Babadook
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2015
- Messages
- 317
- Reaction score
- 76
I'm always appalled when some people feel confident enough to make assumptions about my beliefs and what I believe in as a muslim, and call it violent. It's a strawman argument, just like invoking the no true scotsman fallacy when in fact it was not even proposed.
It's sad and amusing at the same time that people put my beliefs in the same category with the beliefs of ISIS. The latter believes that the end justifies the means. That is, unleashed and unlimited violence is justified. That's not a teaching of islam, and so I don't believe in that.
I also don't believe in cherrypicking verses, so as I believe in the Quran as a whole, as well as its intelligibility, I believe that my interpretation - more precisely, my understanding corroborated by scholars- of the Quran is more legit than that of ISIS or some self-appointed Quran experts on NB. I suggest ya'all to look up Derrida:
“Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion. "
Violence has a context as well.
Our penal code says: "...kill another person..."
So, I guess our laws encourage violence...Now of course the full sentence goes like this: 'If someone does kill another person, he/she is to be punished [by]...' Note that punishment itself is violence. But we all believe it's necessary and justified in certain cases. Violence is part of human nature, therefore every normative system shall deal with it, implicitly or explicitly. The context of these systems is human behavior. As long as private property did not exist, there was no need to regulate it, for example.. But violence has always existed, irrespective of ideologies. Animal rights activists suggest that killing animals is also violence that should be ended. Maybe a hundred years from now we will be considered barbars for eating animal flesh. There are many utopias and anti-utopias postulating societies void of violence. But ultimately that's wishful thinking. We do have the capability and the freedom to choose resorting to violence, which, in the end, is just another form of human interactions (in its narrow meaning, violence refers to the use of force between humans, and it may also be added: with the intent to cause harm- which still needs further elaboration, f.e how much a person is responsible for that intent [and we have already introduced a new concept: responsibility] ).
One could be a mere utilitarianist, one could be following a categorical imperative or the golden rule, but the person may still resort to violence. You can believe in freedom, love and peace all you want, but people do kill in the name of freedom, love and peace. Humans are rather interesting beings, they/we often act in a way that is in contrast to what we believe in. A phenomenon for which we also have a word: hypocrisy. Hypocrites in islam are the worst, and they'll go to hell. When you quote verses talking about punishment in the hereafter, it pertains to hypocrites as well. Call them muslims for all you want, but being a muslim in itself has never guaranteed salvation.
At this point, the question 'who's a muslim' needs to be addressed. I'd say a muslim is someone who believes in the shahada, and some may add that at least praying is necessary too (but we know from the hadith about people that prayed, or even gave charity and did fast, but they insulted and backtalked others so they'll go to hell).
So, what about believing? What do muslims believe in? What do muslims have to believe in?
It must be understood that there are different levels of faith. Simply believing the shahada will make you a muslim but it's the lowest level of faith, the highest being ihsan. Those who do good are muhsin. The Quran often mentions faith and deeds together (those who believe and do good). Now some people may come forth saying that 'good' in islam is 'evil' from a western point of view ( I wonder which western point of view though, because according to people like Richard Dawkins, there is no good or evil). But I'm honestly appalled how someone can accuse muslims of believing in 'violence' when even those who pray or fast may still go to hell for backbiting others, compared to which blowing up innocents is a crime much worse.
So, just because a minority of muslims do belive in the excessive use of violence for the "greater good" (which reminds me of the motto of the jesuits, just saying), it doesn't mean that what muslims in general believe in, is violent. But even if some things we believe includes the use of force, I still see a difference -a stark one- between a belief allowing violence limited to self-defense, and believing in violence unconstrained. I don't believe in the use of violence any more than an average earthling (however I also don't believe that if someone hits me on the cheek, I should let him hit my other cheek as well). Beliefs are not violent just like that, it's us humans who act upon certain beliefs, but again, it can be basically any belief, as long as someone also believes that violent means without restraint are ok to be used in order to achieve something (f.e propagating another belief). I believe that the Quran is the word of God, and I think that if examined in its proper context, one would conclude that it talks about defensive violence/use of force. If someone interprets it to be offensive violence, well, that's definitely not what I believe in. However it still remains a question of further elaboration as to what constitutes a self-defensive situation? (F.e Bin Laden said that they attack America in defense of the muslims America and her allies kill/infringe rights of. ) But this debate is not unique to islam, I'm quite sure that it's just as debatable whether the war on terror, or 'preventive strikes' or collateral damage is justifiable based on self-defense or spreading democracy (which is all about freedom and peace, rite? Oh wait, no).
In this sense, I don't believe in violence any more than a non-muslim who thinks resorting to violence in case of self-defense is alright (protecting society from criminals also being one of the justifiable cases of using violence, a belief significance of which will be manifest when God will judge people in the afterlife for their sins, which renders quoting verses of the Quran on God punishing certain people, moot.)
It's sad and amusing at the same time that people put my beliefs in the same category with the beliefs of ISIS. The latter believes that the end justifies the means. That is, unleashed and unlimited violence is justified. That's not a teaching of islam, and so I don't believe in that.
I also don't believe in cherrypicking verses, so as I believe in the Quran as a whole, as well as its intelligibility, I believe that my interpretation - more precisely, my understanding corroborated by scholars- of the Quran is more legit than that of ISIS or some self-appointed Quran experts on NB. I suggest ya'all to look up Derrida:
“Every sign, linguistic or nonlinguistic, spoken or written (in the usual sense of this opposition), as a small or large unity, can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion. "
Violence has a context as well.
Our penal code says: "...kill another person..."
So, I guess our laws encourage violence...Now of course the full sentence goes like this: 'If someone does kill another person, he/she is to be punished [by]...' Note that punishment itself is violence. But we all believe it's necessary and justified in certain cases. Violence is part of human nature, therefore every normative system shall deal with it, implicitly or explicitly. The context of these systems is human behavior. As long as private property did not exist, there was no need to regulate it, for example.. But violence has always existed, irrespective of ideologies. Animal rights activists suggest that killing animals is also violence that should be ended. Maybe a hundred years from now we will be considered barbars for eating animal flesh. There are many utopias and anti-utopias postulating societies void of violence. But ultimately that's wishful thinking. We do have the capability and the freedom to choose resorting to violence, which, in the end, is just another form of human interactions (in its narrow meaning, violence refers to the use of force between humans, and it may also be added: with the intent to cause harm- which still needs further elaboration, f.e how much a person is responsible for that intent [and we have already introduced a new concept: responsibility] ).
One could be a mere utilitarianist, one could be following a categorical imperative or the golden rule, but the person may still resort to violence. You can believe in freedom, love and peace all you want, but people do kill in the name of freedom, love and peace. Humans are rather interesting beings, they/we often act in a way that is in contrast to what we believe in. A phenomenon for which we also have a word: hypocrisy. Hypocrites in islam are the worst, and they'll go to hell. When you quote verses talking about punishment in the hereafter, it pertains to hypocrites as well. Call them muslims for all you want, but being a muslim in itself has never guaranteed salvation.
At this point, the question 'who's a muslim' needs to be addressed. I'd say a muslim is someone who believes in the shahada, and some may add that at least praying is necessary too (but we know from the hadith about people that prayed, or even gave charity and did fast, but they insulted and backtalked others so they'll go to hell).
So, what about believing? What do muslims believe in? What do muslims have to believe in?
It must be understood that there are different levels of faith. Simply believing the shahada will make you a muslim but it's the lowest level of faith, the highest being ihsan. Those who do good are muhsin. The Quran often mentions faith and deeds together (those who believe and do good). Now some people may come forth saying that 'good' in islam is 'evil' from a western point of view ( I wonder which western point of view though, because according to people like Richard Dawkins, there is no good or evil). But I'm honestly appalled how someone can accuse muslims of believing in 'violence' when even those who pray or fast may still go to hell for backbiting others, compared to which blowing up innocents is a crime much worse.
So, just because a minority of muslims do belive in the excessive use of violence for the "greater good" (which reminds me of the motto of the jesuits, just saying), it doesn't mean that what muslims in general believe in, is violent. But even if some things we believe includes the use of force, I still see a difference -a stark one- between a belief allowing violence limited to self-defense, and believing in violence unconstrained. I don't believe in the use of violence any more than an average earthling (however I also don't believe that if someone hits me on the cheek, I should let him hit my other cheek as well). Beliefs are not violent just like that, it's us humans who act upon certain beliefs, but again, it can be basically any belief, as long as someone also believes that violent means without restraint are ok to be used in order to achieve something (f.e propagating another belief). I believe that the Quran is the word of God, and I think that if examined in its proper context, one would conclude that it talks about defensive violence/use of force. If someone interprets it to be offensive violence, well, that's definitely not what I believe in. However it still remains a question of further elaboration as to what constitutes a self-defensive situation? (F.e Bin Laden said that they attack America in defense of the muslims America and her allies kill/infringe rights of. ) But this debate is not unique to islam, I'm quite sure that it's just as debatable whether the war on terror, or 'preventive strikes' or collateral damage is justifiable based on self-defense or spreading democracy (which is all about freedom and peace, rite? Oh wait, no).
In this sense, I don't believe in violence any more than a non-muslim who thinks resorting to violence in case of self-defense is alright (protecting society from criminals also being one of the justifiable cases of using violence, a belief significance of which will be manifest when God will judge people in the afterlife for their sins, which renders quoting verses of the Quran on God punishing certain people, moot.)
Last edited: