You say that the violent passages in the Koran ("... fight them until there is no more Fitnah ...") abrogate the peaceful passages (... "no compulsion in religion ...").
But also, that in Islam it's okay to be nice to unbelievers (non-Muslims) when Islam is in a weak or vulnerable position.
If the violent passage has replaced the peaceful passage, shouldn't it be followed, regardless of whether Islam is in a strong or in a weak position?
Hi Prodos. Good Question. There are at least two views about abrogation. One is that the violent verses cancel the peaceful verses. The other is that all the verses apply, but according to the context. Sheikh Al-Bouti of Syria held this view. He wrote that Muslims could follow peaceful coexistence, defensive jihad, or aggressive jihad: "…all three of the above mentioned approaches to the practice of jihad are equally legitimate, provided that none of them be applied unless it is required by the Muslim community’s current interests…" It Muslim's situation is like that of Muhammad in Mecca, peaceful coexistence is the go. If however Muslims are dominant, they should pursue aggressive jihad, etc.
Dear Prodos. What you say is correct. There is a tradition of Muhammad which states that a believer should use the highest available level of force to prevent wrong-doing - if only thinking, then they should reject evil with their thoughts, if speaking then they should speak, and if they can use their hand (i.e. force) they should do so. This is the view of many commentators and jurists: that dominance is the preferred policy if it is available.
Dear Dr. Durie, Thank you for your service to humanity in standing for the truth and explaining in simple terms what the ramifications of Sharia law are. Where it has been implemented the entire culture and society have worsened. I very much appreciate your stand for truth.
Comments are moderated. Avoid profanities or foul language. Stay on topic. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Posts which violate these principles or are deemed offensive in any way will be deleted.
Excellent interview
ReplyDeleteDear Dr Durie,
ReplyDeleteEnjoyed learning from the interview.
Question:
You say that the violent passages in the Koran ("... fight them until there is no more Fitnah ...") abrogate the peaceful passages (... "no compulsion in religion ...").
But also, that in Islam it's okay to be nice to unbelievers (non-Muslims) when Islam is in a weak or vulnerable position.
If the violent passage has replaced the peaceful passage, shouldn't it be followed, regardless of whether Islam is in a strong or in a weak position?
Thanks.
Hi Prodos. Good Question. There are at least two views about abrogation. One is that the violent verses cancel the peaceful verses. The other is that all the verses apply, but according to the context. Sheikh Al-Bouti of Syria held this view. He wrote that Muslims could follow peaceful coexistence, defensive jihad, or aggressive jihad: "…all three of the above mentioned approaches to the practice of jihad are equally legitimate, provided that none of them be applied unless it is required by the Muslim community’s current interests…" It Muslim's situation is like that of Muhammad in Mecca, peaceful coexistence is the go. If however Muslims are dominant, they should pursue aggressive jihad, etc.
DeleteDear Dr Durie,
DeleteThanks for the clarification. I see. Interesting.
So if the context is like the situation in Mecca: as per the example of Mohammed -- there is peaceful coexistence.
But if the context is like -- or becomes like -- the situation in Medina: as per the example of Mohammed -- there is war.
"Coexistence" means that the followers of Islam "coexist" with the followers of other Religions.
But once the context changes and War has become justified, there is never a willing return to coexistence.
The context can change in a way that justifies Islam going from coexistence to war.
But the context can never change in a way that justifies Islam going from war to coexistence.
There is no situation in which Islam possesses the power to impose itself, yet does not.
(Dhimmitude is not "coexistence" in the Meccan sense.)
Any return to "coexistence" and the peaceful verses can not come from Islam's success.
It can only come if it is imposed on Islam's followers by a stronger, non-Islamic force who then permit the followers of Islam to "coexist" with them.
Islam itself never willingly or happily offers "coexistence".
Would that be correct?
Thanks.
Dear Prodos. What you say is correct. There is a tradition of Muhammad which states that a believer should use the highest available level of force to prevent wrong-doing - if only thinking, then they should reject evil with their thoughts, if speaking then they should speak, and if they can use their hand (i.e. force) they should do so. This is the view of many commentators and jurists: that dominance is the preferred policy if it is available.
DeleteDear Dr. Durie,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your service to humanity in standing for the truth and explaining in simple terms what the ramifications of Sharia law are. Where it has been implemented the entire culture and society have worsened. I very much appreciate your stand for truth.