationalism, true, but so must its critics. Painting all Muslims with a broad brush, giving the clergy and clerics the same importance as Christians give theirs, assuming that all Muslims open a Quran before every decision is pure fantasy, not reality.

? I do not do this. I am discussing islam itself, and the values it - or its very common impression - impresses on muslims. Many muslims do indeed accept what we call an extremist philosophy; my point is that that philosophy is more common than we expect, or else there would simply be no ummah, no dhimmitude, no sharia. It must be more common, or there could not be a political islam.

It really amazes me how Western people have demonised all Muslims for fighting back when the crux of the issue is that they never would have got involved if they had not been targeted in the first place.

Yes and no, Sam. You could argue that Muslims have been "targetted" by Westernism, but the fact of the matter is that the inherent inequities of islamic society (that being wherever a nation is "islamic") were there long, long before 9/11 and religious profiling and before Qutb and before the Crusades and before Saladin.

There has never been the same attempt to export culture and values in the Muslim world as there has been in the self-aggrandising Western world, and yet comments by muftis and clerics are given air time in order to chastize and comments by politicians and religious leaders in the West (much more powerful and capable of preemptive wars) are cheered.

'More capable'? Hamas and Hezbollah have been warring on Israel for years. Radicals have every capacity for violence.

And there have been efforts to export islamic culture: the Saudis and all their petrodollar da'wa.

Most people don't even take into consideration the fact that the language problem works both ways and Islamofascist does not translate all that well into Arabic.

Well, I'm sorry it doesn't, but we tend to be unappreciative of jihad, shaheed, dhimmitude, sharia, fatwa, murtad and a few others besides essentially all of Sura 9. Maybe we don't appreciate these things because we don't see islam through rose-coloured glasses; nor need we, and that is something that the 'other party' should try to understand. But we expect equality, and if that equality fails of theory as well as practice, then we begin to wonder, and we look more deeply. Sometimes, we do not like what we find. Sometimes it concerns us.

But that, too, is our right, and it is an unassailable one.

Best to you and your faith,

Geoff

 

[(Q)]

Actually this is the right definition:

Someone who claims "there is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet".

Since gods have never been shown to exist, by Muhammad or anyone else, then a Muslim is one who FOLLOWS the cult of Muhammadism.

 

[GeoffP]

Gasp, no jihad in he Quran? are you sure?

So whats the word for fight?

Rule #1: Never talk about Fight Club.

How about if I say dedicate their lives. Does that still sound like war?

That would be a more acceptable interpretation; it doesn't quite fit with the life of Mohammed, but I for one would accept that version. The trick is getting it accepted in dar al-islam.

 

[LiveInFaith]

Apart from other things in qur'an (which has a lot more verses than jihad related ones), the followings are most likely all verses regarding jihad :

Jihad Essentials:
Jihad instruction : 2:218, 3:145, 3:157, 3:200, 4:74, 4:76, 4:77, 4:84, 4:95, 4:104, 5:35, 8:60, 8:65, 9:111, 9:120, 49:15, 61:4, 61:11, 66:9
Value of jihad : 2:258, 40:28, 40:29, 40:30, 40:31, 40:32, 40:33, 40:34, 40:35, 40:38, 40:39, 40:40, 40:41, 40:42, 40:43, 40:44

Mujahidin (Jihad’ers)
Mujahidin value : 2:154, 3:142, 3:195, 9:20, 9:88, 9:111, 9:120
Jihad is better then sitting : 3:142, 4:95
Jihad and dealing with risks: 9:120
Working in the way of Allah: 2:218, 2:261, 2:262, 4:74, 4:94, 4:95, 4:100, 5:54, 8:60, 8:72, 8:74, 9:20, 9:41, 9:60, 22:58, 49:15, 57:10
Mujahidin quality / position: 4:95, 4:96, 57:10
Charity in the name of Allah: 2:195, 2:261, 4:95, 8:60, 9:111, 9:121, 61:11

Jihad Bases:

Instruction to be patient in the beginning of preaching : 2:109, 4:77, 6:106, 15:85, 45:14, 50:39, 73:10, 76:24
Permission of war: 2:190, 4:77, 22:39
Obligation of jihad : 2:190, 2:216, 2:244, 5:54, 8:6, 8:8, 8:39, 8:57, 9:5, 9:12, 9:14, 9:29, 9:36, 9:73, 9:123, 47:4, 47:22
Jihad values : 2:193, 2:251, 8:39, 9:13, 9:14, 9:15, 9:16, 47:4
Prohibition of leaving jihad: 8:15, 8:16, 9:24, 9:81
Jihad continues : 2:193, 8:39, 9:5, 9:12, 9:29, 9:36, 9:123
Reluctancy of jihad : 2:216, 4:77, 8:5, 8:6
Those who don’t go fight: 4:72, 9:38, 9:39, 9:120
When jihad become obligation: 47:20, 47:21

War and tactics: 30:3

Exceptions:
Not fight because of obstacles : 9:91, 9:92, 48:17
Ill and weak not go war: 4:95, 9:91
Poor not go war: 9:91, 9:92

Intentions :
To praise Allah’s ayats: 2:190, 2:193, 2:218, 2:244, 3:13, 4:75, 4:76, 4:95, 8:72, 8:74, 9:20, 9:38, 9:41, 47:4, 61:4, 61:11
Sincerity of jihad : 2:190, 47:4
Obedience to leader: 4:59, 24:48
Determination: 2:249, 2:250, 8:45, 33:22
Brave, not cowardice: 4:77, 4:104, 8:15, 8:45, 9:38
Leaders:
Leader obligation: 27:21
Encouraging to jihad: 2:249, 4:76, 4:84, 8:60, 8:65
Consult the experience: 27:32, 27:33

Battleship
Vehicles : 100:1, 100:2, 100:3, 100:4, 100:5
Preparation, physical and mental: 2:249, 4:84, 8:60, 8:65
Using arms: 8:60
Be prepared in any situation: 4:102
War funds: 9:92
Preparing troops: 2:195, 4:95
Charity in Allah’s way: 4:95, 5:12, 8:60, 8:72, 9:20, 9:41, 9:88, 9:111 , 9:121, 49:15, 61:11, 64:17
Asking help from musyrikin : 9:83, 60:1
Totality in battle: 4:71, 9:122
Be careful with betrayer: 4:71, 4:101, 4:102, 8:58, 63:4, 64:14
Digressing while dealing with war: 8:16
Intimidating enemy : 8:57, 8:60
Managing troops: 61:4

Negotiations and Agreements
Cease of agreements: 8:58, 9:2, 9:3

Ethics in war
Prayer for weak and pious : 2:249
Sanction Law of killing women, child, and elders: 2:190
Don’t ruin dead bodies: 2:190
Eye for an eye (retaliate not more than attacked): 16:126, 22:60, 42:40
Don’t burn enemies: 2:190
Attacking: 8:57, 47:4, 66:9

Syuhada (dead as mujahid)
Reward for mujahid: 2:154, 3:157, 3:169, 3:170, 3:171, 3:195, 4:69, 4:74, 9:111, 47:4, 47:5 : 22:58, 47:6

Ceasing War:
Not fight enemies becoming muslim: 2:193

War Result
Cause and requirement to win: 2:249, 2:250, 3:122, 3:125, 3:147, 3:200, 5:23, 8:45, 8:46, 8:65, 8:66, 22:40, 47:7

Jizyah (payment)
Source of jizyah: 9:29

War Captives
Slaving captives : 2:85, 47:4
Freeing captives: 47:4
Treatment to captives: 8:67

Goods from war
The rule of goods treatment: 8:1, 48:19, 48:20
Goos for Those who go war : 8:41 ; 8:69, 48:19, 48:20
Goods portion for those not go war: 48:15

Fai' (goods taken without war)
Stealing goods: 3:161
Distributing fai': 59:7

Agreement :
Peace agreement with musyrikin: 9:8
Meeting agreement with unbeliever: 9:4

Breaking agreement
Broken by muslim: 8:58
Betraying of musyrikin: 9:8, 9:10, 9:12, 9:13

Cease fire : 8:61, 9:4

 

[S.A.M.]

Since gods have never been shown to exist, by Muhammad or anyone else, then a Muslim is one who FOLLOWS the cult of Muhammadism.

This earth shattering discovery must be shared with the entire world.

Have you informed the newspapers?

 

[S.A.M.]

Apart from other things in qur'an (which has a lot more verses than jihad related ones), the followings are most likely all verses regarding jihad :

sez who?

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, I have to take some things prima facie. I accept, prima facie that these scholars indeed have these opinions, that some individuals have left islam (some being, of course, well documented ones rather than a mere voice on the internet - Warraq, Darwish, Weah, Hirsi Ali, Menem, Rushdie, Shoebat, and others), that you are a moderate. I do not know for certain, but this is a leap of 'faith' I make. Criticize it if you will; if I can accept no one else's "idea of what it must be like, then I can accept nothing, finally. But if the Arabic translation is so critical to comprehension, then I do wonder at the fervent belief of so many non-Arabic muslims (85% of the total, including yourself, Sam) in a religion that grounds its literature in a language spoken by a people with a noted tendency for the distain of non-Arabs. The Christians gave up Latin and have done well accordingly. Why not the muslims Arabic?

So whose version should we cannonise, the Salafis or the Sufis?

? I do not do this. I am discussing islam itself, and the values it - or its very common impression - impresses on muslims. Many muslims do indeed accept what we call an extremist philosophy; my point is that that philosophy is more common than we expect, or else there would simply be no ummah, no dhimmitude, no sharia. It must be more common, or there could not be a political islam.

Most Muslims do not accept an extremist philosophy, however they do not make as good media.

Yes and no, Sam. You could argue that Muslims have been "targetted" by Westernism, but the fact of the matter is that the inherent inequities of islamic society (that being wherever a nation is "islamic") were there long, long before 9/11 and religious profiling and before Qutb and before the Crusades and before Saladin.

Inherent inequities of Islamic society? Vs the equities of Western society?

Do we see those equities in Western society? Or just changes in labeling that sweep those differences under the carpet?

'More capable'? Hamas and Hezbollah have been warring on Israel for years. Radicals have every capacity for violence.

How did Hamas and Hezbollah come to be?
Can you give me an example of an occupied country that has not fought back?

And there have been efforts to export islamic culture: the Saudis and all their petrodollar da'wa.

Which is a recent phenomenon and totally secondary to smooching with the US, with their so-called war on terror

Well, I'm sorry it doesn't, but we tend to be unappreciative of jihad, shaheed, dhimmitude, sharia, fatwa, murtad and a few others besides essentially all of Sura 9. Maybe we don't appreciate these things because we don't see islam through rose-coloured glasses; nor need we, and that is something that the 'other party' should try to understand. But we expect equality, and if that equality fails of theory as well as practice, then we begin to wonder, and we look more deeply. Sometimes, we do not like what we find. Sometimes it concerns us.

Of course it concerns you. All these are so convenient labels for what are normal sociological paradigms in any society. Status of immigrants, minorities, fighting for the land you live in, international legislation, religious rulings have never been absent in Western society either, but using Arabic words makes them oh-so Islamic and its sounds so much better to call it jihad than to call it protest against occupation or demonisation, it puts people in a unique and separate category and makes "them" vs "us" out of normal reactions. It sounds so much better to say dhimmitude when the Muslims do it and secularisation when the EU wants to ban the hijab. It makes preemptive strikes legit, occupation a just cause, it makes Israel in the middle east a reality, a "small" place in the middle of nomadic peoples with tribal laws who are judged for not being in step with the modern world that drove away (and was incapable of housing or tolerating) the very same people that these nomads/tribals were expected to give up their lands and houses too.

Yes, I can see how it would concern you.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Get with the Program LiveinFaith islam is Sams' way or the highway!

*Tooot toooot*

ALLLL ABOARD!

 

[S.A.M.]

Get with the Program LiveinFaith islam is Sams' way or the highway!

*Tooot toooot*

ALLLL ABOARD!

He has a chance to defend his stance.

I would really like to know the basis for his declaration

the verse 2:218 for example,

"Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy..." (Quran, 2:218).

What is the connection to jihad?

 

[Sock puppet path]

My guess would be "strive in the way of allah".

 

[S.A.M.]

My guess would be "strive in the way of allah".

Striving in the way of Allah is what all Muslims do. And one who leaves home must strive (exert effort, endeavor). If the meaning of jihad is taken as struggle, that makes sense, but to consider that it means "to fight" is ridiculous.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Sounds like alotta work.