Nostr Web Client

I must disagree that it is coherent. It was coherent with mahomet’s interests at the time. “You have your religion and I have mine” when he had no followers.

And then “kill the infidels” when he found himself with an army.

I point to a verse that plainly just calls for killing and decapitating non-muslims.

Muslim bros be like: “But bro, you gotta understand the context bro. You see bro, it’s actually very justified in that context bro.”

Also muslims bros: “Bro, Islam is a religion for all places and all times bro.”

Where is the consistency I ask.

MichaelJ 2y ago

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, don't people on the outside say the same thing about Christianity?

Atheists and agnostics always critique the Bible for having two different Gods, the Old Testament God who commanded genocide, and the New Testament God who commanded love of neighbor. Obviously we know the two are consistent, but to someone picking up the Bible for the first time, the Pentateuch and the Gospels almost appear to be from different religions.

I wonder if there is similar nuance within Islam that I, as an outsider, don't know all the details of. Kind of like how ex-Christians often assume all Christians are basically Protestant evangelicals. We're not, there are so many gradations of doctrine and practice. If Islam had some similar internal disagreement, I wouldn't necessarily know about it any more than the secular guy would know about all the disagreement within Christianity.

You often here non-Muslims repeat the same talking points about Islam, but I want to be careful not to paint with too broad a brush.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Finrod Felagund 2y ago

You play the Devil’s advocate very well. But I personally am not an outsider. I’ve lived in muslim communities, I’ve read their quran in the original arabic. I’ve seen what it says, and I’ve seen how they interpret it, because it’s not always the same.

There are nuances and I’ve noticed them. Many of the “kill the infidel” verses are meant to be in self defense, if one is to interpret those verses honestly. Such honest interpretations are extremely rare, but I digress.

However, there are other verses that call openly for killing the infidels. The quran would be casually listing requirements to be a good muslim, and then out of nowhere, kill the infidels. And it also says to not worry about the sin of committing murder when killing the infidels, for “if you throw an arrow at an infidel, it’s as if god himself threw it”.

Many sheikhs I’ve spoken with about this particular point double down unapologetically on their beliefs “yes ideally we should kill all the infidels”. Other sheikhs say that it is a “last resort” sort of strategy, and that muslims should prioritize less brutal ways to spread islam, but these sheikhs still cannot bring themselves to and denounce and disobey this commandment to kill infidels.

One sheikh in confidence admitted to me that he believes the quran is not infallible, and that human error has been introduced to it. In confidence obviously because he would’ve been branded as an “infidel” himself, and that might’ve put him in danger. He was an exception, whose like I’ve yet to encounter again.

MichaelJ 2y ago

What do you know, then, about the "Jihad as internal struggle" versus "Jihad as literal war" talking point that often comes up in the West?

Finrod Felagund 2y ago

Originally, it meant war to save Islam. Only the prophet and his successors, which is what caliphe means in arabic, could call for it. And it is considered as the most guaranteed way to paradise. “Jihad fi sabil Allah” is the full expression and it translates to “struggle towards god”. Many caliphes called for it. What comes to mind is Saladin at the end of his reign, to remove the last remnants of the crusader states.

The last official call for jihad was by the last ottoman sultan in ww1.

The interpretation as an “internal struggle” came as an attempt to reform the concept of “jihad”, hoping to shift the mindset of muslims from external war against others, to internal war against sin. But it hasn’t succeeded, and since there isn’t any official reference for religious authority in islam, like what we have in the Pope as Catholics, any sheikh can just be his own reference and interpret “jihad” however he sees fit.

“Internal war” when it’s beneficial to appear peaceful, and “external war” when in a position of strength for example

LuisSP 2y ago

yes, only the kaliph can and must periodically call offensive jihad on infidels, until the whole world is muslim. And the ottoman sultan was also the last kaliph. Obviously, it's not always possible to wage large wars, so he can run small expeditions to capture slaves/loot, etc, or persecute internal non-muslim minorities, to save face following the letter of the law.

as there is no kaliph, smaller governments must defend the muslim territory they are responsible for - permanent peace which permanently yields their territory to non-muslims is not allowed. And they can call for defensive jihads to defend the umma (all muslims), against attacking infidels.

this explains why bin laden always framed his fights as defense against neo-colonialism, cultural influence, or previous invasions - he knows he lacks the authority to wage offensive jihad with no provocation.

and why egypt could make peace but hamas or fatah can not: egypt surrendered the responsability over Gaza to the PLO.

also, why, if Israel gets weak, muslim countries can claim to be defending the umma, and declare war again.

And why previously muslim lands are always remembered first as targets, such as Spain or India.

LuisSP 2y ago

do you know about abrogation in Islam?

basically the peaceful/self-defense koran verses were written first, when muslims were weak.

then later aggressive verses abrogate the earlier ones,being written when muslims a position of force.

and the order in the text is not the same as chronological order. it changes much.

this opens the door to another islamic doctrine, taqiya: dupe infidels telling about the peaceful or self-defense verses, and not telling about abrogation