Only if the MCB is operating with some wild Islamist version of Marxism-Leninism’s “democratic centralism”, surely!

In defence of Inayat: if the majority of his ‘flock’ are against demonstrating with BMSD, his hands are tied, are they not? Democracy…rule of the majority and all that jazz.

Hassan

Apologies, qidniz. That was remiss of me.

Thank you. That wasn’t necessary — acknowledgment is enough, in my book, as we all, I hope, learn from each other — but it was very gracious.

To expres myself more clearly:

I appreciate the challenge, which is both intellectual and informed, that you offer the traditions and so-called orthodoxies of my faith. Please do not assume from my sometimes combative responses that I underestimate or deny your input: it is of the highest order.

You and I may disagree about many things (although I suspect, indeed I hope less than you think); but I do have an enormous respect for your erudition. I just wish I had as much self-control as you exercise with me.

I happen to think that to stand and preach is not such a terrible thing for a faith. All have engaged in the same, in some way or another, across time – as I am sure you will accept. To paraphrase a very great preacher (and possibly someone who defines sainthood in terms of the proximity of the Christian to the divine in more recent times – to speak the Word is never enough, we must act the Word, or it is meaningless – Francis of Assisi. I think this has close connections to the ideas that underlie bananabrainb’s last post, for example).

I cannot hate faith, nor its particular manifestations. Nor do I pity its followers. If the One, the Lord is at the centre of the beliefs then no harm may befall the Believer, nor those with whom the Believer will interact. This may seem simplistic too you (I do not know); but I assure you that in unfolding the meaning of such a statement comes much travail, much ardour, much – hopefully, finally – love.

Perhaps I have been less than fair. Put it down, if you would grant me some space, to a busy time at the moment.

I recant everything I have said, in the light of the comment you have above quoted.

Apologies, qidniz. That was remiss of me.

Go ahead.

You have argued that the former is a redundancy[...]

Not a redundancy. A red herring, to use your phrase,…

[...] as its theses are fundamentally those of Islam.

…Because the principal aim of the effort afoot is to deny militancy, hegemonism and supremacism in Islam. Push all of that onto some caricature suggestively named “Islamism” and lo, all-singing all-dancing Islam goes scot-free. Gee, what a surprise.

As for giving other religions a pass, never mind the whataboutery here, you’ll find examples on the “interweb” (gah, what an ugly neologism) where I’ve said that whereas I’m not a fan of religion at all, I hold the proselytizing religions in particular contempt, because I consider them the most pernicious – and among them, Islam stands out as the most dangerous. Make of that what you will.

For the record, what follows after the separator was originally posted to Harry’s place:

======

I wonder if you could define Islamist for me? In ideological and practical terms.

I offered this a while back on a useful distinction between “Muslim” and “Islamist”:

“Muslim” is a term of self-description. It applies to everyone who is Muslim, and the vast majority of Muslims so self-described are Muslim simply by virtue of having been born Muslim. This includes “cultural Muslims”, “secular Muslims” and closet apostates, among other categories of Muslims who are not necessarily… Islamist.

“Islamist” is not a term of self-description. It is a term used by non-Muslims to identify those Muslims who bring what can be called an “Islam uber alles” attitude and approach to their dealings with non-Muslims, almost invariably because of their exposure to and inculcation of the core religious doctrines of Islam.

Islamists — and Islamist attitudes — are a problem. Muslims per se, for the most part, are not. They could even be victims.

“Islamism” is a back-formation from “Islamist”. It was invented to insulate and protect Islam from scrutiny and criticism and deflectively suggest that some form of misguided or misinformed aberration is at the root of Islamist activism and violence.

(Islam itself is already an “ism”. Just as we don’t have, or don’t find any need to have, Buddhismism or Christianitism or Hinduismism, Islamism is a linguistic monstrosity and a sure sign that some form of evasion is afoot.)

I can find, if I can be bothered, examples littering the English-language interweb where you have directly equated Islamism with Islam. You have argued that the former is a redundancy as its theses are fundamentally those of Islam. Do not be disingenuous.

I have said that Islamism is an artifice of convenience, that no such thing exists.

Exactly. Yopu have argued that if Islamism is an “artifice of convenience”, then effectively Islam is that which others would equate (presumably with malice or foolishness) with Islam, in toto. In point of fact, your position is indentical to that peddled by Islamists.

Please don’t put words in my mouth.

I’m not. I am drawing a perfectly regular and normal conclusion from your words here and elsewhere, that form part of your long cam,paign here and elsewhere to smear the entire Islamic faith by equation with its modern and corrupt interpretation known as Islamism.

Either Islam is a problem, or it is not.

No, either traditionalising, actually fairly modern interpretations of Islam, that you choose to assume are Islam in essence, are problematic or they are not. Religion is problematic, qidniz. However, you appear to be quite content to allow any and all other belief systems, save Islam, such a waiver. One can only wonder about the agenda.

The traditional viewpoint, to which no doubt Bungles for example subscribes, is that Islam is perfect by definition.

This is a product of your wishes and imagination and not a fact, actually. No Islamic school makes such a definition of the Faith.

This (along with a “culture of shame” ethos) underlies the pervasive denialism across the Muslim world and manifest in the rhetoric. You may pretend it isn’t there, or that it is harmless, but others take a somewhat more realistic view.

Ludicrous and tellijng. “Others take a more realistic view”? You mean other avid followers of jihad-watch like you, you mean?

I have said no such thing. I have said that Islamism is an artifice of convenience, that no such thing exists. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Either Islam is a problem, or it is not. If it is not, then these various newfangled revisionist or reformist initiatives are pointless. If it is, then it’s important to identify what kind of problem it is, i.e. what exactly is problematic in the Islam that has come down the centuries.

The traditional viewpoint, to which no doubt Bungles for example subscribes, is that Islam is perfect by definition. This (along with a “culture of shame” ethos) underlies the pervasive denialism across the Muslim world and manifest in the rhetoric. You may pretend it isn’t there, or that it is harmless, but others take a somewhat more realistic view.

Although I grant that its eirenic “take” is likely to sell like hot cakes in predictable high-minded liberal arts programs all across the West.

And I would grant that a typically illiberal pose such as that was bound to be thrown by a self-taught “expert” on Islam – if we are going to trade rudeness, qidniz.

A massive propaganda effort aimed at obfuscation notwithstanding, it’s pretty clear what those traditions have been and still are.

You have chosen to only highlight those issues that accord with your narrow and illiberal interpretation of Islam – one in which, as you youself have elsewhere admitted, Islam = Islamism.

You have singularly failed to contest the fact that the Qur’an in and of itself makes no hard and fast prohibition of alcohol. It simply will not do to obsfurcate by means of a persistent attempt to draw the issue back around to a controversy over one translation, when no translation (however “traditional” or “orthodox”) prohibits in the way you so desperately want.

I can see why you would prefer to view anything anti-Islam as anti-Muslim instead. It kills discussion, and exculpates Islam, just as you intend. So, I’ll leave it at that.

Not at all. However, I find your distinction between anti-Islam and anti-Muslim more than a tad convenient – and rather troubling. I rather try not to detest religious beliefs dearly held by others. Although, it has been noted before, that you appear to have a blind-spot for the difference between critique and insult when it comes to Islam – you k now, that faith of Muslims.

Yet, as I above pointed out, you are on record as asserting that all Islam is Islamism, – and therefore (a tad inconveniently for your attempt to claim that you distinguish between a faith and its believers), for you, all Muslims are Islamists. A position which is, patently, absurd.

As you say, let’s leave it there.

I think that the issue of the variation between the FM translations and other, more traditional translations, is a bit of a red herring, frankly.

I disagree, of course. The Qur’an may be subject to ambiguity, but it’s important, in my view, to know which understandings have widespread acceptance, especially among the influential clerical class (who still have the chance and take it every Friday to propagate “the official version”.) The F-M version, in that sense, is not merely unrepresentative, it barely scratches marginal. Although I grant that its eirenic “take” is likely to sell like hot cakes in predictable high-minded liberal arts programs all across the West.

It is perfectly clear that without recourse to the ahadith the absoluteness of the prohibition on the consumption of alcohol is certainly open to question. Reliance upon the Qur’an alone, in other words, does not provide a cut-and-dry answer to this question.

IANAF (NDIPOOTV!), but it’s pretty clear that the Qur’an prohibits khamr (and maysir — common to Q2:219 and Q5:90 — inter alia). Exactly what constitutes khamr, thus ipso facto verboten, and what could be analogically equivalent, is a vast subject, naturally. But there is no avoiding the fact that the consensus of the madhdhabs is that khamr entails alcohol in general. Even if it didn’t, though, khamr still means wine in particular (so maybe YAB should consider switching to vodka!)

To be frank I get the impression, qidniz, that you would – in the end – prefer the Islamic traditions to be as uncompromising as possible because this would suit your rather clear anti-Muslim agenda, to be frank.

A massive propaganda effort aimed at obfuscation notwithstanding, it’s pretty clear what those traditions have been and still are. I base my anti-Islam views on the history and literature of Islam, and see no utility in obfuscation or sugar-coating what all said and done is not only an appalling record but also an equally appalling heilsgeschichte. However, I can see why you would prefer to view anything anti-Islam as anti-Muslim instead. It kills discussion, and exculpates Islam, just as you intend. So, I’ll leave it at that.

Thanks for that. I shall now scurry off and check out Brill’s on-line demos!

The EI2 entry offered for the demo is on Abrogation.

Oops, mea culpa. That’s from their Encyclopedia of the Qur’an. The EI2 entries are on Iman, Makka, and Suleyman (the Magnificent).

I was unaware that the EI was on-line.

It is, and it isn’t. The publishers, EJ Brill, have an online service in which the EI2 is offered, but it’s by subscription only, and they do not publish their rates. But as this is Brill, yes that Brill, you can be sure that you will have to pay through the nose, in spades, and put a cherry on that. (Brill make their nut from the bloated and corrupt institutional market, and so have no qualms about their retail prices being aimed at the independently wealthy only.)

I have to consult it at the library.

So do I, but I am somewhat lucky. Around 2002 or so, when Brill was publishing the final volumes of the EI2 series, they put the already published parts on a CD-ROM (Vols 1-9, i.e. A-S; a glossary; and various indices) as some sort of promotional. Quite by chance I found this on Amazon for about $150 (weird, as the list price for this partial set seems to be a more Brill-typical $450, even today!). The bumpf that came with the package claimed that the remaining pieces (i.e. Vols 10-12 for T-Z) would be available at a discount on a supplemental CD-ROM.

Well, Brill never published that supplemental CD-ROM: they still try to sell the original partial set and then try to suck you in, when you ask them about it, into buying a separate copy of the complete set for another $1000 or so.

For the computer formats savvy, the contents of the CD-ROM use the Dynatext technology (now defunct as the company was bought up by a competitor and its product “retired”.) But it can be “hacked” to extract the contents away from a brain-dead typographical scheme. Another reason to do this is that while the contents are in English, the spelling is uniformly Dutch (e.g. “dj” for “j”) which is extremely off-putting.

PS: The Brill online service has free demos. The EI2 entry offered for the demo is on Abrogation. Check it out.

Members of the development control committee refused the scheme on a number of grounds including it being in an unsuitable location and would cause traffic congestion.

Oh dear.

“Resident Zia-ul-Haq, aged 56, of Hart Street, said: “It is a victory for the people, …”

“Imam Saeed, 65, from the Aisha Mosque and Islamic Centre, added: “We are happy the right decision has been made. …”

Amazing how many Muslims turned out to oppose this mosque but not a single white person in sight — normally it’s the other way round. Is the reason for resident’s joy really what the residents claim it is? You would wonder why Muslims would be opposing a mosque until you realise it’s the mosque for the ‘other’ sect.

Are Muslims less tolerant than the natives after all? If they can’t even tolerate a mosque just because it’s for the other sect what chances do churches and synagogues have in Eurabia?