Ibn Warraq on Imam Rauf

[Pardalis]

Right, and there's no possibility that Rauf's opinion might also be much more complex and nuanced than the snippets being used against him?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your excuse here?

Keane and Hamilton have never said or suggested America was an accessory to the crime of 9/11.

I don't see how you can misconstrue their quote into saying that.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Let's take a look at history shall we for a Precedent? King Aethelred would have had a Just Foreign Policy, yet he was totally subservient to the Vikings out of fear of another war with warlords - wars where his ancestors CURBSTOMPED the Vikings. Instead, he payed the Vikings extortion money.

I can see it now, left wing advisors like Scribe Chomsky would say "my liege, the Norse raid us, not because of our liberties, bu because of our oppressive policies and their impoverishment. As well as that, our Support for the Byzantine Empire has caused these raids because the Norse feel brotherhood with the Vikings there that are suppressed by the Harsh reign of the Byzantines. I suggest giving them Silver and Gold as well as making our Foreign Policy more in line with being just"

 

[DC]

Keane and Hamilton have never said or suggested America was an accessory to the crime of 9/11.

I don't see how you can misconstrue their quote into saying that.

and that means a lot, because you are a master in that field.

 

[Pardalis]

You think Rauf's words mean it's "OK to criticize America in any way shape or form, even attack it, because America is Evil and any criticism of America is by default acceptable, and warranted, even if it's done by a murderous lunatic," using "a double language and apologizing for a murderous lunatic's actions". Do you think the same of Beck and O'Reilly for what they said?

Yes, or no?

I would have to say yes.

 

[Cobalt]

"Ib-en." It means "son of."

Cheers, I honestly didn't know.

 

[A'isha]

I would have to say yes.

Thank you, I appreciate the answer.

This makes you, though, probably the first person ever to accuse Beck and O'Reilly of being America-hating apologists for extremist Islamic terrorism. I'm not even sure I can wrap my brain around that concept.

 

[marksman]

Nobody made OBL

Clearly he is talking about OBL's position of influence. The only people who "made" OBL is papa and mam bin Laden.

Rauf's statements were that American support for the mujaheddin gave OBL a supply of radical and trained operatives who could then carry out terrorist attacks on Americans. He was saying that American support for the mujaheddin was short-sighted.

That's certainly a debatable topic, but it's not a statement in support of bin Laden or an endorsement of his grievances or his methods.

 

[Polaris]

"Ib-en." It means "son of."

"Ibn a bitch!" Hey, I kinda like that.

 

[GreNME]

Keane and Hamilton have never said or suggested America was an accessory to the crime of 9/11.

I don't see how you can misconstrue their quote into saying that.

Oh, the irony. The sweet, sweet irony.

 

[Taarkin]

Beck and O'Reilly are dolts. I don't care about anything they say.

You don't care what Beck and O'reilly say, but as soon as a scary mooslim says the exact same thing you throw a dumb hissy fit.

The Lee Hamilton quote is part of a much larger document that is much more complex and nuanced than this one snippet.

'Ok, they actually did say those things, but!!!'
Oh ****, there's a "but" there! "The "but..." part negates the first part"!

 

[bluskool]

Right, Warraq is an "author of criticism of Islamic theology" in the same way Ann Coulter is an author on criticism of progressive ideas and ideals.

Wow, you haven't the slightest clue who Ibn Warraq is, do you? You really think his scholarship on Islam is comparable with Coulter's drivel on progressivism? Or did you just assume he is some right wing Glen Beck type without having any knowledge of his work?

 

[Serafim Svensson]

can you do us a favor and explain how having respect for the concept that Islamic law should be interpreted by religious scholars (linky) is somehow a non-moderate stance? [...] Because it's the state of the Iranian government?

Yes. The "Guardianship of the (Islamic) jurists" is the principle behind the Council of Guardians, the institution of the Supreme Leader, the Islamic courts etc in Iran. It's everything that makes Iran a theocracy and a human-rights nightmare. Rauf was talking about Iran. He was talking about the revolution of 1979 and its guiding principles, one of which is the "Guardianship of the jurists".

This is Rauf's own words:

"After the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took the Shiite concept of the Rightly Guided Imam and created the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, which means the rule of the jurisprudent. This institutionalizes the Islamic rule of law. The Council of Guardians serves to ensure these principles."

Rauf writes about Vilayet-i-faqih as created by Khomeini. This is the absolute form, the one that ensures that the governance of the country is in the hands of the clerics.

 

[marksman]

My reading of Rauf's statement is that he was using the "idea of Vilayet-i-faqih to mean "rule of law" and thus to contrast it with the preceding regime of the Shah, which was despotic for which there was no rule of law. He was telling Obama to compliment Iran on -- at a minimum -- establishing courts that operate on the principle of the rule of law. He was not endorsing Iran as a State, or the use of vilayet-i-faqih to enforce religious law.

I doubt he was saying that enshrining Shi'a Sharia law was a good thing, particularly since Rauf is not Shi'a, and since Iran is not particularly respectful of Sufism.

 

[Skeptic]

Evil can exist outside the US you know. It doesn't always need a CIA agent behind it pulling the strings.

Of course, if all evil had some other evil things that caused it, one wonders if we don't have an infinite regress here...

 

[Newtons Bit]

My reading of Rauf's statement is that he was using the "idea of Vilayet-i-faqih to mean "rule of law" and thus to contrast it with the preceding regime of the Shah, which was despotic for which there was no rule of law. He was telling Obama to compliment Iran on -- at a minimum -- establishing courts that operate on the principle of the rule of law. He was not endorsing Iran as a State, or the use of vilayet-i-faqih to enforce religious law.

I doubt he was saying that enshrining Shi'a Sharia law was a good thing, particularly since Rauf is not Shi'a, and since Iran is not particularly respectful of Sufism.

At least look up the definition of words words you don't know the meaning of. Khomeini invented the term. It's the Guardian Council of Iran. They're not something that should be respected. Ever.

 

[A'isha]

At least look up the definition of words words you don't know the meaning of. Khomeini invented the term. It's the Guardian Council of Iran. They're not something that should be respected. Ever.

No. Khomeini was the first to apply it as a political doctrine (ie, a theory of statecraft, rather than of strictly religious law), but as a Muslim religious term it predates him by over a century. Murtada Ansari (d. 1684) was the first person to come up with the idea of "rule of the jurist", or velayat-e-faqih.

And even now, Khomeini's interpretation is not the only interpretation. Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the foremost Shia Islam cleric in Iraq, favors a much more limited version than that found in Iran:

Question: What is Grand Ayatollah Sistani's opinion about Wilayat-e Faqih (governance of jurist)?

Answer: Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs to which social order is linked, wilayah of a faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of Faqih among majority of momeneen (believers)

In other words, far from being the supreme and absolute authority in all matters as in the Khomeini model, a faqih (Leader) has authority over religious issues only, and when it comes to "social order" matters any decisions regarding that have to be accepted by a majority of the community, and if the community tells the Leader to stuff it regarding any particular non-religious issue, then he has no "guardianship" over the community. Combined with al-Sistani's declaration that women not only can vote, but should, and his actions in Iraq to keep religious matters separate from the secular government being established, that makes his view of velayat-e-faqih almost exactly the opposite of Khomeini's.

 

[Newtons Bit]

No. Khomeini was the first to apply it as a political doctrine (ie, a theory of statecraft, rather than of strictly religious law), but as a Muslim religious term it predates him by over a century. Murtada Ansari (d. 1684) was the first person to come up with the idea of "rule of the jurist", or velayat-e-faqih.

And even now, Khomeini's interpretation is not the only interpretation. Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the foremost Shia Islam cleric in Iraq, favors a much more limited version than that found in Iran:



In other words, far from being the supreme and absolute authority in all matters as in the Khomeini model, a faqih (Leader) has authority over religious issues only, and when it comes to "social order" matters any decisions regarding that have to be accepted by a majority of the community, and if the community tells the Leader to stuff it regarding any particular non-religious issue, then he has no "guardianship" over the community. Combined with al-Sistani's declaration that women not only can vote, but should, and his actions in Iraq to keep religious matters separate from the secular government being established, that makes his view of velayat-e-faqih almost exactly the opposite of Khomeini's.

You're right, I jumped ahead in my wikipedia searching

I find it interesting that the vast majority of the Ayatollah's of Khomeini's time rejected Khomeini's version of Vilayet-i-faqih (which he wrote a book of the same name arguing for that hardline version, hence my confusion).

 

[GreNME]

Wow, you haven't the slightest clue who Ibn Warraq is, do you? You really think his scholarship on Islam is comparable with Coulter's drivel on progressivism? Or did you just assume he is some right wing Glen Beck type without having any knowledge of his work?

No, I know who Warraq is. And yes, I think his scholarship is comparable. He's the go-to guy for plenty of anti-Islam and anti-Muslim folks who are looking for a smart way of crapping on Muslims, the Muslim community, and their faith.

-----

Yes.

Right. You seem okay with absolutism as long as it's your absolutism. Rauf's comments aren't absolute at all, and instead making a different qualitative statement, but since it doesn't fit your absolutism it's obviously suspect.

 

[GreNME]

I find it interesting that the vast majority of the Ayatollah's of Khomeini's time rejected Khomeini's version of Vilayet-i-faqih (which he wrote a book of the same name arguing for that hardline version, hence my confusion).

Not just Khomeini's time, but in several instances since as well. That's actually part of the Green Revolution's stance (which isn't entirely understood here in America).

 

[A'isha]

You're right, I jumped ahead in my wikipedia searching

I find it interesting that the vast majority of the Ayatollah's of Khomeini's time rejected Khomeini's version of Vilayet-i-faqih (which he wrote a book of the same name arguing for that hardline version, hence my confusion).

As you might expect with most things surrounding a religion that is 1400 years old, there's never a quick or easy answer!

That's probably why Rauf gave the simplified description he did in his essay - he had neither the space to go into detail regarding Vilayet-i-faqih, nor the need, since all he was trying to do was tell Obama how best to butter up the Iranians in a way that would make the opening of diplomatic relations easier.