View Poll Results: Do you believe that ISIS a fair representation of Islam?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    44 30.99%
  • No.

    76 53.52%
  • Not Sure.

    12 8.45%
  • Don't Care.

    10 7.04%
Page 6 of 27 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 530

Thread: ISIL and Islam

  1. #101

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I can partially sign under that. However, unless it is "scientifically inevitable"(just as everything else, science can become a dogma as well), I believe there is a cure, or a partial cure. The core of the problem lies in the upbringing of the child and education. The way we learn sticks to us. Much of the education leads kids to get a wrong grip on "how to handle knowledge".

    The key, imo, lies in prioritization of philosophy and critical thinking. Those who are "immune" to adopting a whole set of pre-existing "knowledge" the way we handle magic are in essence critical thinkers. Once critical thinking is given, it is up to the individual to over-come the disease of un-breakable beliefs. Alternatively, at least he/she can legitimize his/her belief on critical terms in an existentialist way. But on the long-run, it gives the potential of critical approach to things.
    This is of course also a very political move and is not in the interest of many established values that already exists.
    I think you over estimate your fellow man. Using myself as an example, no one taught me critical thinking, I just had it from the start, if anything I was taught a very traditional, in religious school education.

    Critical thinking skills are grossly undervalued and under tested. When I took the GRE (an exam for graduate school in the US) there was the usual reading comprehension, and math, but also a logic section. You had to know how to THINK. They took that section out, (it was my highest) a year after I took the exam. When I applied to a grad school and had an interview, the interviewer said "oh excellent GRE scores". I looked at the paper he was looking at, it only had my math and reading scores, they didn't even bother to look at the logic section.

    The problem is how far you can really teach that sort of thing? Can you teach inquisitiveness? Can you teach skepticism? I think you can, but only to a limited degree. A large number of people, are simply not capable of this sort of thing. Sure you can show them and teach them something, but once they latch on, they don't continue to explore beyond that. If their accepted way it challenged, they will react negatively to it.

    I think this is where Marxists and I diverge. The mass of humanity is the engine but is not the driver. Only exceptional individuals drive progress in any field, some will add on a bit to that genius, and most just follow.

    We already have a very over educated for their intelligence population from our universities. Its not really our universities fault, they are quite good, but you create a group with refined tastes in literature or art, with knowledge of great concepts, with the keys to success and intellectual fulfillment but they don't have the innate ability to see the lock.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  2. #102
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,360

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    I think you over estimate your fellow man. Using myself as an example, no one taught me critical thinking, I just had it from the start, if anything I was taught a very traditional, in religious school education.

    Critical thinking skills are grossly undervalued and under tested. When I took the GRE (an exam for graduate school in the US) there was the usual reading comprehension, and math, but also a logic section. You had to know how to THINK. They took that section out, (it was my highest) a year after I took the exam. When I applied to a grad school and had an interview, the interviewer said "oh excellent GRE scores". I looked at the paper he was looking at, it only had my math and reading scores, they didn't even bother to look at the logic section.

    The problem is how far you can really teach that sort of thing? Can you teach inquisitiveness? Can you teach skepticism? I think you can, but only to a limited degree. A large number of people, are simply not capable of this sort of thing. Sure you can show them and teach them something, but once they latch on, they don't continue to explore beyond that. If their accepted way it challenged, they will react negatively to it.

    I think this is where Marxists and I diverge. The mass of humanity is the engine but is not the driver. Only exceptional individuals drive progress in any field, some will add on a bit to that genius, and most just follow.

    We already have a very over educated for their intelligence population from our universities. Its not really our universities fault, they are quite good, but you create a group with refined tastes in literature or art, with knowledge of great concepts, with the keys to success and intellectual fulfillment but they don't have the innate ability to see the lock.
    Good, i can agree partially. Well, you take yourself as example and then you go abroad to your futher experience until now and then to common abstracts - that's alright, normal. But there is one simple point, which you didn't consider: We have in fact a historical progress in critical thinking, in societal pieceful behaviour, in violence-free solution-approaches, and this basicly follows the degree of education ... just a simple truth, guess, you don't intend to deny or refuse that? Or? ... then do it, and we will see ... .

    I also recommend an author, Alice Miller, ie. her book 'The Drama of the Gifted Child' (1979), which describes what the title already says.

    But, i guess, you like to go on to biological (gene-based) incapability for some humans (as observed in different threads).

    I say, as long there is no "mechanical" defect in the brain of a new-born (just a disabled brain, biologically), near everything is possible for that child, despite, that a certain gene-pool has basicly certain possibilities, which other with certain other gene-pool have not in the same manner, but also, if this advantaged gene-pool is not asked to develop itself, then it might doesn't help, that there was anchored an advantage for certain talents - decisive is, what happens while/after (and as for what we know, also prior to) it is born, a child needs proper offers, proper tasks to spread its wings, also as much love and freedom as possible (pauses from the tasks so to speak, a playroom for creativity), the latter (the freedom) with some certain crash barriers (and you can transport/view that model-appoach to/for society et al).
    This related to the bold part.

    Back to topic, in this regard: There is no plausible reason (in the sense of natural), that a human becomes an extremist, ready for real violence aka to kill others for "values", except it was dogmatized (brainwashed) for it, or, as said, certain events lead to an extreme view of the world, ie. hate to the world (the reason here is/was: a deep hurted psyche, full of fear and revenge) - those are disturbed personalities, but from which the world is full (btw., we are all not 100 % sane, even if your life is a preferred one with love and harmony and luck and whatever, and the one and other degree of disturbness is probably very normal), and that was the case in our whole history ... but it is possible to change that, so ie. extremism gets ironed out and that a halfway pieceful society evolves, step by step, but with increasing tendency.
    Refusing that option is what i criticise in the conservative worldview, because it is not helpful, but vice versa, helps to keep (bad) things as they are -it supports the 'devils-circle-run' (is that a word? in german: Teufelskreislauf), ie. of a junkie-biography (as little analogy).
    The world as it is now, works but against it (the kind of cure), as long racism, discrimination, violence, torture, war etc. is that present and work as feasable solution for crisis', while i myself can't help, such occurences as IS (and certain other items, which show the limits of pacifism) might show no other choices as counter-violence, damn world, but i don't give fully up, that the humans learn from insanity aka certain events in history and contemporary events (if that wouldn't be possible, we wouldn't have certain values today), ie. why do we discuss overall the IS item here and so much other things in DD (even if controverse)?
    Last edited by DaVinci; October 24, 2014 at 04:55 PM.
    #Anthropocene #not just Global Warming but Global Disaster, NASA #Deforestation #Plastic Emission #The Blob #Uninhabitable Earth #Savest Place On Earth #AMOC #ICAN #MIT study "Falsehoods Win" #Engineers of Chaos
    #"there can be no doubt about it: the enemy stands on the Right!" 1922, by Joseph Wirth.
    Rightwingers, like in the past the epitome of incompetence, except for evilness where they own the mastership.
    Iirc., already 2013 i spoke of "Renaissance of Fascism", it was accurate.
    #"Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in universe." Buckminster Fuller
    Any chance for this exam? Very low, the established Anthropocentrism destroys the basis of existence.
    #My Modding #The Witcher 3: Lore Friendly Tweaks (LFT)
    #End, A diary of the Third World War (A.-A. Guha, 1983) - now, it started on 24th February 2022.

  3. #103
    pacifism's Avatar see the day
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    purple mountains majesty
    Posts
    1,958
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    I find it rather presumptuous for anyone to deem a rather broad category like religion as, despite being a necessary step toward progress, is a disease we may shake off nowadays to continue to this half-baked ideal world we aspire to. Not only is such a view neglecting to consider the possibility that one’s religious beliefs (or beliefs about religion) can be wrong, but also that mankind can accurately deem what lifestyle is best for everybody.

    Now, of course, the behavior of people in the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq that is supposedly motivated by religious convictions is neither beneficial nor progress to almost any ideal. Although ISIL has done numerous very wrong things, morals don’t even need to come into this. A successful economy cannot be sustained in the long-term off of kidnappings, ransoms, extortions, or just plain thievery with a bare level of infrastructure. A government that funds itself like that to oppress its people the way ISIL does ultimately cannot be sustained anywhere near as long as other systems of government.

    Reverting back to my original point, one can find people today, especially in discussions on history, describe human social development as a linear progression of progress of the ideal that we are now closer than ever to approaching. But that’s full of assumptions. As examples: how do we know that this view is true, or how the ideal can be achieved, or that our ideal really is ideal? That’s why I don’t think anyone can ascertain that “religion” is necessary to remove for society to prosper, especially when people cannot agree on anything about the subject of religion itself.

    Here is part of a book a famous writer wrote on the topic, but for his view on Christianity in particular:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “Now I will speak of the other view of Christianity which hinders the true understanding of it--the scientific view.

    “Churchmen substitute for Christianity the version they have framed of it for themselves, and this view of Christianity they regard as the one infallibly true one.

    “Men of science regard as Christianity only the tenets held by the different churches in the past and present; and finding that these tenets have lost all the significance of Christianity, they accept it as a religion which has outlived its age.

    “To see clearly how impossible it is to understand the Christian teaching from such a point of view, one must form for oneself an idea of the place actually held by religions in general, by the Christian religion in particular, in the life of mankind, and of the significance attributed to them by science.

    “Just as the individual man cannot live without having some theory of the meaning of his life, and is always, though often unconsciously, framing his conduct in accordance with the meaning he attributes to his life, so too associations of men living in similar conditions--nations--cannot but have theories of the meaning of their associated life and conduct ensuing from those theories. And as the individual man, when he attains a fresh stage of growth, inevitably changes his philosophy of life, and the grown-up man sees a different meaning in it from the child, so too associations of men--nations--are bound to change their philosophy of life and the conduct ensuing from their philosophy, to correspond with their development.

    “The difference, as regards this, between the individual man and humanity as a whole, lies in the fact that the individual, in forming the view of life proper to the new period of life on which he is entering and the conduct resulting from it, benefits by the experience of men who have lived before him, who have already passed through the stage of growth upon which he is entering. But humanity cannot have this aid, because it is always moving along a hitherto untrodden track, and has no one to ask how to understand life, and to act in the conditions on which it is entering and through which no one has ever passed before.

    “Nevertheless, just as a man with wife and children cannot continue to look at life as he looked at it when he was a child, so too in the face of the various changes that are taking place, the greater density of population, the establishment of communication between different peoples, the improvements of the methods of the struggle with nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot continue to look at life as of old, and it must frame a new theory of life, from which conduct may follow adapted to the new conditions on which it has entered and is entering.

    “To meet this need humanity has the special power of producing men who give a new meaning to the whole of human life--a theory of life from which follow new forms of activity quite different from all preceding them. The formation of this philosophy of life appropriate to humanity in the new conditions on which it is entering, and of the practice resulting from it, is what is called religion.

    “And therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science imagines, a manifestation which at one time corresponded with the development of humanity, but is afterward outgrown by it. It is a manifestation always inherent in the life of humanity, and is as indispensable, as inherent in humanity at the present time as at any other. Secondly, religion is always the theory of the practice of the future and not of the past, and therefore it is clear that investigation of past manifestations cannot in any case grasp the essence of religion.”

    - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, Chapter IV

  4. #104

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Not sure what atheist's desire to establish their superiority over theists has to do with the topic but here is an article from Business Insider. This subject seems to gain interest from all sources.

    10 Ways ISIS Is Violating The Laws Of Islam
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Islamic scholars and Muslim leaders around the world have come together to condemn ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, issuing a letter accusing Baghdadi of failing to respect key tenants of the Islam.

    The letter, signed by 126 Muslims, offers an academic rebuke of Baghdadi's interpretation of Islam, which the leader has claimed is the basis for founding an Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    That letter outlines 24 violations of Islamic Law, noting it's forbidden to kill the innocent, torture people, and disfigure the dead. ISIS beheaded US journalist James Foley as well as a British aid worker named Allan Henning, clear violations of the tenets outlined in the letter.

    The letter comes after a significant backlash to ISIS among the world's 1.6 billion Muslims. Around the world, Muslims have responded to the slick social media recruitment campaign by ISIS with their own social media endeavors, with many rallying behind the hashtag #NotInMyName.

    While Muslims have been at pains to distance themselves from ISIS fundamentalism, hundreds from Western countries and around the world have been drawn into joining the group.

    National Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Nihad Awad, told media the letter was in part an attempt to dissuade potential ISIS recruits.

    "The intended audiences for this important letter include those who have joined or may consider joining ISIS or similar extremist groups, as well as all those who are led to believe the falsehood that ISIS in any way represents Islamic beliefs or practices," he said.

    Here are 10 fundamental edicts the group claims ISIS has violated, as well as the letter itself:

    1) It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
    2) It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
    3) It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
    4) It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
    5) It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
    6) It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat Christians or any "People of the Scripture."
    7) Jihad in Islam is a purely defensive struggle. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose, and the right rules of conduct.
    8) It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats — hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
    9) Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
    10) It is forbidden in Islam to declare a Caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
    The Armenian Issue

  5. #105
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    I think ISIS doesn't represent Islam in any official sense. The idea is absurd.

    Who hired them?

    Would you hire them?!

    In any case surely Islam lacks the organisation required to hire ISIS for PR.

    edit:

    OK, maybe a better way to put it. Islam is the category that contains some aspects of ISIS. Can an item, or set of items, from a category be said to represent a category? I don't think it/they can. I think that it would defeat some of the purpose of categories as modelling tools.
    Last edited by Taiji; October 25, 2014 at 05:14 PM.

  6. #106
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Taiji View Post
    I think ISIS doesn't represent Islam in any official sense. The idea is absurd.

    Who hired them?
    None of this is based on someone hiring anyone, what nonsense do you speak.

    Would you hire them?!

    In any case surely Islam lacks the organisation required to hire ISIS for PR.

    edit:

    OK, maybe a better way to put it. Islam is the category that contains some aspects of ISIS. Can an item, or set of items, from a category be said to represent a category? I don't think it/they can. I think that it would defeat some of the purpose of categories as modelling tools.
    Islam isn't a category. It is an ideology. You are trying to reframe it but unsuccessfully and rather illogically. But even if we accept your arbitrary redefinition then you wouldn't ask if something can "represent" but ask if it can belong and clearly it can. Can something that belongs to something be said to represent it, yes it can.

    Crude reframing in two different ways!

  7. #107
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    For the layman approaching the topic I believe Setekh is being very disingenuous as presenting this as "well its the Qu'ran and nothing else and all you need is the Qu'ran and that is Islam" when the truth of Islam, its entire history has been riven by study and introspection and different views. For anyone who doubts the truth of this and how it could possibly happen with a religion with a supposedly objective book I refer to my earlier given example of Christianity. The most extreme version which is so far removed is mormonism but even Catholicism and Protestantism, Jehovas witnesses and many others are as different as chalk and cheese.

    Islam started along these lines with this:

    During the early years of Islam, when religious law was first being formulated, ijtihad was a common process practiced by trained jurists and recognized as "ra'y". Jurists used ra'y to help reach legal rulings, in cases where the Qur'an and Sunna did not provide clear direction for certain decisions. It was the duty of the educated jurists to come to a ruling that would be in the best interest of the Muslim community and yet still promote the public good.

    As religious law continued to develop over time, ra'y became insufficient in making sure that fair legal rulings were being derived in keeping with both the Qur'an and Sunna. However, during this time, the meaning and process of ijtihad became more clearly constructed. Ijtihad was "limited to a systematic method of interpreting the law on the basis of authoritative texts, the Quran and Sunna," and the rulings could be "extended to a new problem as long as the precedent and the new situation shared the same clause."[5]

    As the practice of ijtihad transformed over time, it became religious duty of a mujahad to conduct legal rulings for the Muslim society. Mujahad is defined as a Muslim scholar that has met certain requirements including a strong knowledge of the Qur'an, Sunna, and Arabic, as well as a deep understanding of legal theory and the precedent; all of which allows them to be considered fully qualified to practice ijtihad.[2]

    Around the beginning of the 900s, most Sunni jurists argued that all major matters of religious law had been settled, allowing for taqlid, "the established legal precedents and traditions," to take priority over ijtihad.[2] However, the Shi'i Muslims recognized "human reasoning and intellect as a legal source that supplements the Quran and other revealed texts," thus continuing to acknowledge the importance of ijtihad.[6] Due to the Sunni movement towards taqlid during this era, some Western scholars today argue that this period led to the notion of the "closure of the doors of ijtihad" in Islam. Joseph Schacht, a well-known Western scholar argued, "closure of the door of ijtihad" had occurred by the beginning of the 10th century CE: "hence a consensus gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one could be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in religious law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all."[7] (Other scholars believe that debates about the `closing of the gate of ijtihad` "were not apparent in legal literature until the end of the eleventh century, and even then only as a theoretical issue".[8][9]) This move away from the practice of ijtihad was made by the Hanafi and Maliki law schools, and the majority of Shafiis, but not by Hanbalis or a number of prominent Shafis jurists who believed that "true consensus (ijma), apart from that of Muhammad's Companions, did not exist" and that "the constant continuous existence of mujtahids was a theological requirement."[8]

    During the turn of the seventeenth century, Sunni Muslim reformers began to criticize taqlid, and promoted greater use of ijtihad in legal matters. They claimed the instead of looking solely to previous generations for practices developed by religious scholars, there should be an established doctrine and rule of behavior through the interpretation of original foundational texts of Islam—the Qu'ran and Sunna.[2]

    However, in more recent years, ijtihad has been the center of public discussion as reformers argue for the "replacement of taqlid with ijtihad as a way to confront legal issues raised by contact with modern Western society."[2] Many jurists have attempted to revise certain laws that are associated with modern issues, in light of the fact that the overall legal philosophy necessary to alter the foundations of Islamic law remains completely unchanged. Thus, this has caused many individuals to question whether or not these new rulings can be fully considered ijtihad, and if the doors of ijtihad are still in fact closed.

    Qualifications of a mujtahid[edit]
    A mujtahid (Arabic: مجتهد‎, "diligent") is an individual who is qualified to exercise ijtihad in the evaluation of Islamic law. In general mujtahids must have an extensive knowledge of Arabic, the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and legal theory (Usul al-fiqh).[10] Sunni Islam and Shi'i Islam, due to their divergent beliefs regarding the persistence of divine authority, have different views on ijtihad and the qualifications required to achieve mujtahid. In order to clarify how ijtihad differs in Sunni and Shi'i Islam it is necessary to explore the historical development of this position in both branches. The female equivaent is a mujtahida.

    Sunni[edit]
    In the years immediately following the Prophet's death, Sunni Muslims practiced ijtihad because they saw it as an acceptable form of the continuation of sacred instruction. Sunni Muslims, therefore began to practice ijtihad primarily through the use of personal opinion, or ra'y. As Muslims turned to the Quran and Sunnah to solve their legal issues, they began to recognize that these divine proponents did not deal adequately with certain topics of law. Therefore, Sunni Muslims began to find other ways and sources for ijtihad such as ra'y, which allowed for personal judgment of Islamic law. Sunni Muslims justified this practice of ra'y with a particular hadith, which cites Muhammad's approval of forming an individual sound legal opinion if the Qur'an and Sunnah contain no explicit text regarding that particular issue.[11] Therefore during the first two and a half centuries of Islam there were no restrictions placed on scholars interested in practicing ijtihad.[12] Beginning in the ninth century, jurists began to make more restrictions on who could practice ijtihad and the kinds of qualifications necessary. Therefore, the practice of ijtihad became limited to a qualified scholar and jurist otherwise known as a mujtahid. Abu'l-Husayn al-Basri provides the earliest and most expansive outline for the qualifications of a mujtahid, they include:

    Enough knowledge of Arabic so that the scholar can read and understand both the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
    Extensive comprehensive knowledge of the Qur'an and the Sunnah. More specifically, the scholar must have a full understanding of the Qur'an's legal contents. In regards to the Sunnah the scholar must understand the specific texts that refer to law and also the incidence of abrogation in the Sunnah.
    Must be able to confirm the consensus (Ijma) of the Companions, the Successors, and the leading Imams and mujtahideen of the past, in order to prevent making decisions that disregard these honored decisions made in the past.
    Should be able to fully understand the objectives of the sharia and be dedicated to the protection of the Five Principles of Islam, which are life, religion, intellect, lineage, and property.
    Be able to distinguish strength and weakness in reasoning, or in other words exercise logic.
    Must be sincere and a good person.[13]
    From the declaration of these requirements of mujtahid onwards, legal scholars adopted these characteristics as being standard for anyone looking to practice ijtihad. In order for the reasoning of these mujtahids to be accepted as law multiple mujtahids had to reach ijma. This allowed for mujtahids to openly discuss their particular views and reach a conclusion together. The interaction required by ijma allowed for mujtahids to circulate ideas and eventually merge to create particular Islamic schools of law (madhhabs). This consolidation of mujtahids into particular madhhabs prompted these groups to create their own distinct authoritative rules. These laws reduced issues of legal uncertainty that had been present when multiple mujtahids were working together with one another. However, with this introduction of common laws for each madhhab, legal scholars began to dismiss the practice of independent ijtihad and instead maintained the title of mujtahid only for the founders of the four main schools of Islamic law (Hanafiyya, Malikiyya, Shafiyya, Hanbaliyya).[14] Therefore, from the twelfth century onwards jurists could occupy the position of a mujtahid or access ijtihad in only two cases when distinguishing between the manifest and the obscure views of their particular schools or when they served as "imitators" of mujtahids, expressing the views of the more qualified mujtahids before them.[14] Therefore, the practice of ijtihad was restricted in favor of taqlid. These Sunni restrictions on the power of the mujtahid and were due to historical developments and should not be accepted as terms of the original legal theory of ijtihad.

    Shi'i[edit]
    The Shi'i Muslims understand the process of ijtihad as being the independent effort used to arrive at the rulings of sharia. Following the death of the Prophet and once they had determined the Imam as absent, ijtihad evolved into a practice of applying careful reason in order to uncover the knowledge of what Imams would have done in particular legal situations.The decisions the Imams would have made were explored through the application of the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijma and ‘'aql (reason). It was not until the end of the eighteenth century that the title of mujtahid became associated with the term faqih or one who is an expert in jurisprudence. From this point on religious courts began to increase in number and the ulama were transformed by Shi'i Islamic authorities into the new producer of ijtihad.[15] In order to produce perceptive mujtahids that could fulfill this important role, principles of Shi'i jurisprudence were developed to provide a foundation for scholarly deduction of Islamic law. Shaykh Murtada Ansari and his successors developed the school of Shi'i law, dividing the legal decisions into four categories of certainty (qat),valid conjecture (zann), doubt (shakk), and erroneous conjecture (wahm). These rules allowed mujtahids to issue adjudications on any subject, that could be derived through this process of ijtihad, demonstrating their great responsibility to the Shi'i community[15] Furthermore according to Shi'i Islamic Jurisprudence a believer of Islam is either a Mujtahid (one that expresses their own legal reasoning, or a Muqallid (one performing Taqlid of a Mujtahid) and a Muhtat (one who acts with precaution). Most Shi'i Muslims qualify as Muqallid, and therefore are very dependent on the rulings of the Mujtahids. Therefore, the Mujtahids must be well prepared to perform ijtihad, as the community of Muqallid are dependent on their rulings. Not only did Shi'i Muslims require:

    Knowledge of the texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah
    Justice in matters of public and personal life
    utmost piety
    Understanding of the cases where Shi'i mujtahids reached consensus
    Ability to exercise competence and authority[16]
    However, these scholars also depended on further training that could be received in religious centers called Hawza. At these centers they taught the important subjects and technical knowledge a mujtahid needed to be proficient in such as:

    Arabic grammar and literature
    Logic
    Extensive knowledge of the Qur'anic sciences and Hadith
    Science of narrators
    Principle of Jurisprudence
    Comparative Jurisprudence[17]
    Therefore, Shi'i mujtahids remain revered throughout the Shi'i Islamic world. The relationship between the mujtahids and muqallids continues to address and solve the contemporary legal issues.

    Female mujtahids[edit]
    A woman can be a mujtahid and there are dozens who have attained the rank in the modern history of Iran (for instance, Amina Bint al-Majlisi in the Safavid era, Bibi Khanum in the Qajar era, Lady Amin in the Pahlavi era, and Zohreh Sefati during the time of the Islamic Republic).[18] There are diverging opinions as to whether a female mujtahid can be a marjaʻ or not. Zohreh Sefati and some male jurists believe a female mujtahid can become a marjaʻ, but many male jurists believe a marjaʻ must be male. In other words, they believe that believers perform taqlid (emulation) of a female mujtahid.

    Progressive Muslims[edit]
    In the modern era, liberal thinkers have emerged to re-establish and reform Islamic law and its interpretations. These Muslims "want to recover the freedom of the mind".[19] Progressive Muslims have re-opened the gates of ijtihad, in order to accommodate the religion with modern society.[20] However, this ijtihad they have advocated is one that is quite novel.[21] Progressive Muslims want to "apply contemporary intellectual methods to the task of reforming Islam".[21] This reformed ijtihad and its new ideals were put forward by progressive thinkers such as Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, Jamal al-din Al-Afghani, and Muhammad Abduh in response to elements of modernization. These thinkers all wanted to reconcile Islamic traditions with the rapid pace of the modernizing world. Yet, it was truly Al-Afghani that proposed the new ijtihad we see today. He argued that Islam could be reconciled with modernization by utilizing the concept of ijtihad. Al-Afghani believed that ijtihad would enable Muslims to think critically and apply their own individual interpretations of the innovations of modernity in the context of Islam. This new form of ijtihad would allow Muslims to combine their religious perspective with that of their academic or scientific thoughts.[21]

    Progressive Muslims assert that this new implementation of ijtihad should encompass elements of both legal reasoning and "creative impulse".[20] They believe that as the world advances, ijtihad '​s creative elements should be further used and developed. This adaptation of ijtihad encourages scholars and other leaders to take more of a role in its practice. Likewise, Progressive Muslims assert that the closing the doors of ijithad has debilitated "intellectual growth",[20] thus doors must be re-opened to reinvigorate such stimulation. This re-opening must also vindicate religion from political influence, reform Muslim education, incite the effort of the collective, and catalyze the implementation of democracy.[20]

    One can view today how such a notion of ijtihad enables present-day Muslims to respond to the "changing needs of Muslim societies"[21] and utilize reason. However, while many sects of Islam accept and support ijtihad, the majority of Muslims still remain unconvinced about the matter. Thus, as of late, one can conclude that such groups have failed to appeal to the masses.[19] Yet, groups are continuing to mobilize and rally support in favor of what could be an integral and revolutionary aspect to the Muslim religion. This revitalization of ijtihad could be crucial to the role and status of women within the religion, differing sects, economics, and the relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims.[20]

    Islamists[edit]
    Present-day Islamists maintain differing stances on the matter of ijtihad. Islamist groups such as the Salafis are major proponents of ijtihad. Salafis believe ijtihad makes modern Islam more authentic and will guide Muslims back to the Golden Age of early Islam. They criticize taqlid and tradition. Salafis assert that such a concept has led to Islam's decline.[22] Similarly, political groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood trace their founding philosophies back to al-Afghani's Ijtihad. The Muslim Brotherhood feels that ijithad strengthens the faith of believers because they have to better familiarize themselves with the Quran and come to their own conclusions about its teachings. Yet, as a political group the Muslim Brotherhood faces a major paradox between ijtihad as a religious matter versus that as a political one. Ijtihad weakens political unity and promotes pluralism. Hence, due to this fact many oppressive regimes reject ijtihad '​s legitimacy.[23]

    Many Islamist regimes impose harsh restrictions on ijtihad and its modern day application. These regimes can implement such restrictions by posing limits on individual freedoms. These institutions are against the modification and individual interpretation of Islam to accommodate modernity. They believe this accommodation signifies a surrendering to both westernization and secularization, which is deemed evil. Therefore, oppressive regimes primarily emphasize and promote sharia and taqlid, while ijtihad is regarded as "sinful".[20] Such regimes' strive to promote the authenticity of Islam and the exact teachings of the prophet and word of Allah.[20] Additionally, it is important to note that Islamists, such as Osama Bin Laden supported ijtihad. He criticized the Saudi regime for disallowing the "free believer"[23] and imposing harsh restrictions on successful practice of Islam. Thus, Bin Laden believed his striving for the implementation of ijtihad was his "duty" that he must achieve.[23]

  8. #108
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    None of this is based on someone hiring anyone, what nonsense do you speak.
    As it happens the word 'represent' was thrown about, regarding a group. Making them 'representatives'. But who would officially delegate them such? ... So why use the term 'represent' when it can't apply?

    Do they (ISIS) give a 'fair description' of Islam? Or is it pretty one-sided as one might expect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Islam isn't a category. It is an ideology. You are trying to reframe it but unsuccessfully and rather illogically. But even if we accept your arbitrary redefinition then you wouldn't ask if something can "represent" but ask if it can belong and clearly it can. Can something that belongs to something be said to represent it, yes it can.

    Crude reframing in two different ways!
    It wasn't arbitrary, simply correct. What we observers call Islam is not an ideology, or we would observe no disagreement amongst Muslims about their religion for one. Remember how they kill each other for heresy and stuff?.. Let's not obscure one fault to highlight another, there really is no need. It's a set of ideologies, just like Christianity is a set of ideologies (some of whom kill each other, amongst other things, and that's why we need the distinction).
    Last edited by Taiji; October 25, 2014 at 06:56 PM.

  9. #109
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Taiji View Post
    As it happens the word 'represent' was thrown about, regarding a group. Making them 'representatives'. But who would officially delegate them such? ... So why use the term 'represent' when it can't apply?
    Representation and hiring is a very obscure mono intepretation of the English Language and it makes me curious, I've never thought English was your second language but I can only assume as such or that you are being deliberately ignorant of the fact that representation does not refer, in fact in this conversation rarely so (only in business or legal circles) to mean a fiscal representation. I am representing my own opinion right now, I didn't hire myself.

    Represent means to stand for or symbolise, to depict or to describe or to put forward something. No one needs to officially delegate them (and as Dogukan points out even if it did there is no offical body).


    Do they (ISIS) give a 'fair description' of Islam? Or is it pretty one-sided as one might expect?
    See Dogukans many posts, they give a representation of Islam that is fair to their interpretations and many other interpretations around the world.


    It wasn't arbitrary, simply correct. What we observers call Islam is not an ideology, or we would observe no disagreement amongst Muslims about their religion for one. Remember how they kill each other for heresy and stuff?.. Let's not obscure one fault to highlight another, there really is no need. It's a set of ideologies, just like Christianity is a set of ideologies (some of whom kill each other, amongst other things, and that's why we need the distinction).
    So going far and away from your previous statements - they do exist within Islam and so represent part of Islam if not the whole which not one single person here has claimed.

  10. #110

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    For the layman approaching the topic I believe Setekh is being very disingenuous as presenting this as "well its the Qu'ran and nothing else and all you need is the Qu'ran and that is Islam" when the truth of Islam, its entire history has been riven by study and introspection and different views. For anyone who doubts the truth of this and how it could possibly happen with a religion with a supposedly objective book I refer to my earlier given example of Christianity. The most extreme version which is so far removed is mormonism but even Catholicism and Protestantism, Jehovas witnesses and many others are as different as chalk and cheese.
    Well, to call me disingenuous you could at least not misrepresent what I argued. I personally accept Quran as the only source of Islam but for the sake of the thread I didn't argue as such in it. What I argued was that Quran is the most fundamental of all sources, the most basic reference, that all Muslims hold to be true. So, anything about Islam has to first pass through a Quranic filter. This you can not deny in any way. It is quite disingenuous to represent what I argued to the layman approaching the topic when I even explicitly voiced different arguments in this thread.

    Giving Mormonism as an analogy is quite invalid. Mormonism is produces an other book that it claims to be holy, Book of Mormonism. Islam can't have that as Quran is given as the last revelations from god.
    The Armenian Issue

  11. #111
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Representation and hiring is a very obscure mono intepretation of the English Language and it makes me curious, I've never thought English was your second language but I can only assume as such or that you are being deliberately ignorant of the fact that representation does not refer, in fact in this conversation rarely so (only in business or legal circles) to mean a fiscal representation. I am representing my own opinion right now, I didn't hire myself.
    Eh?! No, mate. You are presenting your opinion. Not representing your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Represent means to stand for or symbolise, to depict or to describe or to put forward something. No one needs to officially delegate them (and as Dogukan points out even if it did there is no offical body).
    Represent has a lot of meanings and none of them apply in a way that is accurate.

    George Bush Jr. might agree with you, put it that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    See Dogukans many posts, they give a representation of Islam that is fair to their interpretations and many other interpretations around the world.
    I take it you mean ISIS, and not Dogukan's posts by 'they'. And regarding your reference to them the word you should be using is obviously 'impression' and not 'representation'.

    They give an impression of Islam, right? But it's a statement that does away with any responsibility on your part for forming the impression fairly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    *snip*.. they do exist within Islam and so represent part of Islam if not the whole which not one single person here has claimed.
    ISIS can't symbolise a bit of Islam very effectively. A symbol is an abstract. So you have to be saying that a bit of ISIS symbolises a bit of Islam. But for some reason you're not using those words - Why? Is it because by being that honest it sounds too weak? ... Sorry, I had to wonder.

    Or are you and Dogukan saying Islam is basically 'the Muslims and everything they get up to'? Because that's ridiculous.
    Last edited by Taiji; October 28, 2014 at 02:44 PM.

  12. #112

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Not sure what atheist's desire to establish their superiority over theists has to do with the topic but here is an article from Business Insider. This subject seems to gain interest from all sources.

    10 Ways ISIS Is Violating The Laws Of Islam
    I have a hard time believing the Prophet (pbuh) would feel more comfortable in Pristina than Raqqah.

  13. #113

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Sphere View Post
    I have a hard time believing the Prophet (pbuh) would feel more comfortable in Pristina than Raqqah.
    You're referring to what exactly?
    The Armenian Issue

  14. #114
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Taiji View Post
    Eh?! No, mate. You are presenting your opinion. Not representing your opinion.



    Represent has a lot of meanings and none of them apply in a way that is accurate.

    George Bush Jr. might agree with you, put it that way.



    I take it you mean ISIS, and not Dogukan's posts by 'they'. And regarding your reference to them the word you should be using is obviously 'impression' and not 'representation'.

    They give an impression of Islam, right? But it's a statement that does away with any responsibility on your part for forming the impression fairly.



    ISIS can't symbolise a bit of Islam very effectively. A symbol is an abstract. So you have to be saying that a bit of ISIS symbolises a bit of Islam. But for some reason you're not using those words - Why? Is it because by being that honest it sounds too weak? ... Sorry, I had to wonder.

    Or are you and Dogukan saying Islam is basically 'the Muslims and everything they get up to'? Because that's ridiculous.
    Wow a wonderful way to waste a day with semantic linguistic games. Balls to that.

  15. #115
    DaVinci's Avatar TW Modder 2005-2016
    Patrician Artifex

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The plastic poisoned and d(r)ying surface of planet Earth in before Armageddon
    Posts
    15,360

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquila Praefortis View Post
    I find it rather presumptuous for anyone to deem a rather broad category like religion as, despite being a necessary step toward progress, is a disease we may shake off nowadays to continue to this half-baked ideal world we aspire to. Not only is such a view neglecting to consider the possibility that one’s religious beliefs (or beliefs about religion) can be wrong, but also that mankind can accurately deem what lifestyle is best for everybody.

    Now, of course, the behavior of people in the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq that is supposedly motivated by religious convictions is neither beneficial nor progress to almost any ideal. Although ISIL has done numerous very wrong things, morals don’t even need to come into this. A successful economy cannot be sustained in the long-term off of kidnappings, ransoms, extortions, or just plain thievery with a bare level of infrastructure. A government that funds itself like that to oppress its people the way ISIL does ultimately cannot be sustained anywhere near as long as other systems of government.

    Reverting back to my original point, one can find people today, especially in discussions on history, describe human social development as a linear progression of progress of the ideal that we are now closer than ever to approaching. But that’s full of assumptions. As examples: how do we know that this view is true, or how the ideal can be achieved, or that our ideal really is ideal? That’s why I don’t think anyone can ascertain that “religion” is necessary to remove for society to prosper, especially when people cannot agree on anything about the subject of religion itself.

    Here is part of a book a famous writer wrote on the topic, but for his view on Christianity in particular:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    “Now I will speak of the other view of Christianity which hinders the true understanding of it--the scientific view.

    “Churchmen substitute for Christianity the version they have framed of it for themselves, and this view of Christianity they regard as the one infallibly true one.

    “Men of science regard as Christianity only the tenets held by the different churches in the past and present; and finding that these tenets have lost all the significance of Christianity, they accept it as a religion which has outlived its age.

    “To see clearly how impossible it is to understand the Christian teaching from such a point of view, one must form for oneself an idea of the place actually held by religions in general, by the Christian religion in particular, in the life of mankind, and of the significance attributed to them by science.

    “Just as the individual man cannot live without having some theory of the meaning of his life, and is always, though often unconsciously, framing his conduct in accordance with the meaning he attributes to his life, so too associations of men living in similar conditions--nations--cannot but have theories of the meaning of their associated life and conduct ensuing from those theories. And as the individual man, when he attains a fresh stage of growth, inevitably changes his philosophy of life, and the grown-up man sees a different meaning in it from the child, so too associations of men--nations--are bound to change their philosophy of life and the conduct ensuing from their philosophy, to correspond with their development.

    “The difference, as regards this, between the individual man and humanity as a whole, lies in the fact that the individual, in forming the view of life proper to the new period of life on which he is entering and the conduct resulting from it, benefits by the experience of men who have lived before him, who have already passed through the stage of growth upon which he is entering. But humanity cannot have this aid, because it is always moving along a hitherto untrodden track, and has no one to ask how to understand life, and to act in the conditions on which it is entering and through which no one has ever passed before.

    “Nevertheless, just as a man with wife and children cannot continue to look at life as he looked at it when he was a child, so too in the face of the various changes that are taking place, the greater density of population, the establishment of communication between different peoples, the improvements of the methods of the struggle with nature, and the accumulation of knowledge, humanity cannot continue to look at life as of old, and it must frame a new theory of life, from which conduct may follow adapted to the new conditions on which it has entered and is entering.

    “To meet this need humanity has the special power of producing men who give a new meaning to the whole of human life--a theory of life from which follow new forms of activity quite different from all preceding them. The formation of this philosophy of life appropriate to humanity in the new conditions on which it is entering, and of the practice resulting from it, is what is called religion.

    “And therefore, in the first place, religion is not, as science imagines, a manifestation which at one time corresponded with the development of humanity, but is afterward outgrown by it. It is a manifestation always inherent in the life of humanity, and is as indispensable, as inherent in humanity at the present time as at any other. Secondly, religion is always the theory of the practice of the future and not of the past, and therefore it is clear that investigation of past manifestations cannot in any case grasp the essence of religion.”

    - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, Chapter IV
    Not quite right imo.. True is but that we can't ever know or judge about an absolute truth, here i agree.

    But, as far as science goes, you underestimate the options (nowadays) to investigate what makes humans happy (and ready for a halfway proper life). Neurology works quite good already and it is free of belief-system other than that we must believe in the technical option that it is possible to picture the ongoings in the brain (limited, but with increasing tendency). This is the tech item. Furtheron, then we have also empirical options to observe historical aka socio-historical ongoings and to which leads what, here it is a bit more of speculative character, but tendencies are viewable imo.. We have even today the possibility, with our techy options to make some (cheap) polls of what makes people happy and what not, this has but nothing to do with objective truth, but with subjective truth, and that's not really neglectable, while as far as polls go, of course should be viewed as perhaps little hint to something, not just much more (while programs might count out a probability for something). We know also that emotions lead (or can lead) to merely irrational items and so on, although they can make happy or unhappy or in-between ie. quite satisfied or something else ie. beware us of dangerous actions ie. fear helps to make dumb items but here also rational thoughts play a role, too. Those are all subjective truths, but with partly objective character. That said, i personally have nothing against religious belief as long they do not disturb any kind of freedom and have no place in a doctrinated application ie. in common laws or simple life items and that everybody can choose his belief or non-belief, for myself valid ... for others, religion or the belief in supernatural might, it is the opium, i personally reject that drug, because imo. we have gained far better measurements/parameters/frames as life-help than religion. And of course, "political religion" aka ideology is of similar character (ideology, which i reject as well for myself), but there is still a difference, that is the belief in a supernatural power, an all-making-everything-craft not measurable by us (metaphysics, except for the believer in his personal imagination aka brain), and this belief system even described by humans who spoke or are sent by this craft (even if i think that such a craft might be an existing item in this universe, but if there is such a power, then i view that as part of physical existing craft not experience-able/non-measureable by us humans as of yet at least, but certainly not the made-up god by us humans described in old books, which goes back to the older belief in gods, which provided all ongoings), ideology has other respects and owns relations to the real observable world, it usually builds up on older thinking systems and real circumstances in societies - in other words, religion and ideology are similar items in practice, but have pretty different (theoretical) backgrounds, while where they have similar character is for example the law-making item or the belief that a certain law (or rule application) is the right one for humans. However, if religion or ideology, both applied as enforced on humans is fundamentalism and/or extremism and in some cases fascism/chauvinism, usually tried to realise in dictatorships. For the practical life but, a mixture of accepted values which are built on religious and ideological ideas but obviously have potential to make people happy/satisfied appears to be as operatable for a society that can work, and as for my personal view and experience, liberal values including holding up human rights et al have highest potential in this regard for a quasi sane society, while as long we have a lot of disturbing impacts, that quasi possible sanity is hard to achieve - my interpretation. Back to topic, islam as such has imo. some usal life helping aspects, which were created in the early middleage, thus completely outdated, IS applies that violent culture of the medieval period and there in its hardest form which spread also in those old days fear, that's their goal, islam is imo. ambivalent, both speaking of love and peace but also of violence, objectively rather historically seen, a belief system spread by partly violence and by partly non-violence ie. kept over liberately just like it happened with christianity or also ideologies - lastly, a true islam is not existing, there i agree with dogukan etc., as this "true" is dependent on the believer alone just his/her subjective imagination of "god" and here for confession-religions the more or less uncritical taking-over of a designed belief system (for a non-believer impossible, as here ie. the quran-text is based on the for everything-responsible underlaying idea of the one god, while the one and other thought might be of common value, but that makes not a religion necessary), same for any other religion (perhaps buddhism is an exception, because it has not that one god idea with its implications/application of churches/confessions, while of course buddhist monchs follow also certain rules), and that's also one important difference to everything else which we can investigate by scientific approaches which makes it debatable by everyone who is interested in an according theory or thesis or mathematical-based proof, theology can apply academic approaches about religion, but that's it, and religious belief (confessional) should be entirely a thing of a personal view and decision, a voluntary item without missionary express.
    Last edited by DaVinci; October 29, 2014 at 04:45 PM.

  16. #116
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    Wow a wonderful way to waste a day with semantic linguistic games. Balls to that.
    That's simply you admitting defeat without learning.

    Reminds me of the 'appeal to ridicule' crap certain people have spouted about criticism of their ridiculous positions - In that yours is a worthless response which tries to shift the blame for your error elsewhere.
    Last edited by Taiji; October 29, 2014 at 11:10 AM.

  17. #117
    Aeneas Veneratio's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen (Denmark)
    Posts
    4,703

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Technically, the only religious institution capable of "representing" its entire denomination is the Vatican, most religions llack a solidified leadership with the exception of, perhaps, Tibetan Buddhism and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
    Last edited by Aeneas Veneratio; October 29, 2014 at 04:04 PM.
    R2TW stance: Ceterum autem censeo res publica delendam esse

  18. #118

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    The thread didn't ask if ISIS was an official agent of an organization with the name Islam.
    The Armenian Issue

  19. #119
    /|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/|\/
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10,770

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    You asked "Do you believe that ISIS a fair representation of Islam?".

    The answer is that you need to rephrase the question so that it is semantically sound.

    Otherwise you will get 'no's on semantic grounds - "No X is not Y because Y is meaningless."
    Last edited by Taiji; October 29, 2014 at 05:22 PM.

  20. #120

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    It is semantically sound. It's just you, Taiji, that seems to read it backwards and argue on it from a pov that doesn't make sense. It's a fairly simple question that doesn't require such a take.
    The Armenian Issue

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •