Free David Hicks

[robertthebard]

Going for the Trifecta...
So, his group believes it's not ok to lie to them, but you can fly plane loads of them into buildings full of them. That's a very hard position to defend, isn't it?

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by ZFR: That aside, I'll grant you this: many muslims religious leaders do allow you lying to infidels just like you said. But the quran doesn't say it! I was not trying to defend them. Only don't write "Quran says" unless it actually says so. "Muslims say..." would be right.

Just as in any religion, different sects will interpret things differently. That the Qu'ran DOES endorse falsehood is NOT in dispute.

What is at dispute is how those particular endorsements are to be interpreted and when they are to be applied. As you yourself said, "many muslims religious leaders do allow you lying to infidels just like you said." Machineheads quote, which I also read at the same site where I found the quotes from the Qu'ran, is simply ONE such interpretation. There are most certainly others, and they will most certainly be different. I'm not about to look for ALL of them, nor to dispute which one is accurate. How could I possibly, since no one interpretation is right or wrong? [img]smile.gif[/img]


"Only don't write "Quran says" unless it actually says so. "Muslims say..." would be right." - Good point! [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I'd actually say "some Muslims have said" then you're not speaking for those that haven't. [/QB][/QUOTE]Good point. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Ok, so what I take away from all that is that it's to be implied that Hicks doesn't belong to the group of Muslims that have said it's ok to lie to infidels? Curious.

No, that's not necessarily true.

The Taliban Movement is a Sunni Islamist fundamentalist.

al-Qaeda or al-Qaida (القاعدة, translit: al-Qā`ida; "the Law", "the foundation", or "the base") is an armed Sunni Islamist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradicating those they deem to be "infidels", and reestablishing the caliphate. The most prominent members of the group are adherents of Wahhabism or Salafism, two understandings of Islam which have influenced militant groups.

Salafi Muslims are often grouped together with Wahhabi Muslims, although the two movements began independently and originally held opposing views. Wahhabism rejected modern influences, while Salafism sought to reconcile Islam with modernism.[1] Use of the word "Salafi" can be very confusing, as the term has been used by several competing Islamic groups that are known by other names. It can be used to describe a general veneration of early Muslims, or it can be used as another name for political Islamism.

So the answer to the question is - I don't know.

Originally posted by Yorick: Cool. Thanks for the references. They're not saying what Johnny said they were saying though. Now, what about the Torah?

I know. [img]smile.gif[/img] It was quoted for information purposes, not to take sides. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll let you handle the Torah.


Yorick - sent you a new pm. Different subject.

[ 11-30-2006, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

[machinehead]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by machinehead: Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745) Note that Al-Ghazali is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time.

Perhaps so, but was he Sunni, Shia, Sufi or Wahabist? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The point is, it's not the Qu'ran, and it's not a Hadith either. It's just an opinion, and we all know how many opinions there are floating around. Does he offer Surah numbers or Hadithic references to back up his opinion, or is he claiming to speak for Allah? [/QUOTE]Biography
He contributed significantly to the development of a systematic view of Sufism and its integration and acceptance in mainstream Islam. Al-Ghazali was a scholar of orthodox Islam, belonging to the Shafi'i school of legal thought of Sunnite Islam and to the Asharite school of theology . Imam Ghazali received many titles: Sharaful A'emma (Arabic: شرف الائمه), Zainud din (Arabic: زین الدین), Hujjatul Islam, meaning "Proof of Islam" (Arabic: حجة الاسلام)

Al-Ghazali remains one of the most celebrated scholars in the history of Islamic thought. He lectured at the Nizamiyyah school of Baghdad (the highest ranked academy of the golden era of Islamic civilization) between 1091 and 1096. He was the scholar par excellence in the Islamic world. He had literally hundreds of scholars attending his lectures at the Nizamiyyah. His audience included scholars from other schools of jurisprudence. This position won him prestige, wealth and respect that even princes and viziers could not match.

After some years he distributed his wealth and left Baghdad to begin a spiritual journey that lasted over a decade. He went to Damascus, Jerusalem, Hebron, Madinah, Mecca and back to Baghdad where he stopped briefly. He then left for Tus to spend the next several years in seclusion. He ended his seclusion for a short lecturing period at the Nizamiyyah of Nishapur in 1106. Later he returned to Tus where he remained until his death in December, 1111.

He is also viewed as the key member of the influential Asharite school of early Muslim philosophy and the most important refuter of Mutazilites. His 11th century book titled "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology, as Ghazali effectively discovered philosophical skepticism that would not be commonly seen in the West until George Berkeley and David Hume in the 18th century. The encounter with skepticism led Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God.

The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as non-believers and labelled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith.

In the next century, Averroes drafted a lengthy rebuttal of Ghazali's Incoherence entitled the Incoherence of the Incoherence; however, the epistemological course of Islamic thought had already been set.

Ghazali's influence has been compared to the works of St. Thomas Aquinas in Christian theology (he has been called the "Thomas Aquinas of Islam" by some), but the two differed greatly in methods and beliefs. Whereas Ghazali rejected non-Islamic philosophers such as Aristotle and saw it fit to discard their teachings on the basis of their "unbelief," Aquinas embraced them and incorporated ancient Greek and Latin thought into his own philosophical writings.

Ghazali wrote two of his works in Persian: Kimyayé Sa'ādat (The Alchemy of Happiness) and Nasihatul Mulook (Counseling Kings).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

[robertthebard]

Originally posted by Micah Foehammer: quote: Originally posted by robertthebard: Ok, so what I take away from all that is that it's to be implied that Hicks doesn't belong to the group of Muslims that have said it's ok to lie to infidels? Curious.

No, that's not necessarily true.

The Taliban Movement is a Sunni Islamist fundamentalist.

al-Qaeda or al-Qaida (القاعدة, translit: al-Qā`ida; "the Law", "the foundation", or "the base") is an armed Sunni Islamist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradicating those they deem to be "infidels", and reestablishing the caliphate. The most prominent members of the group are adherents of Wahhabism or Salafism, two understandings of Islam which have influenced militant groups.

Salafi Muslims are often grouped together with Wahhabi Muslims, although the two movements began independently and originally held opposing views. Wahhabism rejected modern influences, while Salafism sought to reconcile Islam with modernism.[1] Use of the word "Salafi" can be very confusing, as the term has been used by several competing Islamic groups that are known by other names. It can be used to describe a general veneration of early Muslims, or it can be used as another name for political Islamism.

So the answer to the question is - I don't know.

Originally posted by Yorick: Cool. Thanks for the references. They're not saying what Johnny said they were saying though. Now, what about the Torah?

I know. [img]smile.gif[/img] It was quoted for information purposes, not to take sides. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'll let you handle the Torah.


Yorick - sent you a new pm. Different subject. [/QUOTE]Ok, so if he belongs to the group that does say it's ok to lie to infidels, then anything he says in confinement is subject to be a lie? Because he would be justified by his faith to do so. In fact, it would seem that he'd almost be obligated to. After all, he's being held by what he sees, or saw, as infidels. Why should he tell the truth?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Going for the Trifecta... So, his group believes it's not ok to lie to them, but you can fly plane loads of them into buildings full of them. That's a very hard position to defend, isn't it?

Speculations. No proof. Put him on trial and then we'll know.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by machinehead: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by machinehead: Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745) Note that Al-Ghazali is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time.

Perhaps so, but was he Sunni, Shia, Sufi or Wahabist? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

The point is, it's not the Qu'ran, and it's not a Hadith either. It's just an opinion, and we all know how many opinions there are floating around. Does he offer Surah numbers or Hadithic references to back up his opinion, or is he claiming to speak for Allah? [/QUOTE]Biography
He contributed significantly to the development of a systematic view of Sufism and its integration and acceptance in mainstream Islam. Al-Ghazali was a scholar of orthodox Islam, belonging to the Shafi'i school of legal thought of Sunnite Islam and to the Asharite school of theology . Imam Ghazali received many titles: Sharaful A'emma (Arabic: شرف الائمه), Zainud din (Arabic: زین الدین), Hujjatul Islam, meaning "Proof of Islam" (Arabic: حجة الاسلام)

Al-Ghazali remains one of the most celebrated scholars in the history of Islamic thought. He lectured at the Nizamiyyah school of Baghdad (the highest ranked academy of the golden era of Islamic civilization) between 1091 and 1096. He was the scholar par excellence in the Islamic world. He had literally hundreds of scholars attending his lectures at the Nizamiyyah. His audience included scholars from other schools of jurisprudence. This position won him prestige, wealth and respect that even princes and viziers could not match.

After some years he distributed his wealth and left Baghdad to begin a spiritual journey that lasted over a decade. He went to Damascus, Jerusalem, Hebron, Madinah, Mecca and back to Baghdad where he stopped briefly. He then left for Tus to spend the next several years in seclusion. He ended his seclusion for a short lecturing period at the Nizamiyyah of Nishapur in 1106. Later he returned to Tus where he remained until his death in December, 1111.

He is also viewed as the key member of the influential Asharite school of early Muslim philosophy and the most important refuter of Mutazilites. His 11th century book titled "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology, as Ghazali effectively discovered philosophical skepticism that would not be commonly seen in the West until George Berkeley and David Hume in the 18th century. The encounter with skepticism led Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God.

The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as non-believers and labelled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith.

In the next century, Averroes drafted a lengthy rebuttal of Ghazali's Incoherence entitled the Incoherence of the Incoherence; however, the epistemological course of Islamic thought had already been set.

Ghazali's influence has been compared to the works of St. Thomas Aquinas in Christian theology (he has been called the "Thomas Aquinas of Islam" by some), but the two differed greatly in methods and beliefs. Whereas Ghazali rejected non-Islamic philosophers such as Aristotle and saw it fit to discard their teachings on the basis of their "unbelief," Aquinas embraced them and incorporated ancient Greek and Latin thought into his own philosophical writings.

Ghazali wrote two of his works in Persian: Kimyayé Sa'ādat (The Alchemy of Happiness) and Nasihatul Mulook (Counseling Kings).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali [/QUOTE]Thanks Ed, very interesting. [img]smile.gif[/img]

All well and good, but Aquinas' thoughts are hardly comparable with the Bible. Nor is Ghazalis words the equivalent of the Qu'ran or the hadiths.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by robertthebard: Ok, so if he belongs to the group that does say it's ok to lie to infidels...

...then prove it in court.

[machinehead]

Yes but his writings qualify as more then a mere opinion floating around.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by machinehead: Yes but his writings qualify as more then a mere opinion floating around.

Granted, but an educated opinion or interpretation is still just that. Muslims seem to fight wars over which opinion is correct too.

Only Muhammad knew what he really meant, when he said half of what he did. And if the Qu'ran really is the work of Allah, then only Allah knows the truth of the matter. Everyone else is left trying to make sense of it all.

And that's half the fun!