Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
surveyor
Participanthttp://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html
Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.Participanthttp://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html
Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.Participanthttp://hnn.us/blogs/entries/119721.html
Thus, if his (Hasan’s) Qur’an briefing was any indication—and it damned well should be, Army political-correctness notwithstanding—Hasan’s murderous rampage at Ft. Hood was nothing if not a private jihad, fueled and justifed by the following Qur’anic mandates:
*Surah Muhammad [47]:3ff: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have totally defeated them….”
*Surah al-Anfal [8]:12ff: “I will cast dread into the hearts of the unbelievers. Strike off their heads….”
*Surah al-Dukhan [44]:43ff: “Surely the tree of Zamzam [bitterness] will provide food for the sinful. Like molten brass it will boil their insides, like the boiling of scalding water.”
Until it becomes acceptable in Sunni Islam to read such verses as metaphor—as, for example, rhetorical “decapitation” of non-Muslim arguments against Islam—and/or to limit them to the 7th century AD, the Hasans of the world will continue to find rational justification within the Islamic fold for personal jihad against “infidels”—totally apart from any connections to, or encouragement from, al-Qa`idah or any other Islamic terrorist group. Far from being an “extremist,” Hasan was, and is, simply a literalist Sunni Muslim who acted upon the teachings of his holy book, rather than merely pay it lip service.Participanthttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120314051
“To say it has nothing to do with the faith of that individual would be dishonest,” [Irfan] Nourredine said. “It may not represent the faith of Muslims around the world or American Muslims, but it does represent his faith and probably people of like mind — the fringe of the community, people who are on the outskirts, who we may not pay as much attention as we need to.”
There are extremist Islamist elements in America, he says. And he wishes Muslims would accept that and begin dealing with it. For too long, some Muslims have stayed silent about radical beliefs they may not endorse because they don’t want to appear un-Islamic, he says. For some Muslims in the government or in the military, that’s a battle that can’t be won.
“You’re looked at as a suspect in your own society,” he said. “Then you’re looked at as a hypocrite in your community.”
This guy seems to get it better than Arraya…
Participanthttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120314051
“To say it has nothing to do with the faith of that individual would be dishonest,” [Irfan] Nourredine said. “It may not represent the faith of Muslims around the world or American Muslims, but it does represent his faith and probably people of like mind — the fringe of the community, people who are on the outskirts, who we may not pay as much attention as we need to.”
There are extremist Islamist elements in America, he says. And he wishes Muslims would accept that and begin dealing with it. For too long, some Muslims have stayed silent about radical beliefs they may not endorse because they don’t want to appear un-Islamic, he says. For some Muslims in the government or in the military, that’s a battle that can’t be won.
“You’re looked at as a suspect in your own society,” he said. “Then you’re looked at as a hypocrite in your community.”
This guy seems to get it better than Arraya…
Participanthttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120314051
“To say it has nothing to do with the faith of that individual would be dishonest,” [Irfan] Nourredine said. “It may not represent the faith of Muslims around the world or American Muslims, but it does represent his faith and probably people of like mind — the fringe of the community, people who are on the outskirts, who we may not pay as much attention as we need to.”
There are extremist Islamist elements in America, he says. And he wishes Muslims would accept that and begin dealing with it. For too long, some Muslims have stayed silent about radical beliefs they may not endorse because they don’t want to appear un-Islamic, he says. For some Muslims in the government or in the military, that’s a battle that can’t be won.
“You’re looked at as a suspect in your own society,” he said. “Then you’re looked at as a hypocrite in your community.”
This guy seems to get it better than Arraya…
Participanthttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120314051
“To say it has nothing to do with the faith of that individual would be dishonest,” [Irfan] Nourredine said. “It may not represent the faith of Muslims around the world or American Muslims, but it does represent his faith and probably people of like mind — the fringe of the community, people who are on the outskirts, who we may not pay as much attention as we need to.”
There are extremist Islamist elements in America, he says. And he wishes Muslims would accept that and begin dealing with it. For too long, some Muslims have stayed silent about radical beliefs they may not endorse because they don’t want to appear un-Islamic, he says. For some Muslims in the government or in the military, that’s a battle that can’t be won.
“You’re looked at as a suspect in your own society,” he said. “Then you’re looked at as a hypocrite in your community.”
This guy seems to get it better than Arraya…
Participanthttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120314051
“To say it has nothing to do with the faith of that individual would be dishonest,” [Irfan] Nourredine said. “It may not represent the faith of Muslims around the world or American Muslims, but it does represent his faith and probably people of like mind — the fringe of the community, people who are on the outskirts, who we may not pay as much attention as we need to.”
There are extremist Islamist elements in America, he says. And he wishes Muslims would accept that and begin dealing with it. For too long, some Muslims have stayed silent about radical beliefs they may not endorse because they don’t want to appear un-Islamic, he says. For some Muslims in the government or in the military, that’s a battle that can’t be won.
“You’re looked at as a suspect in your own society,” he said. “Then you’re looked at as a hypocrite in your community.”
This guy seems to get it better than Arraya…
Participantsure it’s MY interpretation (not)
In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur’anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam’s learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam’s relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur’an’s earlier and more tolerant verses, such as “no compulsion is there in religion.”[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his “progressive” insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]
Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” by Emile Tyan states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.” Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that “jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).In their own words… Not mine.
Understand what motivates your enemy? Nah, not necessary, right?
Participantsure it’s MY interpretation (not)
In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur’anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam’s learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam’s relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur’an’s earlier and more tolerant verses, such as “no compulsion is there in religion.”[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his “progressive” insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]
Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” by Emile Tyan states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.” Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that “jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).In their own words… Not mine.
Understand what motivates your enemy? Nah, not necessary, right?
Participantsure it’s MY interpretation (not)
In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur’anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam’s learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam’s relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur’an’s earlier and more tolerant verses, such as “no compulsion is there in religion.”[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his “progressive” insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]
Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” by Emile Tyan states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.” Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that “jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).In their own words… Not mine.
Understand what motivates your enemy? Nah, not necessary, right?
Participantsure it’s MY interpretation (not)
In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur’anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam’s learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam’s relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur’an’s earlier and more tolerant verses, such as “no compulsion is there in religion.”[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his “progressive” insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]
Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” by Emile Tyan states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.” Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that “jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).In their own words… Not mine.
Understand what motivates your enemy? Nah, not necessary, right?
Participantsure it’s MY interpretation (not)
In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur’anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam’s learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam’s relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur’an’s earlier and more tolerant verses, such as “no compulsion is there in religion.”[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his “progressive” insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]
Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” by Emile Tyan states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.” Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that “jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi’l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).In their own words… Not mine.
Understand what motivates your enemy? Nah, not necessary, right?
ParticipantAnd now for a brief interlude:
“Pure Islam” and Michael van der Galiën
Michael van der Galiën is a 23-year-old American Studies student at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen in the Netherlands, and correspondent in the Netherlands for Pajamas Media. In a post entitled “Islamic Law and Violence,” he commented over a week ago on a response written by a student at Brown, Jebediah Koogler, to my Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week talk there. Since van der Galiën articulates so many common responses to and common misunderstandings of the work I am doing, I thought it might be useful to respond.
Jeb Koogler explains the obvious: Islamic law isn’t static. It changes over time. I also get a bit tired of people who say that the Koran preaches much more violence than the Bible and Torah do. I’ve read the Koran and I disagree; it doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah.
I discuss this very common argument at length in my book Religion of Peace?; suffice it to say here that van der Galiën’s statement, that the Qur’an doesn’t teach violence any more than the “Bible or Torah” is flatly false. For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.
The Qur’an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers — see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.
Of course, van der Galiën would respond that such passages have not been understood as such by all Muslims throughout history, and that is no doubt true. We’ll discuss that in more detail in a moment. But it is not the point here, for when he says that the Qur’an “doesn’t teach violence any more than the Bible or Torah,” he is not talking about interpretative traditions, but the content of the text.
In fact, I’d say, the only way for people to defend terrorism or violence by the Koran is by quoting passages in it completely out of context and to ignore the spirit of the Koran, which is peaceful.
Unfortunately for van der Galiën, there is not a single traditional school of Islamic jurisprudence that would agree with his assessment here, for all of the schools that are considered orthodox teach, as part of the obligation of the Muslim community, warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.
Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).
Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).
Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”
However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)
Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
Of course, these are all extremely old authorities — such that one might reasonably assume that whatever they say couldn’t possibly still be the consensus of the Islamic mainstream. The laws of the United States have evolved considerably since the adoption of the Constitution, which itself has been amended. So why shouldn’t this be true of Islamic law as well? Many observers assume that it must be, and that contemporary jihadists’ departure from mainstream Islam must be located in its preference for the writings of ancient jurists rather than modern ones. But in this, unfortunately, they fail to reckon with the implications of the closing of the gates of ijtihad.
(I won’t bore you guys with the rest)…
-
AuthorPosts
