The Commercial Heritage and Contribution of Islam

[syrakusos]

The speaker said Mohamed was the only Prophet who was a business-man. Not so. Abraham who is described as a prophet in the Hebrew Scriptures was a cattle baron and a land trader. His bargaining session with Effron the Hittite for a cave in which to bury his dead wife Sarah is a classical middle east bargaining session. See Gen: 23:3-6 Ba'al Chatzaf

See, I would have to agree with you, on general terms, I suppose. Was David a prophet, too? Who was a prophet; who was not? After Isaiah and Jeremiah - two Jews; three opinions - the easy ones for me, I have to start reading and acquiring new knowledge.

Contrary to the popular view, the Crusades were actually a necessary and good thing. If they hadn't happened, then chances are the world as we know it wouldn't exist. Richard

Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat themselves.

[Peter]

Richard wrote:

Quote

Contrary to the popular view, the Crusades were actually a necessary and good thing. If they hadn't happened, then chances are the world as we know it wouldn't exist.

End quote

Michael E. Marotta responded:

quote

Those who are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat themselves.

End quote

I apologize for misspelling your last name, Michael. Only one ARR!

Think of the worst times in human history. Richard’s point reminds me of the time travel conundrum. If you change the past, you change the future. Yet if you could change the past and save lives, wouldn’t you have to?

Would Richard or Michael go back and change Hitler when he was a kid? This thought is gruesome, but if something as simple as an arranged accident in which that bastards, “Seig Heil” arm was cut off, might change history.

Our own budget, huge debt, and servicing the debt, is something that could flip our world upside down in a week’s time. We can’t revisit the past except in our imaginations, but we can change the future. Judge Napolotano on Fox is saying that every post World War II President asked for, and got the debt ceiling razed. That must stop.

Peter

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

but that was enough for Mr. Spencer to say he had joined the jihad (which means the violent Islamist jihad in Spencer-speak).

This actually shows your ignorance of what Mr Spencer says. Jihad means something far broader and deeper in "spencer-speak" than you've characterised it.

Richard,

This is a false characterization of me and an incomplete one of Spencer, but I am probably to blame. So I will go into it here and, hopefully, bring a measure of clarity to my meaning.

Spencer is not one thing only. He is two and he speaks with a forked tongue to satisfy both. Robert Spencer is a propagandist (a really hateful one at that) and he is a scholar who writes and speaks.

As a scholar, you are correct that he has an informed notion of what jihad means. As a propagandist, though, when he writes a headline like:

ANOTHER MODERATE MUSLIM JOINS THE JIHAD: MUSTAFA AKYOL

(which is an actual headline he wrote in Front Page Magazine, see here), and he uses expressions like "jihad against Infidels" by way of clarification, he knows exactly what he is doing. It ain't the scholar Spencer who is writing at that moment. It's Spencer, the propagandist, out to smear someone.

Spencer is smart enough to know that his message will be interpreted by the vast number of readers as meaning he has uncovered some kind of hidden evidence that Akyol is secretly supporting violent Islamist jihad.

I call this Spencer-speak.

The duplicity is disgusting, too.

When you speak with forked tongue like Spencer does, and a person objects to one side of the tongue, you can always say you meant the other and the person objecting should have know that. But it's a game--a ruse, not a rational argument.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between Spencer propaganda and propaganda by dictatorial regimes or the Islamist propaganda he combats. Maybe he's a little more sophisticated when he erects his smokescreens, but essentially it's all propaganda crap.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Think of the worst times in human history. Richard’s point reminds me of the time travel conundrum

Well my point really, and it is the bottom line, is that the Crusades were a response to Islamic imperialism, and were not motivated by Christian imperatives from within. Michael is right. People who don't know that are doomed to repeat it. I'd add that people who avert reality ensure it.

Richard

[Richard Wiig]

Spencer is not one thing only. He is two and he speaks with a forked tongue to satisfy both. Robert Spencer is a propagandist (a really hateful one at that) and he is a scholar who writes and speaks.

As a scholar, you are correct that he has an informed notion of what jihad means. As a propagandist, though, when he writes a headline like:

ANOTHER MODERATE MUSLIM JOINS THE JIHAD: MUSTAFA AKYOL

And in what way precisely is that headline wrong? In supporting the Flotilla over Israel, Mustafa Akyol indeed has joined the jihad.

(which is an actual headline he wrote in Front Page Magazine, see here), and he uses expressions like "jihad against Infidels" by way of clarification, he knows exactly what he is doing. It ain't the scholar Spencer who is writing at that moment. It's Spencer, the propagandist, out to smear someone.

But what Spencer says there is true. The truth cannot in any way be considered a smear tactic.

Spencer is smart enough to know that his message will be interpreted by the vast number of readers as meaning he has uncovered some kind of hidden evidence that Akyol is secretly supporting violent Islamist jihad.

You are smearing him, and his readers. Spencer actually aims higher than that. You have to actually read him to get to the message, not just stop at the headline. When you read him, you find that he aims at thinking people, not at mindless morons or bigots. He deals in thoughtful rational persuasion.

I call this Spencer-speak.

The duplicity is disgusting, too.

When you speak with forked tongue like Spencer does, and a person objects to one side of the tongue, you can always say you meant the other and the person objecting should have know that. But it's a game--a ruse, not a rational argument.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between Spencer propaganda and propaganda by dictatorial regimes or the Islamist propaganda he combats. Maybe he's a little more sophisticated when he erects his smokescreens, but essentially it's all propaganda crap.

Michael

In all of that, and in all of your criticism of him that I have seen so far, you have never once addressed the things that Mr Spencer actually says. You've smeared him - the very thing you claim he does to others, and criticise him for - and not once addressed his message. That will never convince me that he's telling lies or falsehoods. If what he says about Islam is wrong, then simply show it to be wrong. It's that easy.

Richard

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That will never convince me that he's telling lies or falsehoods.

Richard,

You don't seem to get it.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

I am neutralizing your hate message for readers by providing them with another perspective. (You even noticed this once and complained about it.)

That's what you do with hatred. Expose it to the light of day. Show the gimmicks haters and propagandists use. I do a pretty good job, even if I say so myself. If the exposing makes sense, people don't take the hatred arguments seriously.

For instance, in the article I linked to, Spencer did another rhetorical trick. Instead of focusing on what Akyol actually said within the context of what he does, Spencer presented a bunch of other stuff, like pictures of the combat on the flotilla, etc., and complained that Akyol did not address that stuff. His trick is that he presents what Akyol did not address as proof Akyol supports the "jihad against Infidels" (his words in that article, not mine).

In the way he worded it, any reasonable person understands him to mean the terrorist kind of jihad, especially in that context. Now here's what Sencer himself left out. Akyol appears to spend his entire career precisely combating terrorism in the name of jihad and what Akyol himself calls the dogmatic approach to Islam. He even attributes dogmatic and violent Islamism to a mixture of Islam and fascism. (But like I said earlier, I need to read translations of his work from non-English publications before I can be 100% sure that he is consistent.)

What Spencer did is like taking a person who almost never drinks, but got drunk on one occasion, and called him an alcoholic--with the proof being that this alleged "alcoholic" did not condemn alcoholism at the time he got drunk. It's a silly argument. Within the context of a hatred issue, it's nothing but propaganda.

There. Another rhetorical manipulation analyzed and exposed.

In other words, I'm keeping the discussion field clear of tricks and ruses. If you want your message of hatred to get across to readers in the manner you intend, you will have to rely purely on reason. I'll let that pass without contesting it (I'll check the facts for accuracy, but that's all,). But I'll expose the BS and manipulations every time I see it and have the time to address it. Somehow, I don't think that is going to be satisfying to you.

As for you, what you believe is your own business. I've even said this before, but for some reason you think I am trying to convince you of something. All I care about you-wise is that you respect the posting guidelines when you post here on OL.

I'll say it once again.

OL is not a hate site.

Please conduct yourself accordingly.

Incidentally (and this is for readers, not you), I am for the blockade (which, from what I have seen, is nothing more than Israeli insistence on using Israeli customs for incoming shipping) so long as deliveries to Gaza include hidden heavy arms--which has been proven time and time again to happen. But I'll be damned if I want someone like Spencer speaking for me on this. I don't think you need to smear people and use heavy-handed propaganda to make that case.

Michael

[Libertarian Muslim]

Ninth Doctor, I'd really like to thank you for posting this. It really warms my heart.

I really did enjoy this lecture and also watched some others on youtube of him. I'd never heard of Mustafa Aykol but what he has so eloquently articulated pretty much everything that I believe.

What a great lecture. I think I'll send him an email now!

Thanks again Ninth Doctor!

[Richard Wiig]

You don't seem to get it.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

As I said, if you are not about rational persuasion, then all you're doing is smearing.

I am neutralizing your hate message for readers by providing them with another perspective. (You even noticed this once and complained about it.)

I haven't posted any "hate message", and what I've noticed is that you are constantly shooting the messenger.

That's what you do with hatred. Expose it to the light of day. Show the gimmicks haters and propagandists use. I do a pretty good job, even if I say so myself. If the exposing makes sense, people don't take the hatred arguments seriously.

For instance, in the article I linked to, Spencer did another rhetorical trick. Instead of focusing on what Akyol actually said within the context of what he does, Spencer presented a bunch of other stuff, like pictures of the combat on the flotilla, etc.,

The "other stuff" that he presented was the context of what Akyol was commenting on. A court of law would certainly want that context. Any rational person would certainly want that context. You flippantly dismiss it as "other stuff" as if it has nothign to do with the subject being examined.

He presented and complained that Akyol did not address that stuff. His trick is that he presents what Akyol did not address as proof Akyol supports the "jihad against Infidels" (his words in that article, not mine).

What he showed was Akyol's clear bias against Israel - something that is very important to take notice of. His bias showed too in the lecture that ninth doctor posted, so any knowledgeable observant person doesn't need Spencer to notice it

In the way he worded it, any reasonable person understands him to mean the terrorist kind of jihad,

Not at all. Any person with a deep enough understanding of Jihad would not take it that way. What he actually means is that Akyol, at heart, will come down on the side of Islam - that he shares the same goals, but not the means.

especially in that context. Now here's what Sencer himself left out.

He's left it out in that article, because that article was about Akyol's opinion piece on Israel. He has addressed Akyol's other views elsewhere.

What Spencer did is like taking a person who almost never drinks, but got drunk on one occasion, and called him an alcoholic--with the proof being that this alleged "alcoholic" did not condemn alcoholism at the time he got drunk. It's a silly argument. Within the context of a hatred issue, it's nothing but propaganda.

A false analogy. What we have here is not someone who almost never drinks, but got drunk. We have someone who loves Islam so much that he's devoted his life to it, to convincing people like you that Islam is great and you can both co-exist together, despite his co-religionists who disagree, but for a moment showed something inimical to that. Much different from someone falling off the wagon. Once again, you minimise and diminish, even given the gravity of what is at stake.

There. Another rhetorical manipulation analyzed and exposed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Once again, you minimise and diminish, even given the gravity of what is at stake.

Note to readers:

What do I minimize and diminish?

The hatred of course.

(This game's getting boring, though. It never gets any more interesting with haters.)

Michael

EDIT:

I normally wouldn't waste my time on an infantile argument like the following, but it is so typical of the hater epistemology, I want to highlight some of the characteristics.

You don't seem to get it.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

As I said, if you are not about rational persuasion, then all you're doing is smearing.

On the surface, this is the childish argument that goes something like this: You're a pooh-pooh head.

But let's look a little deeper. Notice that I did not say I was "not about rational persuasion" in general. I said I was not interested in this with Richard.

The reason is obvious. Through countless posts, he has shown total indifference to rational elements like context and facts when they conflict with his hatred. Essentially, he, like Spencer, is a propagandist more than anything else in his rhetorical method. And there is no reasoning with propaganda. The only ways to deal with it's toxic effects so that reasoning is even possible is to eliminate it or to expose it.

I prefer to expose it when I have the time.

One of the propagandist's favorite tactics is to blur a concept in order to call someone a name (a "pooh pooh head"). Note, this is not the same thing as presenting a correct identification of what someone did, then drawing a conclusion from it. The tactic of the propagandist is to generalize from a particular and ignore rather obvious facts that do not fit the generalization.

I said I was not trying to convince Richard of anything (the particular). I did not say I was giving up on engaging in rational persuasion with everybody (the generalization).

On the contrary, my form of rational persuasion of readers is to clear the discussion field of manipulative garbage and tricks so that they can see the facts clearly and decide for themselves. I've said this over and over and I've done it over and over.

This process is what Richard calls "smearing."

That's the way haters think. They raise one fact to a general status that simple observation does not merit, and they blank out obvious stuff than anyone can observe just by looking. Based on that, they start calling names.

(Racism actually works this way, but I don't hold that Richard is a racist. The epistemological method is the same, though.)

This is different than when I use a term like "hater." I have a very clear conceptual notion of what I mean and can explain it (see here for a good example). And if a person does not qualify according to my explanation, I don't use the term to describe him. There are many people who disagree with me on Islam and other issues that I do not consider as haters.

So why would a person call another person a name like "smearer" based on a false generalization? The only rational explanation I can come up with in the present context is that I neutralize the toxic part of the hate message and invite readers, even encourage them, to think for themselves.

This means that the hate message has to get across based solely on the merits of the argument in order to persuade folks. And that's practically impossible to do. It's really hard to lather people up into a lynch mob when they think for themselves enough to resist the subconscious pull of propaganda.

Richard, so far, has been unable to put a together a rational persuasive argument for people to adopt his hatred. The proof is that he has convinced hardly anybody--nobody, actually, from what I have seen (but there are readers I don't see, so I'll leave it at "hardly anybody"). Some people who have posted do share his hatred, but from what I have seen, they were not convinced by him--especially not convinced by any rational argument coming from him. They already held that view.

Richard does object--in practice--to people thinking for themselves, though, "given the gravity of what is at stake" (to use his own words). He objected openly in an earlier post about me watering down his message or something like that. (I'll find the quote if it becomes necessary.) That's why I believe he makes use of rhetorical games like false generalizations.

The only real shot he's got on the rational persuasion level to convince people is, ironically, to move away from rational persuasion and move toward manipulation and propaganda.

But, I don't want anyone to take my word for any of this. As always, I encourage you, the reader, to look at what he presents and what I present, think it through and decide for yourself. You all have good minds, so why should anyone not trust them to come to good conclusions after reasoned consideration?

[Richard Wiig]

Note to readers:

What do I minimize and diminish?

The hatred of course.

Which is what? You still haven't identified it whatsoever. There's merely something that you loosely term as a "hate message", but it's meaningless. Just more smearing. What you're actually dimishing is a reasoned, and much needed, examination of Islam.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Which is what? You still haven't identified it whatsoever.

Richard,

The Big Lie technique now?

I have identified it over and over. All anyone has to do is read my posts.

Your stated hatred is Islam. The unstated part is relying on hatred as an epistemological method.

This leads you to all kinds of goofy rationalizations and twisted logic, but the vibes are consistent--they are always awful.

You've done this Big Lie thing before and I haven't called you on it since I thought the other parts of your approach at the time more interesting to discuss for readers. But now I'm pointing it out.

Of all the propaganda techniques, the Big Lie is the most primitive. I don't recommend using it on a philosophy board. It only works in mainstream outlets consumed by people who are too busy to think much about it at the time.

People think here.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Thanks again Ninth Doctor!

Your welcome, of course. I didn’t notice your post until now, I’m afraid it was followed by a post by someone I’ve taken to ignoring, so I didn’t click the thread.

There was a viewpoint Akyol put forward that I’m interested to see your comments on. He discussed reform of the Sharia, and made a good comparison to English common law, which used to call for torture, and execution methods like drawing and quartering, nasty stuff. I gather that Akyol is against the old punishments like stoning, and many OLers will vividly recall that you defended it in specific circumstances. Are you in disagreement with him? Does this make him more “liberal” than you?

Here’s a gratuitous reminder of what drawing and quartering looked like circa 1305, though they don’t show the disemboweling in all its glorious gory detail.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Thanks again Ninth Doctor!

Your welcome, of course. I didn’t notice your post until now, I’m afraid it was followed by a post by someone I’ve taken to ignoring, so I didn’t click the thread.

There was a viewpoint Akyol put forward that I’m interested to see your comments on. He discussed reform of the Sharia, and made a good comparison to English common law, which used to call for torture, and execution methods like drawing and quartering, nasty stuff. I gather that Akyol is against the old punishments like stoning, and many OLers will vividly recall that you defended it in specific circumstances. Are you in disagreement with him? Does this make him more “liberal” than you?

Here’s a gratuitous reminder of what drawing and quartering looked like circa 1305, though they don’t show the disemboweling in all its glorious gory detail.

Thank you for your reply.

As stoning is not mentioned in the Qur'an and we can not verify 100% the validity of the hadiths then I am inclined to say that the punishment of stoning should be abandoned until such a time that a proper revision of Islamic texts including those hadiths has been done. As I stated before, I do not believe the doors of ijtihad have been closed like many Muslims and believe that as men, the scholars of their time were fallible and inclined to make mistakes, therefore I believe that as Muslims we must constantly put aside our pride and veneration for those scholars who did their best and to then review and reanalyze the rulings that have been made with the past with new information that comes to us and with the greater understanding of the revealed sciences (science, math, biology, philosophy etc) that we gain by God's Grace and see whether those rulings hold true to the spirit and message of the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Contrary to what many may say Ninth Doctor. I am not one so full of pride that I would hold beliefs as true when I believed they were incorrect, instead I abandon them without hesitation and acknowledge that something I may have believed or practiced in the past was incorrect. I have done this on many occasions and intend to do so for the rest of my life.

[studiodekadent]

I am an atheist and I despise all religions.

That said, some subgroups of many religions are indeed friendly to the cause of liberty and I think it is fair for them to describe how their religion can be interpreted and understood in a pro-liberty, pro-modernity manner.

Promoting these interpretations of said religion can be very useful in removing the 'teeth' from religionism.

If a Muslim can provide a defense of a secular, classically liberal, cosmopolitan nation, said Muslim should be accepted as being genuinely pro-freedom in their beliefs. This applies to Christians and other religious groups too.

We may fairly argue their religions, interpreted in a specific way, IMPLY anti-freedom, anti-modernity positions. But we shouldn't deny the individual's positive intent and contribution.

[BaalChatzaf]

If a Muslim can provide a defense of a secular, classically liberal, cosmopolitan nation, said Muslim should be accepted as being genuinely pro-freedom in their beliefs. This applies to Christians and other religious groups too.

There are Muslims who do this. They are called Jews.

Hint: Think of the people that started the Objectivist Movementy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

There are Muslims who do this. They are called Jews.

Hint: Think of the people that started the Objectivist Movementy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't get it sorry?

[Richard Wiig]

<i>If a Muslim can provide a defense of a secular, classically liberal, cosmopolitan nation, said Muslim should be accepted as being genuinely pro-freedom in their beliefs.</i>

Certainly. Particular individuals may indeed be pro-freedom (there's also the potential there for deception) and if they genuinely are, then it should be credited where credit is due. However, in regards to providing a defense of classical liberalism it needs to done on an Islamic basis, and therein lies the big problem. Whether Mustafa Akyol is going to succeed or not will depend, not on how people from the Mises institute, or Objectivist Living respond to him, but on how the people who believe in Islamic supremacism, whether by violent means or not, respond to him. He has to convince them of their errors in interpreting Islam. Sessions at the Mises institute isn't going to achieve that. Not one little bit.

[Richard Wiig]

As stoning is not mentioned in the Qur'an and we can not verify 100% the validity of the hadiths then I am inclined to say that the punishment of stoning should be abandoned until such a time that a proper revision of Islamic texts including those hadiths has been done.

If the hadiths can't be verified with 100% validity, then why throw out just one practice based on them? Why not throw out all of the practices? If you want to single out some over others, then on what Islamic basis do you make that decision?

[Selene]

There are Muslims who do this. They are called Jews.

Hint: Think of the people that started the Objectivist Movementy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I don't get it sorry?

LM:

The nice interpretation is that Ayn, Nathaniel, et. al. who were the "founders" of the Objectivist movement happened to be Jewish,

The not nice interpretation is that Jewish folks are superior to the rest of us.

Your choice. I also do not get the "There are Muslims who do this. They are called Jews" statement, but I am referring above to the hint section.

Adam

glad to see you are ok

[Libertarian Muslim]

If the hadiths can't be verified with 100% validity, then why throw out just one practice based on them? Why not throw out all of the practices? If you want to single out some over others, then on what Islamic basis do you make that decision?

If the hadiths are not in the spirit of the Qur'anic message and contradict Qur'anic teachings then we abandon them and don't follow it. If the hadiths are not against the teachings or spirit of the Qur'an then we are not obligated to abandon the practice until the hadiths in questions have been shown to be false.

In Islam there is not only Halal (permissible) and Haram (forbidden), instead there are many things which are between and if people wish to practice them then that is their choice. We are not allowed to make something haram for ourselves or others simply if it can't be proven to be haram and we certainly can't force people not to do it. We don't have that right no matter what the Wahhabis think they can do. It comes down strictly to an individuals personal choice as to what they practice.

There is currently an initiative by the Turks to sort through the Islamic texts and see how relevant and authentic they are. I am excited at this prospect and hope it clears a lot of things up.

LM:

The nice interpretation is that Ayn, Nathaniel, et. al. who were the "founders" of the Objectivist movement happened to be Jewish,

The not nice interpretation is that Jewish folks are superior to the rest of us.

Your choice. I also do not get the "There are Muslims who do this. They are called Jews" statement, but I am referring above to the hint section.

Thank you for your reply Selene. I'm really glad that I was not the only person who didn't get what he meant by his comment.

If Baal is proud of being a Jew then all power to him, it's great to be proud of who you are, if however he thinks that he is better than others because he is a Jew then well I think that says something about his character.

[Richard Wiig]

If the hadiths can't be verified with 100% validity, then why throw out just one practice based on them? Why not throw out all of the practices? If you want to single out some over others, then on what Islamic basis do you make that decision?

If the hadiths are not in the spirit of the Qur'anic message and contradict Qur'anic teachings then we abandon them and don't follow it.

Stonings aren't against the spirit of the Qur'an, though, if they were, they would never have been included in the Sharia.

If the hadiths are not against the teachings or spirit of the Qur'an then we are not obligated to abandon the practice until the hadiths in questions have been shown to be false.

Stoning as a punishment, and certainly also the "crimes" that it is dished out for, hasn't been shown to be false. If you are not suggesting it be tossed out because it's not 100% certain, then you're suggesting it be tossed out because it's not in the spirit of the Qur'an. The great scholars have obviously believed that it is in the spirit of the Qur'an.

In Islam there is not only Halal (permissible) and Haram (forbidden), instead there are many things which are between and if people wish to practice them then that is their choice. We are not allowed to make something haram for ourselves or others simply if it can't be proven to be haram and we certainly can't force people not to do it. We don't have that right no matter what the Wahhabis think they can do. It comes down strictly to an individuals personal choice as to what they practice.

Although Allah knows and ye know not.

There is currently an initiative by the Turks to sort through the Islamic texts and see how relevant and authentic they are. I am excited at this prospect and hope it clears a lot of things up.

No, they are simply classifying them and translating them to Turkish. They are not revising them in any way. Here's an article, originally from Islam Online, but that link is broken,because it's a few years old now. But here's the article, still up at Aussiemuslims.com

http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22308

Here's a couple of snippets:

He shrugged off media suggestions that Turkey was re-writing the Hadith and creating a new Islam.

"They made too much fuss and took the project out of its real context.

"We are neither fashioning a new Islam nor dare to alter the fixtures maxims of Islam," Gormez said emphatically.

"The Western media have read what are doing from a Christian perspective and understood it in line with their Christian and Western cultures."

And...

Gormez also refuted claims they would and edit out some hadiths, especially about women.

"No Muslim in the right mind would dare delete any hadith or tamper with the Prophet's heritage."

[Libertarian Muslim]

Stonings aren't against the spirit of the Qur'an, though, if they were, they would never have been included in the Sharia.

Stoning as a punishment, and certainly also the "crimes" that it is dished out for, hasn't been shown to be false. If you are not suggesting it be tossed out because it's not 100% certain, then you're suggesting it be tossed out because it's not in the spirit of the Qur'an. The great scholars have obviously believed that it is in the spirit of the Qur'an.

Stoning is a hudood punishment, a capital punishment for a crime. Therefore there is the need to be extra careful due it's obvious seriousness. If it is not mentioned in the Qur'an as a punishment that is supposed to be carried out each and every time then I would be careful about applying it in each and every situation. If anything the Qur'an only mentions lashings for the punishment of adultery and so far as I can tell, the Prophet pbuh was reluctant to stone anyone for the crime and very rarely allowed it.

Although Allah knows and ye know not.

That is correct. Therefore it's better to err on the side of caution so as not to make something haram for someone when it is not, that is oppression.

No, they are simply classifying them and translating them to Turkish. They are not revising them in any way. Here's an article, originally from Islam Online, but that link is broken,because it's a few years old now. But here's the article, still up at Aussiemuslims.com

http://www.aussiemuslims.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22308

Here's a couple of snippets:

He shrugged off media suggestions that Turkey was re-writing the Hadith and creating a new Islam.

"They made too much fuss and took the project out of its real context.

"We are neither fashioning a new Islam nor dare to alter the fixtures maxims of Islam," Gormez said emphatically.

"The Western media have read what are doing from a Christian perspective and understood it in line with their Christian and Western cultures."

And...

Gormez also refuted claims they would and edit out some hadiths, especially about women.

"No Muslim in the right mind would dare delete any hadith or tamper with the Prophet's heritage."

You think they haven't already been classified and translated into Turkish? When the Ottoman Empire ruled the Muslim world for almost 600 years? Oh please...

I think more is going on behind the scenes than they are making people aware of.. Oh and I really can't stand AussieMuslims.. It's full of crazy people.

[bmacwilliam]

If Baal is proud of being a Jew then all power to him, it's great to be proud of who you are, if however he thinks that he is better than others because he is a Jew then well I think that says something about his character.

Here's the problem with this line of thinking. Let's assume that you have a small group of male friends - close buddies - or at least one. Now let's say you meet a new special lady in your life. Do you now care less for your friend(s)? Most would say of course not, and on one level I agree (sort of). However, in any every sense that actually matters, you indeed DO care LESS for the friend and here's why:

When conflicts arise between buddies/girlfriend the buddies inevitably lose. It's the action that counts - in fact it's the only thing that counts.

Let's look at the employer. All else being equal, it doesn't matter at all whether the boss likes Jews or hates Blacks. Either way, the Jews get preferential hiring treatment. Preferential fondness to Jews or blatant discrimination against Blacks has the EXACT SAME outcome.

In more technical terms it is only the ORDINAL relationship of human values and not the CARDINAL valuation (if that's even possible at all anyway) that determines one's actions.

In a logical, but also in a very real sense, positive racial pride is no different whatsoever than negative racial views toward others because it affects one's ordinal valuation and hence one's actions (what really matters) in precisely the same way.

Bob

[BaalChatzaf]

Let's look at the employer. All else being equal, it doesn't matter at all whether the boss likes Jews or hates Blacks. Either way, the Jews get preferential hiring treatment. Preferential fondness to Jews or blatant discrimination against Blacks has the EXACT SAME outcome.

In more technical terms it is only the ORDINAL relationship of human values and not the CARDINAL valuation (if that's even possible at all anyway) that determines one's actions.

In a logical, but also in a very real sense, positive racial pride is no different whatsoever than negative racial views toward others because it affects one's ordinal valuation and hence one's actions (what really matters) in precisely the same way.

Bob

When were Jews ever preferentially treated (except, perhaps, by other Jews). You have heard of quotas have you not? Jews were given second place for many many decades, particularly at top rung universities and colleges. They were not treated according to merit. In fact they were pushed down precisely because of their merit. You wouldn't want 98 percent of the math students at Princeton (say) to be Jewish now, would you?

It was Jews who pushed the hardest for hiring by merit. Quality talks and bullshit and favoritism ought to walk.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bmacwilliam]

When were Jews ever preferentially treated (except, perhaps, by other Jews).

Well, nobody (at least nobody sane) is going to argue that as a group Jews haven't suffered more than their share of historical discrimination. I think that's pretty clear, but not the point.

The central point is that any type of pro-racial pride, Jewish or anything else, logically results in precisely the same actions that the people of the group are or were victimized by.

This is why racism is so seemingly intractable. People think they can hold on to their ethnic pride and not be racist. Simply impossible because all you need is the slightest ordinal value difference and "poof", you necessarily commit discriminitory action.

Bob

EDIT: By "same action" I refer to discriminatory class of actions like hiring and University placements etc. that you mention. Sure if you really "hate" an ethnic group, you'd be more likely to be violent against them than if you just value your group more. So, while not being exactly the same, it still is equivalent wrt non-violent discrimination.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Bob_Mac