A muslims opinion on this video?

SV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SP-YcsOSco

This has probably been posted before at some point but I have no idea on how to find it.
Seen it over on AH and said I'd post it here instead of AH because..well, I think that's obvious.


So, opinions on what she's saying?
anything false there or misinterpreted? or do you agree with any of it?

hivizman

The woman in this video is called Wafa Sultan. She was born in Syria but emigrated to the USA. The material from the video is taken from a 45-minute programme called The Opposite Direction, broadcast in February 2006, and was edited and subtitled by an organisation called MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). I have occasionally linked to material from MEMRI, but there are certainly people out there who consider that MEMRI is biased and may not always be reliable in its translations of material in Arabic or Persian.

Dr Sultan has recently written a book with the title A God Who Hates, which claims that Islam is "inherently barbarous". From what I can tell based on a quick surf across the internet, this book, like the video, seems to put forward the same criticisms of Islam as writers such as Robert Spencer (author of The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion).

I suspect that the characterisation of Islam in Dr Sultan's video will appear strange and extreme to many, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

SV

hivizman wrote: »

The woman in this video is called Wafa Sultan. She was born in Syria but emigrated to the USA. The material from the video is taken from a 45-minute programme called The Opposite Direction, broadcast in February 2006, and was edited and subtitled by an organisation called MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute). I have occasionally linked to material from MEMRI, but there are certainly people out there who consider that MEMRI is biased and may not always be reliable in its translations of material in Arabic or Persian.

Dr Sultan has recently written a book with the title A God Who Hates, which claims that Islam is "inherently barbarous". From what I can tell based on a quick surf across the internet, this book, like the video, seems to put forward the same criticisms of Islam as writers such as Robert Spencer (author of The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion).

I suspect that the characterisation of Islam in Dr Sultan's video will appear strange and extreme to many, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

So you don't have anything to say about this video itself then or what she's saying ?

hivizman

SV wrote: »

So you don't have anything to say about this video itself then or what she's saying ?

You requested "a muslim's opinion" on the video. I am not a muslim, so I have not expressed an opinion.

irishconvert

This post is close to breaking the charter. If it descends into a Muslim bashing thread it I will be closing it.

My opinion on the video, she is just ranting on with stereotypes and generalisations about Muslims. She obviously has a big problem with Islam. I can't relate to what she is saying. None of the Muslims I know are like the Muslims she is talking about.

SV

irishconvert wrote: »

This post is close to breaking the charter. If it descends into a Muslim bashing thread it I will be closing it.

My opinion on the video, she is just ranting on with stereotypes and generalisations about Muslims. She obviously has a big problem with Islam. I can't relate to what she is saying. None of the Muslims I know are like the Muslims she is talking about.

Oh there's no doubt she has a big problem with Islam.

however, the comments she's making about it..any truth to any of them? there must be otherwise why aren't they refuted?
and it's very easy to dismiss something like this simply by saying any Muslims you know aren't like those she talks about isn't it?

deravarra

SV wrote: »

however, the comments she's making about it..any truth to any of them? there must be otherwise why aren't they refuted?

This is the kind of "debate" that Islamophobes love to put forward, but they do it in a forum where there are no Islamic scholars.
I think this kind of question would be best addressed by those who are best able to answer your question, and from a learned and studious position.

SV wrote: »

and it's very easy to dismiss something like this simply by saying any Muslims you know aren't like those she talks about isn't it?

And do you know muslims like this?

SV

deravarra wrote: »

This is the kind of "debate" that Islamophobes love to put forward, but they do it in a forum where there are no Islamic scholars.
I think this kind of question would be best addressed by those who are best able to answer your question, and from a learned and studious position.

And do you know muslims like this?

Well I assumed I might find them here hence why this video is here and not in AH.

I don't know muslims like that at all, no.
however I live in a Christian country where it's rare to come across a muslim, let alone one like which is spoke about in the video.
If I knew a community of them however I'm sure it's not uncommon, if it is indeed wrote in the Quran.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

Well I assumed I might find them here hence why this video is here and not in AH.

I don't know muslims like that at all, no.
however I live in a Christian country where it's rare to come across a muslim, let alone one like which is spoke about in the video.
If I knew a community of them however I'm sure it's not uncommon, if it is indeed wrote in the Quran.

Yep, learned and studious Islamic academics browse boards.ie quite a lot, just waiting for questions like this.

Seriously, get a grip. If you want an expert's opinion, you go ask the experts, not on a general forum like boards, where anyone can give an input.

SV

deravarra wrote: »

Yep, learned and studious Islamic academics browse boards.ie quite a lot, just waiting for questions like this.

Seriously, get a grip. If you want an expert's opinion, you go ask the experts, not on a general forum like boards, where anyone can give an input.

It's the Islam forum, not everyone comes in here and those that do and regularly comment are usually quite knowledgable about the religion(from what I've seen) and more importantly are actually part of it so why shouldn't I ask here? I'm not going to join another forum simply to ask such a mundane question.

I don't want an experts opinion, I want a MUSLIMS opinion.

Would you ever get a grip and take your attitude back to AH.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

It's the Islam forum, not everyone comes in here and those that do and regularly comment are usually quite knowledgable about the religion(from what I've seen) and more importantly are actually part of it so why shouldn't I ask here? I'm not going to join another forum simply to ask such a mundane question.

I don't want an experts opinion, I want a MUSLIMS opinion.

Would you ever get a grip and take your attitude back to AH.

See your answer to my previous point:

"I think this kind of question would be best addressed by those who are best able to answer your question, and from a learned and studious position.

And do you know muslims like this?

Well I assumed I might find them here hence why this video is here and not in AH."

That would be experts, wouldnt it?

Well, they aren't here.

If you want an answer from the experts like you suggested in your previous posting, then my helpful answer of looking for them in a forum where scholars would be shouldnt have caused you a problem.

I've seen people like you posting things like this, and all that's wanted is to cause crap.

SV

Ok, so for the record, I don't want an experts opinion unless one happens to see this.
I want a day to day muslims opinion on this video and the questions I asked. If it can't be answered by a day to day muslim then simply ignore it.



You don't know people like me.

hivizman

I would not be surprised if the immediate reaction of the Muslim regulars in the forum is to suspect that trolling is going on, and therefore to resist getting sucked into debate.

In a religion with 1.5 billion adherents, which has been going for fourteen centuries, it would be strange if there were no incidents that could be pointed to as support for Dr Sultan's views. For example, some Muslims (such as Osama bin Laden) have appealed to Surat at-Tawbah (9:5), which contains the words (in Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an) "slay the idolators wherever you find them", and have claimed that this verse abrogates (that is, cancels) the 200 or so verses in the Qur'an that call for peace, particularly between Muslims and those of other religions. However, the scholarly consensus is that these words relate only to certain tribes in Arabia who had broken treaties with the Muslims, and scholars point out that any former idolator who accepted Islam was to be allowed to go free. Also, the original Arabic word that is translated here as "idolators" - mushrikeen - is almost always used in the Qur'an to refer to the polytheist idol-worshippers of pre-Islamic Arabia, not to ahl al-kitab, People of the Book such as Jews and Christians.

Traditional readings of the Qur'an, like traditional readings of the Old and New Testament, are often taken to support cultural patriarchy. However, just as in Christianity and Judaism, modern reinterpretations are being developed that emphasise the extent to which the Qur'an helped to enhance the position of women in the Arabian society at the time of its revelation, and put more stress on verses (and sayings of Muhammad) that state the equality of women and men than on those verses and sayings that could be interpreted as giving men power over women.

Undoubtedly a few Muslims believe, on the basis of what mainstream scholars would consider to be forced and mistaken interpretations of certain verses and traditions, that Islam requires war on non-Muslims, with the only choices for non-Muslims being death, conversion, or living as dhimmis in a state of humiliation. However, none of the Muslims I know would agree with this view.

SV

Cheers for that response hivizman

deravarra

I just had a chance to watch this, as I cannot view it from work.

Firstly, your choice of video was poor - for one main reason. The "translation" was done by a group of people calling themselves MEMRI. This group is made up of ex Mossad and ex Israeli DF personnel. They have been discredited for their translations and being vehemently anti Islamic.

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, has been one of the most outspoken critics of MEMRI, writing: "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation," to "further the political agenda of Israel."

Several critics have accused MEMRI of selectivity. They state that MEMRI consistently picks for translation and dissemination the most extreme views, which portray the Arab and Muslim world in a negative light, while ignoring moderate views that are often found in the same media outlets. According to Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East History at the University of Michigan, MEMRI has a tendency to "cleverly cherry-pick the vast Arabic press, which serves 300 million people, for the most extreme and objectionable articles and editorials". Laila Lalami, writing in The Nation, states that MEMRI "consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in e-mail newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington"

The accuracy of MEMRI's translations are often disputed, as in the case of MEMRI's translation of a 2004 Osama bin Laden video, which MEMRI defended. Norman Finkelstein, in an interview with the Muslim newspaper In Focus said MEMRI "uses the same sort of propaganda techniques as the Nazis... It’s a reliable assumption that anything MEMRI translates from the Middle East is going to be unreliable."

In 2007, CNN correspondent Atika Shubert and Arabic translators accused MEMRI of mistranslating portions of a Palestinian children's television programme.

"Media watchdog MEMRI translates one caller as saying - quote - 'We will annihilate the Jews,"' said Shubert. "But, according to several Arabic speakers used by CNN, the caller actually says 'The Jews are killing us."'

I'm afraid on the basis of your source, I would have to dismiss the video in it's entirety as I am not a native arabic speaker, and neither are you.

irishconvert

deravarra wrote: »

Seriously, get a grip.

SV wrote: »

Would you ever get a grip and take your attitude back to AH.

Can you two please calm down and be civil to one another. It's not After Hours in here.

Thank you.

irishconvert

SV wrote: »

Oh there's no doubt she has a big problem with Islam.

however, the comments she's making about it..any truth to any of them? there must be otherwise why aren't they refuted?
and it's very easy to dismiss something like this simply by saying any Muslims you know aren't like those she talks about isn't it?

The video is a 5 minute rant. If you are more specific about the statements you would like a response to then you might get more answers.

wes

The video is highly edited by Memri, and isn't a true representation of what was actually said, and is for all intent and purposes a fake.

Memri has a habit of doing this was already pointed out by other posters. So there really is nothing to discuss, as the video is a fake due to the "creative" editing from Memri. You can read more details here:

From Source Watch:

Los Angeles based Syrian/American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan appeared on an al-Jazeera television show opposite Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly, a lecturer at Cairo's Al-Azhar University. Memri offered a heavily edited version of the show, and mistranslated several of the exchanges, making it appear that al-Khouly had issued a death fatwa against Sultan. Wafa Sultan became known as someone who had her life threatened because of her "Clash of Civilizations" point of view.

It turns out that Sultan had appeared on a daytime al Jazeera show, roughly equivalent to Jerry Springer, that Western Educated Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouly had not issued a fatwa, and as he is not a recognized Mufti, had he issued a fatwa, it would not be considered in any way, authoritarian.

A secularist blog covering topics broadly related to MENA, named Aqoul, took a tape of the whole show, and translated it, making it available in a PDF file: Transcript Translation: al-Jazeera - The Opposite Direction (26/02/2006). Posts on Aqoul, as well as one on the Winds of Change blog offer a great deal of insight into the distortions:

* Fatwas and Wafa Sultan, Aqoul, March 15, 2006
* On MEMRI & Translations: Winds of Change, a Thread Reply, Aqoul, March 29, 2006
* How to be a Muslim reformer, Aqoul, March 13, 2006
* MEMRI Mendacity, brief thoughts, Aqoul, October 14, 2006
* A Fine Illustration of MEMRI Mendacity, Aqoul, October 14, 2006
* Wafa Sultan: A tale of two transcripts, Winds of Change, March 30, 2006

Click here for full article

So, in conclusion, the video is a fake, due to the creative editing and translation by Memri, and seeing as the video is a fake, there is no need to discuss it. Secondly, just because there is a video of something doesn't make it true, and this goes doubly when its on the Internet, and comes from the likes of Memri who have 0 credibility at this point.

deravarra

wes wrote: »

The video is highly edited by Memri, and isn't a true representation of what was actually said, and is for all intent and purposes a fake.

Memri has a habit of doing this was already pointed out by other posters. So there really is nothing to discuss, as the video is a fake due to the "creative" editing from Memri. You can read more details here:



So, in conclusion, the video is a fake, due to the creative editing and translation by Memri, and seeing as the video is a fake, there is no need to discuss it. Secondly, just because there is a video of something doesn't make it true, and this goes doubly when its on the Internet, and comes from the likes of Memri who have 0 credibility at this point.

Agreed.

And this is the sort of source material that people like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and their ilk love to put forward as "proofs" of why the west should fear and dread Islam.

Yet countless thousands buy their lies and believe them as truthful

SV

Ok, specifically, the part about the taliban destroying the three buddha statues(of bamyan) as they were idols, which is forbidden under sharia law(whichever interpreation of it he took it as!)
Do any of you agree with this?

Did the Prophet Muhammed say "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messenger" ?






I don't know how the translation being fake as it may be makes any difference, it's the translation I asked you to give an opinion on.
Seems a bit of a cop out.

wes

SV wrote: »

I don't know how the translation being fake as it may be makes any difference, it's the translation I asked you to give an opinion on.
Seems a bit of a cop out.

The video being a fake pretty much distorts any arguement being made, and effectively renders it propoganda. The video itself is the cop out. Personally, I see no reason to engage in propoganda from a Pro-Israel group known for dodgy editing and bad translations. They aren't worth dealing with as long as they continue to distort things coming out of the Middle East for there own purposes.

SV

wes wrote: »

The video being a fake pretty much distorts any arguement being made, and effectively renders it propoganda. The video itself is the cop out. Personally, I see no reason to engage in propoganda from a Pro-Israel group known for dodgy editing and bad translations. They aren't worth dealing with as long as they continue to distort things coming out of the Middle East for there own purposes.

The translated version of what she is saying is all I'm asking about, not what the responses in the video are.
I have asked my questions.


How you can ignore it simply because you see the video as being propoganda is ridiculous and a very sly cop out in my opinion.
If I had simply asked these questions without supplying the video what would you have said?

irishconvert

SV wrote: »

The translated version of what she is saying is all I'm asking about, not what the responses in the video are.
I have asked my questions.


How you can ignore it simply because you see the video as being propoganda is ridiculous and a very sly cop out in my opinion.
If I had simply asked these questions without supplying the video what would you have said?

I already asked you what specific points she made that you would like us to comment on.

If you don't answer this I will be closing this thread as it is going nowhere.

SV

irishconvert wrote: »

I already asked you what specific points she made that you would like us to comment on.

If you don't answer this I will be closing this thread as it is going nowhere.

Erm, post 20.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

How you can ignore it simply because you see the video as being propoganda is ridiculous and a very sly cop out in my opinion.

It's not as simple as it being "propaganda". You are asking muslims to give our opinion on statements attributed to the people who were on this video. We cannot be certain about the accuracy of the statements, or whether the video has been highly edited. For that very reason it would not be right to comment on it.

Very sly cop out? Not at all.

Get us a video of this with the correct translation from a reliable source and then I will comment.

SV

deravarra wrote: »

It's not as simple as it being "propaganda". You are asking muslims to give our opinion on statements attributed to the people who were on this video. We cannot be certain about the accuracy of the statements, or whether the video has been highly edited. For that very reason it would not be right to comment on it.

Very sly cop out? Not at all.

Get us a video of this with the correct translation from a reliable source and then I will comment.

It matters not if it's attributed to the people on the video.
Ignore the people on the video and focus solely on the statements made in the translation.


To ignore it simply because of the reasons stated thus far is most definitely a very sly cop out.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

It matters not if it's attributed to the people on the video.
Ignore the people on the video and focus solely on the statements made in the translation.

To ignore it simply because of the reasons stated thus far is most definitely a very sly cop out.

I dont know what kind of person you are, but I would never comment on what another has allegedly said, if there is a doubt in the accuracy of what has been said, and if they even said it in the first place.

Come back with a credible source, a reliable translation, and a better attitude and I will definitely respond.

Don't go throwing the rattle out of the pram because you dont get what you want

SV

deravarra wrote: »

I dont know what kind of person you are, but I would never comment on what another has allegedly said, if there is a doubt in the accuracy of what has been said, and if they even said it in the first place.

Come back with a credible source, a reliable translation, and a better attitude and I will definitely respond.

Don't go throwing the rattle out of the pram because you dont get what you want

lol, if this was simply wrote in text on a forum and not attributed to anyone would you respond then?
you wouldn't have any excuses then.


How on earth are you getting that impression? 'throwing the rattle out of the pram' and 'calling you out' are two very different things.


I've asked questions based on the video in post #20 there, respond to those alone, and ignore the video. If you can do that, I'd appreciate it..but I get the slightest feeling you won't, because I don't think you can.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

lol, if this was simply wrote in text on a forum and not attributed to anyone would you respond then?
you wouldn't have any excuses then.


How on earth are you getting that impression? 'throwing the rattle out of the pram' and 'calling you out' are two very different things.


I've asked questions based on the video in post #20 there, respond to those alone, and ignore the video. If you can do that, I'd appreciate it..but I get the slightest feeling you won't, because I don't think you can.

Ok - I'll answer the first one quickly because I recall the time when I saw the taliban blowing them up - and at that time as well as now I think it was an awful thing to do. I also recall local Islamic scholars decrying the taliban for the action they were about to commit, and asking them not to. I dont have any links for proof ... but I do remember it.

The second part is only a partly quoted, so can often get mistaken in its context. Mostly deliberately done to give a perception that would suit Islamophobes.

Bukhari: God's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)
With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:
And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.

This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah wars. Similarly, we can see that today's governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society. We should note that the 'people' referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah says:

“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)
Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur'an explicitly states:
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion...

SV

deravarra wrote: »

Ok - I'll answer the first one quickly because I recall the time when I saw the taliban blowing them up - and at that time as well as now I think it was an awful thing to do. I also recall local Islamic scholars decrying the taliban for the action they were about to commit, and asking them not to. I dont have any links for proof ... but I do remember it.

The second part I will get back to you about - but later this evening ... I'm at work at the moment, and my boss is about

Thanks for the response.
I have been looking up on the destroying of the statues alright and did see many references that they'd been asked not to do it, however there is no proof, moreso just comments made by random people here and there.


edit: see your edit there.
Doesn't "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah." basically say such a thing? Except explains in detail.

I don't know how it can be interpreted as “It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” that though, except for the 'No compulsion in religion' statement..

deravarra

SV wrote: »

Thanks for the response.
I have been looking up on the destroying of the statues alright and did see many references that they'd been asked not to do it, however there is no proof, moreso just comments made by random people here and there.

I may be showing my age, but I definitely do remember it - and it was way before I became a muslim ... oh and just included a response

deravarra

SV wrote: »

Thanks for the response.
I have been looking up on the destroying of the statues alright and did see many references that they'd been asked not to do it, however there is no proof, moreso just comments made by random people here and there.


edit: see your edit there.
Doesn't "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah." basically say such a thing? Except explains in detail.

I don't know how it can be interpreted as “It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” that though, except for the 'No compulsion in religion' statement..

For this reason I always defer to the experts. You wont find them here

wes

SV wrote: »

The translated version of what she is saying is all I'm asking about, not what the responses in the video are.
I have asked my questions.

How you can ignore it simply because you see the video as being propoganda is ridiculous and a very sly cop out in my opinion.
If I had simply asked these questions without supplying the video what would you have said?

You can call it a cop out if you like, but personally I can't be bothered with any thing a propoganda outfit like Memri says or does, or any conclusions people may get from them. There are bad source, and have been exposed a long time ago.

deravarra

wes wrote: »

You can call it a cop out if you like, but personally I can't be bothered with any thing a propoganda outfit like Memri says or does, or any conclusions people may get from them. There are bad source, and have been exposed a long time ago.

On a side note - and being addressed to SV - since you more than likely have researched a little about MEMRI and their make-up ... how helpful do you see them being - especially when it comes to peace in the middle east? Do you think that posting innacurate details of cherry-picked tv moments and emailing them to policy makers in the US government is good for a peaceful settlement in Palestine?

SV

deravarra wrote: »

On a side note - and being addressed to SV - since you more than likely have researched a little about MEMRI and their make-up ... how helpful do you see them being - especially when it comes to peace in the middle east? Do you think that posting innacurate details of cherry-picked tv moments and emailing them to policy makers in the US government is good for a peaceful settlement in Palestine?

Absolutely not.

The idea of them is good, in theory, in practise they've proved quite something else.
Wouldn't be a fan of them now at all and could do without them if there's ever to be peace in the middle east.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

Absolutely not.

The idea of them is good, in theory, in practise they've proved quite something else.
Wouldn't be a fan of them now at all and could do without them if there's ever to be peace in the middle east.

Good stuff. And for the record, I would never dare to suggest that all Israelis are bad and evil people and that all muslims are good. I'm gone beyond that naivety.

I read something last night that got me thinking .... lots of Israelis say that they have a long historical connection with Israel, and as such have a right to it as their country. Funnily enough, for the thousands of years preceeding the 1940's, they only ruled it for ~400 years. Now, given the scale of time before and especially after their demise as a kingdom, wouldnt you think that the rest of the world would acknowledge the legitimacy of the Palestinians right to their country - the one that was taken from them?

irishconvert

Ok guys, this forum is for discussion of the Islamic religion only. Please take any politicial discussion to the appropriate forum.

Thanks.

SV

deravarra wrote: »

Good stuff. And for the record, I would never dare to suggest that all Israelis are bad and evil people and that all muslims are good. I'm gone beyond that naivety.

I read something last night that got me thinking .... lots of Israelis say that they have a long historical connection with Israel, and as such have a right to it as their country. Funnily enough, for the thousands of years preceeding the 1940's, they only ruled it for ~400 years. Now, given the scale of time before and especially after their demise as a kingdom, wouldnt you think that the rest of the world would acknowledge the legitimacy of the Palestinians right to their country - the one that was taken from them?

irishconvert wrote: »

Ok guys, this forum is for discussion of the Islamic religion only. Please take any politicial discussion to the appropriate forum.

Thanks.

~With that in mind, I'll PM you a response later on though if you want? Possibly tomorrow either.

Going to work now and only have mobile boards and really don't want to 'text' that kind of thing.

deravarra

SV wrote: »

~With that in mind, I'll PM you a response later on though if you want? Possibly tomorrow either.

Going to work now and only have mobile boards and really don't want to 'text' that kind of thing.

It's ok ... i dont mind. enjoy work!

hivizman

deravarra wrote: »

For this reason I always defer to the experts. You wont find them here

This is certainly true on both counts!

The hadith "I have been ordered to fight people . . . " is certainly authentic (it is reported by the two leading authorities, Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of different, highly respected, narrators). It has also been translated fairly, even moderately. The Arabic text is as follows:

أمرت أن أقاتل الناس

I'd transliterate this as "umirtu an uqatil'an-nasa". The word that has been translated into English as "fight" comes from the verb "qatala", which appears around 170 times in the Qur'an, and often has the meaning "kill", so "fight" is a moderate translation. The word translated into English as "people" is probably the most general Arabic word for this concept, and it's interesting that the hadith doesn't use a more limited word like "polytheist" or "disbeliever".

The saying is also reported by Bukhari within a hadith narrated by Abu Huraira (one of the most significant hadith narrators) about Abu Bakr, the first khalifa after the death of Muhammad. In this hadith, Abu Bakr refers to Muhammad's statement as justification for fighting some Bedouin tribes that had refused to continue paying the zakah after the death of Muhammad (the tribes argued that their agreement with Muhammad to accept Islam and follow the required practices ceased when he died, and they were no longer obliged to pay zakah).

Most scholars (such as Ibn Taymiyyah, as deravarra mentioned) take the latter hadith as support for arguing that the order to fight applies only where groups who had originally accepted Islam publicly refuse to follow the required practices, so it is more like a "police action" within Islam. They do not see the hadith as providing justification for fighting anyone who is not a Muslim. On the other hand, a few extremists rely on this hadith and on similar verses in the Qur'an as authority permitting (indeed, requiring) them to fight non-Muslims.

Given that verses and hadiths like this have been analysed in depth for centuries, we are unlikely to come up with fresh insights, but it's always a good idea to ask (1) is the quotation authentic; (2) has it been fairly translated; (3) what was the context in which the quotation was uttered (or verse was revealed); and (4) what is the consensus of the scholars, and what minority views exist?

hivizman

A couple of years ago, one of the moderators at that time, the_new_mr, started a series of threads discussing Al-Nawawi's collection of forty (actually 42) hadith, which Al-Nawawi suggested represented the "great principles of the deen [the religion and way of life of Islam]". Apparently, Muhammad was reported as saying: "Whoever preserves forty hadith for my Ummah in the affair of their deen, Allah will raise him up on the Day of Reckoning in the company of the people of knowledge", so collections of forth hadith were very popular. Al-Nawawi's collection dates from around 1270CE and is one of the most famous.

Unfortunately, we didn't get very far in discussing the hadith collection (the initiative fizzled out at Hadith No. 3), but I thought that it might be worth linking to a modern commentary site on the "I have been ordered to fight people" hadith (Al-Nawawi's Hadith No. 8). This commentary interprets the order to "fight" rather metaphorically, and refers critically to "those people [who] interpret this hadith to mean fighting but this may not be applicable to the situation of the Muslims today where fighting may cause more and greater harm." The commentary also claims that most scholars take the view that this hadith relates only to polytheists, not to the ahl al-kitab - People of the Book - such as Jews and Christians.

As a contrast, here is a link to a salafi website with a commentary on the Forty Hadith of Al-Nawawi. The commentary on Hadith No. 8 takes things more literally, and interprets the hadith as requiring Muslims to "fight disbelievers until Islam triumphs."

And finally, here's a recitation of the hadith:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13xKmLXva6A