Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Fwd: Fw: [muslimrights] Fw: [NMN] There’s A Grand Christian Conspiracy Against Nig Muslim-JNI

Oluwatoyin,

Re "I expect he is taking it too far in describing the Quran as
justifying
terrorism."

I did say rather guardedly that "Islamic doctrine authorises
Jihad ( and to some extent terrorism".The emphasis is on "and to some
extent"
and this is according to the interpretations of al-Qaeda Sheikhs and
scores of Muslim Theologians theologians such as Egypt's Yusuf al-
Qaradawi who has his own terroristic ideas when it comes to Israel and
the Palestinians going for Peace.....


http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=S0EJULv8N5P34QSv6O3PCg&ved=0CFMQBSgA&q=Yusuf+al-Qaradawi&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=90fe06c707c49d57&biw=1024&bih=636

Qaradawi and terror:
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Yusuf+al-Qaradawi+and+terrorism&oq=Yusuf+al-Qaradawi+and+terrorism&gs_l=serp.3...154099.157554.0.158416.14.14.0.0.0.2.650.3412.4j3j1j1j2j2.13.0...0.0...1c.yqr848MeUNE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=90fe06c707c49d57&biw=1024&bih=636


On Jul 20, 8:54 am, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What I understand  Cornelius  as  arguing  is that the Quran advocates the
> use of force as a tool of social relations.
>
> He adds that such a sacred mandate creates a  trigger that is liable to be
> invoked by  Muslims when they believe  the need arises.
>
> I expect he is  taking it too far in describing the Quran as justifying
> terrorism. Muhammed Muhd and other Muslims on Nigerian centred egroups have
> been struggling for some   time to demonstrate a style of Islamic
> hermeneutics that interprets  references to the use of force in the Quran
> in benign rather than aggressive terms. These hermeneutic presentations
> need to be carefully examined, but they suggest that to blandly conjoin
> Islam and terrorism is problematic.
>
> Cornelius   makes no comparison with Christianity, but my knowledge of
> Christianity and Buddhism, for example, does not show their sacred texts as
> developing what one might call a philosophy of just war.
>
> Hinduism, on the other hand, has something like that in the Bhagavad Gita,
> a discourse from Krishna  encouraging  Arjuna to go into battle.
>
> Judaism also has that in the justification for the concept of a Promised
> Land, an imperialist  doctrine implemented by   stealing land from other
>  other peoples   in the name of  God.
>
> There is a world of difference between the metaphysically lofty, and
> possibly cold blooded  concept of combat in the Gita and its relationship
> to  caste  in Hindu society and the culture of a nomadic people seeking a
> settled home seemingly evident in the Old Testament  and the consolidation
>  of Islam in the crucible of combat, but these examples indicate that some
> religious texts are more prone to be pacifist than others.
>
> Harrow's point may be descried as the need to situate use of force within a
> social and historical nexus  in dialogue with textual imperatives.
>
> Which comes first, the use of force or its scriptural or theological
> justification?
>
> Jesus, for example,was largely pacifist but the church founded in his name
>   was at the centre of an ideologically imperialist empire sustained in
> Europe by massive murder-the Inquisition-as well as an ally of Western
> imperialism.
>
> How did this come about? What is the relationship between various Christian
> justifications of use of force and actual use of such force? Which came
> first, theological justification  or action  that was then justified
> theologically?
>
> In this context, Harrow's  theory is particularly pertinent  because the
> theological  justification for force emerges as late as Augustine of Hippo
> who died in AD 430 in his Do What Thou Wilt doctrine describing the need to
> act using whatever means are considered  relevant as long as it is done  in
> love, in his recommendation  of dealing with  a group he and his
> like-minded Christians understood as heretics.
>
> But may we not push  this theory  back father?
>
> Rather than reify sacred texts as imprimaturs that shape otherwise passive
> adherents, may these texts not be understood as shaped by the exigencies of
> the historical contexts of their composition, by the agendas of their
> creators, at the nexus of  inspiration and calculation?
>
> The descendants of Abraham  seeking to transform themselves  from a nomadic
> to a settled  people and inventing a myth of a Promised Land given by God
> to his 'Chosen People' but a land which must pass to these Chosen People
> through slaughter of its current holders, at times through what the priests
> described as divinely  sanctioned genocide of every living thing in those
> lands, failure  to complete  one such genocidal   command leading to the
>  deposition of Saul as king, if I remember well,  although the immense
> power of the Abrahamic vision may suggests that this interpretation is
> useful but simplistic and that  at the heart of the Abrahamic vision is a
> genuine numinous experience, an overwhelming encounter with the sacred,
> however this encounter was understood by the human agent in the
> experience, to Muhammed struggling  to establish his religion in the
> Mecca/Medina conflicts, inspiring a combat ethos evident in the Quran
> according to interpretations  of its references to combat.
>
> Harrow's theory is very useful but the way he  puts it seems to abstract it
> from actual historical experience.  Correlating  it with Cornelius
>  observation, as I have tried to do might enhance its value as a guide to
> understanding  better the relationship between individual and group
> psychology and religious texts.
>
> thanks
> toyin
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:50 AM, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu>wrote: beluve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  dear cornelius
>
> > no doubt i expressed myself poorly. here is what i said:
>
> > there is nothing in christian doctrine that ultimately
> > has anything whatsoever to do with what people who call themselves
> > christians will finally resort to in the use of violence to achieve
> > their political and economic ends. and guess what, that is true of all
> > people on earth. despite what malcolm says, it isn't doctrine that will
> > authorize force for muslims, but the opposite: doctrine will be
> > mobilized to rationalize a use of force.
>
> > i don't think that the use of force follows from doctrine but that doctrine follows from the decision to use force. i know there are doctrinal statements that authorize the use of force, but they are ex post facto, not causal. people decide to go to war to conquer others, to repress others, to win the goods of others, to impose an order; then, to justify it, they cite religious doctrine authorizing the war as jihad or crusade, but the religious rationalizations are not necessary for war to happen, and if they all disappeared, war would still take place and new rationalizations to justify it would come about
> > what i am saying is that no religion is any better than any other in this regard, and that it isn't the real reason for conflict. it is the surface reason, the ideological reason, which dissembles and covers over the actual reasons
> > ken
>
> > On 7/19/12 10:39 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:
>
> > Ken
>
> > It's basically back to basics.
>
> > Without equivocation
> > I don't think that I'm getting you quite right.
> > In fact you're confusing the likes of me or perhaps just being
> > deliberately
> > provocative, for the heck or for fun of it.
>
> > There you are, on the podium, grabbing the USA- Africa dialogue series
> > microphone since it's you turn and saying ( albeit not so piously)
> > that "it isn't doctrine that will authorize force for Muslims,"
> >  What else? The 72 virgins? C'mon Ken they can fool some of the people
> > most of the time but must  they also be able to deceive those of us
> > who come under the term "we" instead of  "us"( USA) ?
> > "It isn't doctrine that will authorize force for Muslims," indeed ,
> > that holy baloney plus the superfluous rationalisations that follow
> > thereafter, as if Jihad is not a part of Islam's cardinal creed  and
> > in the Islamic world of dar al Harb and dar al-Islam,  JIHAD  is not
> > an Islamically sanctified means of holding on to conquered territory
> > and  even militarily expanding such territories whenever such once
> > Islamic territories are under threat of re-conquest by the kuffar
> > ( the infidels)
> > The Quran says fight in the name of Allah and you think that your mere
> > mortal opinion can obliterate that? You must be dreaming about
> > American Islam , not real Islam...http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=28&gs_id=7&xhr=t&q=Muslim%2...
> > Verily Lord Harrow, it is solid Islamic doctrine that authorises
> > Jihad ( and to some extent terrorism) , great and small, for Muslims
> > all and this is well born out in Islamic history , including the anti-
> > colonial jihads that were carried out  in the Sene-Gambia.
>
> > I now I humbly await the greater,humanitarian enlightenment....
>
> > On 19 Juli, 14:49, Felicia Oyekanmi <profoyeka...@yahoo.com> <profoyeka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >  What is happening in Nigeria is a situation of very great economic and political inequity which is been played out as a religious and ethnic warfare. The rich want to retain their relative advantage and do not mind whose blood is split in a bid to maintain the status quo.  If programmes can be designed to reduce abject poverty in the country, the average person does not care about your ethnic or religious group.
> > I am a Christian but my first daughter was saved from being lynched by some islamic fanatics by a Muslim lady in old Kano state. In fact the Muslim lady gave my daughter and her fellow NYSC corper native dress (iro and buba) to wear and a hijab each to cover their themselves in order to walk through the rioters to the army barracks where they hid for about three days before they could escape to Lagos.
>
> > Prof Felicia A. D. Oyekanmi
> > Department of Sociology
> > University of Lagos
> > Akoka, Yaba,
> > Lagos Nigeria
> > Tel: {234} 1 7941757
> > Cell: {234}8056560970
>
> > --- On Thu, 19/7/12, Sadiq Alhassan <xturalsa...@gmail.com> <xturalsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Sadiq Alhassan <xturalsa...@gmail.com> <xturalsa...@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: Fwd: Fw: [muslimrights] Fw: [NMN] There's A Grand Christian Conspiracy Against Nig Muslim-JNI
> > To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Thursday, 19 July, 2012, 7:23
>
> > Cornelius Hamelberg have said it all, I wish all the Muslim and christian faithfuls will understand
> > On Jul 19, 2012 12:08 PM, "Cornelius Hamelberg" <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> <corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  "There's nothing in our book, the Quran -- you call it 'Ko-ran' --
> > that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be
> > intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law,
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com