[rquoter] Terry Gross: If you use the Bible as the basis for policy, is there any room for compromise? And if you use the bible as the basis for policy, should Muslims use the Koran as the basis for their policy, and then again, what possible basis is there for compromise at that point? John Hagee: There is really no room for compromise between radical Islam -- Terry Gross: I'm not talking about radical Islam. I'm just talking about Islam in general. John Hagee: Well Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews. [/rquoter] I'm bringing this back for two reasons. First, he admits that "radical Islam" is religous right code for "all Islam", which is useful to know in reading other comments. Second, he basically lays down the reasons for his total war against Islam - we have to get them before they get us. This is exactly the logic that the "anti-Crusader" Jihadis use to justify their paranoid xenophobia and absolute religious intolerance - the Christians are out to get us and the Jews want to steal all our land so we must get them first, and anybody who advocates compromise is takfir.
1. I think the operative phrase is "those who live by the Koran." Just as with most Christians, not too many take this literally. There's lots of odd stuff in the Old Testament particularly-- and that is in The Bible. Perhaps the Koran is the same way? People tend to see what they want to see in any book of instruction. 2. They attacked us in 1993 at the WTC and again in 2001-- same target
Because you agree with Hagee, and therefore can't allow anybody to equate your holy war with the one (jihad) being waged by those you hate. The key exchange: Hagee's war is already happening, and his soldiers have caused more than their share of destruction and violence. You begin to defend Hagee's worldview, albiet in a detatched way so that you can attempt to weasel out of your advocacy later. The logical implication of a holy war. Finally, you implicitly acknowledge and at the same time defend Hagee's holy war.
It is a large Surah and it would be best to describe all its verses. I'll try to summarize the general circumstances of this verse. First of all, this is not some eternal warning to never befriend Jews or Christians. As you may be aware, the Quraan was descended in blocks at different times - meaning, chapter 5 (for example) was revealed in blocks and not necessarily in the order that Allah ordered to arrange the verses when compiled. So this verse is event based. The event being discussed here it the city of Khaybar. Khaybar was the first city that Muhammad PBUH conquered. Before launching an attack they were offered three choices — conversion, payment of a tribute, or to fight by the sword. If they did not choose conversion a treaty was concluded, either instead of battle or after it, which established the conditions of surrender (source: Courbage and Fargues (1995), p. 2) After battle, the people of Khaybar (almost all Jewish) surrendered and a deal was signed whereby they wouldn't convert and rather than being controlled by the millitary, they would continue their daily lives but hand over X amount of their profits to the Islamic empire. Several other minor conditions were a part of this agreement (can't bear arms, etc). At this moment I can't remember which part of the treaty/deal they broke, however, this verse is directed at the Jews of Khaybar and nearby Christians who were responsible for breaking the treaty. The reason Allah demanded that no one befriend them is (and again, I can't remember exact details here, so I'm paraphrasing) because there were businessmen who may have been benefiting from the treaty (monetary benefits) who may have taken the side of those who broke the treaty. Hence, taking their side would make you one of the ünjust people". I will confirm this and get back to you if there are inaccuracies in the details, but rest assured, there is nothing stopping a Muslim from befriending a Jew or Christian and that is clear as day in that we are allowed to MARRY Jews and Christians. Hope that helps. Will get back to you.
MadMax, to answer the last part regarding the Hadith, could you give me some more details about it so I can find it? With Hadith, it's important to cut out uncertainties because there are so many categories (strong, medium, weak, story, fabricated, etc) and soooo much commentary on them which, at times, has been confused with Hadith itself. I'll try to find it from some of the key words you mentioned there.
You certainly do a lot of speculative dot-connecting there... In what ways do I agree with Hagee? I think all I've done is re--state his positions due the caricatures that are offered up here. Why do you force me to identify with Hagee's Holy War? Can't it just be war from my standpoint? The US Senate didn't refer to it as a Holy Anything. The point of my response to GladRowdy was that he used a distinctly Islamic term and put it in the mouth of Hagee. But the jihad came to our shores in 1993 and 2001... and Hagee didn't bring it. Why is it Hagee's War? He's not even a public official...
He is absolutely distorting the meaning of the Quraan. Also, I must disagree with you that it is more important wat people believe the Quraan says. The Quraan is not some mythological creature, anyone who wants to read it and understand it can do so with the click of a button. Historically, people have believed the worst things about the Torah, the Bible and the Quraan. This won't ever change. What we can do is try to enlighten people to our truths and not waste our time smacking every little fly that decides to say something stupid. This guy is unimportant and does not have a significant following. He has no ability to do damage and will not convince anyone who was in search of the truth; he will simply affirm the racist thoughts of the handful of ignorant idiots who needed someone to speak up for them. Attracting a crowd of hundreds by twisting religious texts and reaching out to the racism in them - this happens in ALL countries, EVERYDAY, even yours. Is he allowed to move around freely in Arab countries? That is a false statement and very indicative of your mindset. This guy would not be allowed to open his mouth in the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.. The more modern Arab countries. Nevermind that Islam is not restricted to Arabs or Arab countries as you have implied and as a non-Arab Muslim, I resent that comment. Sure, he will be able to go around freely in countries that are less competent in the field of racial profiling or phone tapping. But that is because he is insignificant and unknown - which, coincidentally, is why there is no need to worry about this. As soon as we all shift the microscope from the idiotic exception to the idiotic rule we will begin to break barriers and make progress towards each other. Till then, we will find that some people will put in lots of effort to defend the difference between Hagee and Nafisi - two people who tip-toe on the hatred-line that their governments allow, and only God knows where the line would be if they were to draw it themselves. Here's a good guess: the mere fact that this topic is debate-worthy implies that the difference is small enough to make Hagee lose any credibility he may have had in the first place.
Thank you. I had no mindset about this guy; I'd never heard of him and was asking for feedback. I wish you had made the first response and maybe the rest of this would have been unnecessary. While I don't identify the two the way you and some others do, I get why you do that....
you didn't make a wrong assumption about the guy.. you made a wrong assumption about Muslims/Islam in general.. you assumed this guy's belief is popular.. that I believe is an insult to them.. and when people attack Hagee, they attack him not Christians or you.. he is a very hateful man..
This is an excellent post Mathloom. The more I read from you, the more respect I have for you. That's not to say I always agree with your perspective, but your perspective is always thought provoking and informative.
Here is a pretty good summary portrait of this guy that no one here has defied except to suggest that he couldn't be traveling widely in the Arab world while disseminating these opinions. From the URL linked in post #35: "The Kuwaitis and Americans Should Arrest Al-Nafisi and Prosecute Him for Incitement to Terrorism "It is an obligation incumbent on the Kuwaiti government - and even more so on the American government - to arrest Dr. 'Abdallah Fahd Al-Nafisi, since he is a prime instigator of terrorism. He should be held responsible, from here on in, for any attack carried out by any terrorist - Muslim or non-Muslim - who uses anthrax against any institution or against people in general, anywhere on the face of the earth. I am amazed that the Bahraini government let this terrorist lecture pass in silence… "Frankly, I am very happy with Dr. Al-Nafisi's lecture, since it makes clear to all the terrorist orientation of the [Islamist] religious organizations, and affirms what I and other liberals have written about this terrorism, and which everyone says is an exaggeration. Here is their 'Dr.,' publicly and without fear delivering threats about killing Americans, and even explaining to whoever wants to hear how this criminal act should be carried out. He said that a small suitcase with four pounds of anthrax [could] be spread like confetti on the White House lawn… "It is clear that membership in an [Islamist] religious organization leads to the continual deepening of the abyss of hatred for others - even if this member holds 50 doctorates. Just look at the Kuwaiti parliament and you will see that this degree is worthless in intellectual terms. All of our misfortunes come at the hands of these holders of doctorates. But the difference between them and Al-Nafisi is that his degree is from [the University of Cambridge in] noble London, whereas theirs are from Arab religious universities and are not worth the paper they are printed on… "Of course I wish Dr. Al-Nafisi well so that he may continue to present us his brilliant terrorist views. If our government does not have state security arrest him and prosecute him for incitement to terrorism, this will mean that our government is in fact the number one terrorist, [just] as the writer 'Abd Al-Latif Al-Du'eij said. [2] Thank God Dr. [Al-Nafisi] has given up teaching, otherwise we would be seeing some of our students fighting the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I can assure you that neither the honorable Dr. [Al-Nafisi] nor the senior leaders of the religious organizations are prepared to fight jihad against the Americans; they leave these terrorist missions to foolish young terrorists who are deceived by the kind of vapid lectures they hear from people like Dr. Al-Nafisi, while they themselves live a pleasant and secure life." ..... Shaker Al-Nabulsi: Al-Nafisi Is More Dangerous than Bin Laden In a March 3, 2009 article in the Elaph e-journal, Jordanian-American liberal author Shaker Al-Nabulsi wrote: "… The aim of this article is not to reproach or condemn the Kuwaiti political scientist 'Abdallah Al-Nafisi. It is simply an attempt to analyze the importance and danger of his political discourse, much of which is a call to the culture of terrorism, glorifies terrorism, encourages terrorism, and says that it is necessary to carry out terrorism. This has made him a new, Kuwaiti, Bin Laden. "The importance and danger of 'Abdallah 'bin Laden' Al-Nafisi lies in the fact that he is the greatest media propagandist for terrorism in the Arab world. He wraps his terrorist speeches in a layer of buffoonery, joking, and laughter, which makes them enter more easily into the heart and mind of the listener. He travels freely in the Arab world, and speaks freely and with great audacity. "The danger of 'Abdallah 'bin Laden' Al-Nafisi is that he does not hide in Tora Bora or in the caves of Afghanistan near the Pakistani border; he is not wanted, and is not being pursued by anyone; he doesn't hide or dissimulate his beliefs. Rather, he travels throughout the Arab world giving speeches unabashedly encouraging terrorism, slaughter, and suicide [attacks]. He propagates his ideas and his calls for mass terrorism and the killing of hundreds of thousands of people openly and audaciously, and openly prays for [the terrorists'] victory and success… "[I have] absolutely no opposition or objection to 'Abdallah Al-Nafisi's condemnation of American policy or his staunch opposition to its foreign policy towards the Palestinians and the Arabs. There is no reasonable person in the Arab world who doesn't oppose this policy, and especially [America's] behavior towards the Palestinians - and I am the first to oppose this. But I denounce, reject, and express indignation, in the strongest terms, to the manner in which we [Arabs] express this indignation, [if we do it in] the manner in which 'bin Laden' Al-Nafisi does. Is dispersing deadly anthrax powder in Washington, as 'bBin Laden' Al-Nafisi called for, and killing 330,000 Americans the only way for us to rectify America's [foreign] policy and [bring it to] an upright, humane attitude towards the Palestinian cause?... "'Abdallah 'bin Laden' Al-Nafisi is a leader who openly and clearly calls for the 'greater terrorism', i.e., the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents - and not just thousands, the number killed by bin Laden in the September 2001 catastrophe. For this reason, he is a much more dangerous terrorist than Osama bin Laden, and [also] because he is more cultured than the original bin Laden, more eloquent, more charismatic, and enjoys much greater freedom of movement…"
giddyup, in the muslim/islam world, do you think Al-Nafisi's views are popular or really justfringe/radical/extremist?
