Twitter cuts (#35)

November 17, 2015admin 10 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

10 Responses to this entry

  • Twitter cuts (#35) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 5:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Unknown128 Says:

    Hmm a dificult question….

    Traditionaly Sunni Islamic law had rules how to wage war and treat non combatants.

    It was alowed to kill women and children colateraly but not on purpose and most classical Islamic jurists argued that while all men (even the unarmed once) could be killed (or ransomed, or enslaved, or made subjects, or forced to convert), the women and children couldnt (but you still could do all the other mentioned things with them). Sharia also demaded that treaties made with infidels had to be upheld which is now used by more reformist muslims to sugest that western laws of war signed by muslim states are binding.

    Islamists now argue that attacks against civilians are justified based on either the idea that since western states are democratic all citezens are guilty of electing governments that stand in the way of Islam or that in a modern economy everyone is a combatant because everything is so interwoven. Thing is their position is not uncontested.

    The main point of conflict is the point of authority. The legitimate authority has the right to kill men and enslave women and children (and then distribute them among the mujahedin for finantial gain or sexual enjoyment). The argument from Islamic states goes that the modern Jihadists dont have such authority and are thus only bandits. Thing is Jihadists (reasonably) argue that all islamic authority comes from a Khalif and since there is none around modern secular dictators and their pet Imams cant declare anyone a true islamic authority.

    Now ISIS has declared the Khalifat reborn and thus they (in their eyes) have all rights to kill, maim and enslave they want. Still the deliberate killing of women and children is problematic…..there are clearly precedents in Islamic law that could be used to justifie that but its a shaky subject.


    Thales Reply:

    If only it were possible to lawyer them to death like in Cathedraland…


    Erebus Reply:

    Non sequitur. You’re saying that “their position is not uncontested” and “it’s a shaky subject” — but, even if ISIS and other terrorist groups are in the wrong, it doesn’t follow that they’re not Muslims; in this case, they’re merely Muslims on the wrong side of an Islamic theonomical debate.

    …And it’s not a difficult question at all. Of course ISIS et al. are Muslim: They pray to Allah, venerate Muhammad, live by the Koran, and wholeheartedly believe that they are Muslims with a faith that modern Europe cannot hope to summon. Who are we to say otherwise?


    unknown128 Reply:

    Indeed they clearly are muslims I never argued otherwise!

    Not just that but they are supported by a significant percentage of Sunnin Muslims in bouth Iraq and Syria.
    As so often in islamic history the actual letter of the law is secondary compared to political utility and in most other fields ISIS is closer to the letter of islamic law as it has been practiced by Muhammad and his conquerer sucsessors then any Islamic regime since 1900

    When it comes to sharia though my personal impression from studying the topic was that there are just so many scourses of sharia (Hadith and Sira) and so many ways of interpretation that you can make Sharia say just about anything! Islamic scholars have long since learned to make sharia say whatever they (or the people in power they want to please) want it to say.

    A good example is Napoleons expedition to Egypt, contrary to the Mameluks who were defeated by Napoleon and who cared little for the jurists, napoleon showered them with signs of respect and positions of power. In return they maneged to somehow interpret Sharia into arguing that Napoleons army were all muslims (the fact that they still drank alcohol and ate pork was argued away with the argument that their leader Napoleon does so much good for Islam that it washes the sins of his soldiers away and makes them flawless Muslims (even if they arnt). Not only that but that they actualy were mujahedin on a righteous holy war and that everyone had to obay them…..

    But fact is that whatever a jurist says ISIS does indeed represent the sentiments of a large percentage of modern muslims.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 10:32 am Reply | Quote
  • Harold Says:

    “These murderers aren’t refugees. […] They’re terrorists who’ve hijacked a religion for nefarious gain.”

    They’re hijacking Islam to gain Allahs reward for martyrdom. Makes sense.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 3:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    At this point, taking down the likes of Piers Morgan is like stabbing a disabled botfly. Commentary like this is so mind-numbingly stupid, I have to switch off when I hear my own relatives say similar things about how ISIS isn’t Islamic. And no, none of them are Islamic theologians either.


    Posted on November 17th, 2015 at 6:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • unknown128 Says:

    by the way isnt baghdadi dead now?


    Posted on November 18th, 2015 at 12:49 am Reply | Quote
  • Bedrich Says:

    by the way isnt baghdadi dead now?

    “He was rumoured to have died in a US air strike earlier this year, but his followers later released an audio message from him urging Muslims to emigrate to the group’s “caliphate” in Syria and Iraq.”

    ISIS is the love-child of Islam and Social Media. As if Islam were taking selfies.
    Recall that the peculiar strength was its cohesion, vast masses praying in perfect unison. Social media was just made for it.


    wenshuang Reply:

    Who follows piers morgan?


    Posted on November 18th, 2015 at 10:25 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment