One popular opinion appears to be that Muslims dislike the U.S. because it supports Israel and meddles in foreign affairs. I accept this answer only partially and I think that Muslims hate the U.S. for religious reasons as well.
According to the Washington Post, here is an excerpt from the Brotherhood’s mission statement," “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”
This statement would appear to go beyond “they hate us because we interefere in their business.”
Another excerpt, “The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement Shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate)."
Could this be taken as a threat? What is the libertarian response to this, if anything? Would Muslims still want the destruction of the West even if the West did not support Israel? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
It depends on what your definition of ‘Muslim’ is. Is it:
a) Someone who calls themself a ‘Muslim’ or
b) Someone who emulates Muhammed and follows all his instructions
If it is a), then muslims do not necessarily wish to kill/convert/enslave non-muslims. If it is b), then they necessarily do. You might call it ‘no true Scotsman’, but remember that being a Scotsman isn’t predicated on following an infallible holy book, while the definition of ‘Muslim’ really is.
There are always fringe nut cases. The q is, what conditions make the masses willing to follow them?
What would make a fat happy American with 2 cars and kids, a nice steady job, and a hopeful future, decide to run out and bring down, say, the Chinese civilization? Answer: Nothing.
But take away his money and his future, give him an empty belly, and he will be ready to listen to a lot of things.
You can’t collectivize people in the category of “Muslim” as easy as you want to.
So you use the term Muslim that covers over a billion people and then take a group of people who don’t even make up 1% of that population as the reason for your judgment? You should’ve just started with “One popular opinion appears to be that the Muslim Brotherhood dislike the US because it supports Israel…”
Trying to turn the globe into one ultimate sharia law-state isn’t what I as a Muslim call a goal, the thoughts never even occured to me. Especially since so many Muslims disagree with what sharia law is in the first place, or what hadith’s are valid, or so many other differences it’d bore you to tears to tell you about.
I don’t agree that following Muhammad’s instructions(Quran), means to turn the world into a global sharia-law state. That’s not my interpretations of it at all- that is your personal definition of what a Muslim is based on your interpretation of the religion, nothing objective.
The attention given to the people like Hamas, Hezbollah, and even the Muslim brotherhood is about using religion to get political attention that’s all. They’re only given attention because they have guns and they are involved with foreign powers in some way. Treat them separately and things make sense. Lumping them all into the idea of a single Muslim superorganism is childish.
Or maybe you were just singling out the Muslim brotherhood’s statement- in that case my apologies for the rant
9:29 has to be taken with the rules of fighting in the first place- it refers to aggressors who’ve warred with you. The tribute is the price they pay for aggression.
Its not too difficult when you don’t forget to take Quran as a whole instead of picking and choosing bits. Not that you’re the only one guilty of it. This is the key with Muslim politicians- the picking and choosing.
'[8.60]And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, is the Hearer, the Knower.
[4.90]So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them.
[2.190]Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
So yes, people who persecute and try to fight you for being Muslim- the instructions on permission to fight back and the judgement on them is quite clear. But for people who wish peace- peace stays. That is it. Killing/converting/ and enslaving the entire western civilization doesn’t make any sense with the below quotes either
[10.99] And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou compel men until they are believers? [10.100] It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of God.
[2.256]There shall be no compulsion in religion…
[88.21-22]You shall remind, for your mission is to deliver this reminder. You have no power over them
People must come to God on their own- of their own choosing. Force doesn’t make sense.
There will always be fringe/radical religious beliefs, but the occupation by US military in their homelands is what allows them to recruit people for different reasons.
When those guys take on Egypt and close the canal to make some retarded fundamentalist point, Israel will have a rough weekend. If they repress their own people only and leave the rest of the world in peace, they shall have peace, since the US army is spread to thinly elsewhere.
If the objective of the Muslim Brotherhood is to re-establish a caliphate, then they are aggressors.
If they wish to implement Shariah law worldwide, involuntarily, then they are aggressors.
This has nothing to do with religion, hate, race, ethnicity, culture, etc.
The fact they would use violence or the threat of violence to meet their objectives makes them really no different than any other government. Perhaps they are just a little too direct for the liking of those sophisticated western states that use force or coercion, but with manners (or from a safe distance in their comfy chair). I say we need none of them.
Any religion that has political aims to force or coerce others is in the same boat as government - aggressors. Legitimate religion is voluntary. There is no legitimate government.
In the most recent anti-war podcast, Eric Margolis talks at length regarding the current Egyptian situation and the history of the Muslim Brotherhood WW2 to present. In short, he probably views these statements by the Washington Times as more neo-con war-baiting.
[9:24] Proclaim: “If your parents, your children, your siblings, your spouses, your family, the money you have earned, a business you worry about, and the homes you cherish are more beloved to you than GOD and His messenger, and the striving in His cause, then just wait until GOD brings His judgment.” GOD does not guide the wicked people.
[9:80] Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them - even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them. This is because they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger. GOD does not guide the wicked people.
I.e., non-muslims are wicked.
**
**
Okay. Let’s not look at it in bits as you say. After God’s extermination of the “Pharoah’s people” for the heinous crime of disbelieving, I’m quite sure that His believers were not supposed to make peace whenever the Egyptians felt like not being destroyed merely for being disbelievers any more. Here’s what it means: if they decide to “resort to peace” ( i.e., surrender; i.e., become believers) you should consider not continuing to wage war against them. If it was not supposed to mean that, the author could have spared the Egyptian example and reminding that disbelievers are the “worst creatures in the sight of God” leading up to it.
9:24 is quite simple. Since there is a belief in the afterlife- if you cling to the material wealth you have(which isn’t just money), without caring for the cause of God then you will have God’s judgment on judgment day. Not on this earth. No calls for a man to force another man to do anything. The cause of God is not to fight people and have them submit- its to establish charity and work towards a larger goal than personal desires.
The point being that you have to act on this earth for more than just your own needs. You can disagree all you want but even a Muslim can fall under that category. You are associating wickedness with being non-muslim. Being wicked is much more thorough than that.
Now for 9.80,why not read the verse right before it?
[9:79] Those who criticize the generous believers for giving too much, and ridicule the poor believers for giving too little, GOD despises them. They have incurred a painful retribution.[9:80] Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them - even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times - GOD will not forgive them. This is because they disbelieve in GOD and His messenger. GOD does not guide the wicked people.
You equate being a disbeliever as simply being non-muslim, but its more specific than that. Its regarding evil people in general. Even someone who is a “believer” but commits acts of aggression is labeled as a disbeliever and a hypocrite. They usually receive the most harsh words from Quran.
You could cling to your interpretations all you want if that satisfies your viewpoint. I’m asking you not to but its seems like you already decided on how you feel.
Pharoah’s story didn’t start in Al-Anfal(Sura 8). Ok and why were the Pharoah’s people exterminated? This is the same Pharaoh of the Moses story, you know? He had enslaved an entire people and would go on to continue to chase after them after promising them their freedom.
[8:56] You reach agreements with them, but they violate their agreements every time; they are not righteous.
Yes the believers are required to make peace as soon as Egyptians decided they wanted peace with them(which is exactly what they did when Pharaoh promised their freedom). Their destruction occured when Moses parted the sea and the Pharaoh and his supporters went to chase after the people.
You just ignored all the passages I quoted where force CANNOT be used to get people to believe. Since compulsion is not allowed**(The use of force is RIDICULED in 10.99)-** throw away those notions that people must “surrender and become believers” through force. Its easy to put the pieces together when you take it as a whole.
I “cling” to the “interpretation” that satisfies the “viewpoint” that I formed last night when I first read it. Except that I didn’t interpret it. I read the words. You interpreted it. It says what it says. Being an atheist obviously qualifies as loving blah-blah more than God.
I ignore nothing. It’s easy to understand that being a disbeliever is defined as being a transgressor in the Quran (10.106). It always refers to “disbelievers” rather than any other plausible description of criminals. Does it say that the Egyptians and those before them were assailed because they enslaved? Not one word. They rejected revelation and God punished them for their sins! The context is the horror of disbelief; that is what it speaks of to no end. Show me where the Quran takes a break from exhaustive negativity and finds one redeeming quality in anyone that does not praise God most profusely.
10.99 sure says nothing ridiculing force. You can’t force someone to believe. However, you can punish them for not believing, a frequent theme in this text.
If “muslims” have a problem with “interpretation” of the Quran they should write a new book that does not look like an extremely hateful screed against disbelievers. The more I read the crazier it seems. Perhaps you should explain to the muslim associations in Canada why in Quran terms crying to the CHRC to drag everyone into a kangaroo court for offending Muhammad is not good.
Well that’s the thing if you just read that part and ignore everything else its no wonder you’d come to the conclusions you did, I don’t mean to put you down by that, my fault. But you need the whole or else being misled is easy. Sure it says what it says- but to ignore the context it becomes pointless if you were actually interested in understanding and not just debating.
Since compulsion is not allowed- then every passage has to be read with that in mind. The thing about Quran is that it doesn’t tell you to “turn the other cheek”- but to actively fight against tyranny and persecution which confuses everyone who only reads a few things here and there.
[4:75] Why should you not fight in the cause of God when weak men, women, and children are imploring: “Our Lord, deliver us from this community whose people are oppressive, and be You our Lord and Master*.”*
But it is quite clear on how to treat people.
[60:8] God does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. God loves the equitable.
[60:9] God enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.
Punishment has its criteria and that relates to aggression- did you ignore the quote I gave 60:8?
Yes Quran mentions the persecutions and enslavement by the Pharaoh. It doesn’t mention it in that chapter because no one is expected to read one Sura and forget the rest.
[2.49] And that We saved you from the clan of the Pharaoh, afflicting you with the most evil suffering , slaughtering your sons and letting live your womenfolk (for further humiliation and suffering). In that was a grievous trial from your Lord.
[26:20](Moses speaking to Pharaoh:) Then I fled from you when I feared you, and my Lord vouchsafed me a command and appointed me (of the number) of those sent (by Him)****[26:21] And this is the past favour wherewith thou reproachest me: that thou hast enslaved the Children of Israel.
[28:4]Lo! Pharaoh exalted himself in the earth and made its people castes. A tribe among them he oppressed, killing their sons and sparing their women. Lo! he was of those who work corruption
The important thing is to understand what a disbeliever is. A disbeliever isn’t simply a non-muslim, I am understanding that since you are an atheist its striking a particular chord with you. It is a person who actively fights against Islam, it can even be a person who in their hearts believes in God but for whatever reasons fights against it. Classical arabic is a language where one word can have many meanings. This is why people look at english translations as simplistic.
[7:198] When you invite them to the guidance, they do not hear. And you see them looking at you, but they do not see.
[7:199] You shall resort to pardon, advocate tolerance, and disregard the ignorant.
Quran finds a redeeming quality in anyone who works for good deeds. Selfish desires such as gathering material wealth and a large family which although permitted- isn’t held to be the highest goal so why should you expect it to be? The Quran isn’t about satisfying atheists that their disbelief in God is the way to go about things- its a message that this world is temporary and judgement eventually waits. But at the same time its not about sitting home all day and doing nothing but praising God. Being a monk isn’t prescribed in Quran- being a believer is more than just praising God. Establishing good works, avoiding mischief, and seeking knowledge is the way of the believer.
[57:27]Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah’s pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance.
[2:177] It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God-fearing.
[49:13] O mankind! Lo! We have created you from male and female, and have made you distinct peoples and tribes that ye may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is omniscient, Cognizant
[25:63]The faithful of the Beneficent are they who walk upon the earth modestly, and when the ignorant ones address them answer: Peace;
[4:114]There is no good in much of their secret conferences save (in) him who enjoineth almsgiving and kindness and peace-making among the people. Whoso doeth that, seeking the good pleasure of Allah, We shall bestow on him a vast reward.
[16:125]You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.
when it comes to punishment its only if you have been caused harm
[16:126]If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient.
But patience is what is recommended.
[16:127] You shall resort to patience - and your patience is attainable only with GOD’s help. Do not grieve over them, and do not be annoyed by their schemes.
[3:132] And vie one with another for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a paradise as wide as are the heavens and the earth, prepared for those who ward off (evil); [3:133] Those who spend for charity in ease and in adversity, those who control their wrath and are forgiving toward mankind; Allah loveth the good
I don’t think anyone should drag people into a court for offending Muhammad- especially since Muhammad isn’t to be revered as if he was God. I don’t pretend to think for a second that many Muslims actually follow and study Quran properly, I talk with Muslims as much as I can to reach understanding. Not sure why you brought that up? Those people should definitely read Quran’s advice when it comes to offending the religion-> [4:140] He has instructed you in the scripture that: if you hear GOD’s revelations being mocked and ridiculed, you shall not sit with them, unless they delve into another subject
I think that many people who engage in that activity were born muslims and decided that there’s nothing more for them to do than to cling to Muhammad as an identity of worship instead of seeking truth.
Maybe I am too cynical, but wouldn’t the military industrial complex profit PR wise if the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt after the most “socially shared” revolution in history?