format_quote Originally Posted by
HeiGou
Well Ibn Khaldoun. Does he condemn it? The late Maududi? Sayid Qutb? Tariq Ramadan? How many other people can I think of? I wonder if you might point me in the general direction of someone who condemned Muslim expansion?
1. You first asked for a condemnation of historical acts of violence and now you swithced to a condemnation of Muslim expansion!
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al'Adl
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
format_quote Originally Posted by jinaan
Also, lets not confuse leaders who claim to be muslim with the actual laws of Islam. There have been many leaders who have conquered lands with the excuse of "spreading Islam". The religion itself does not allow for this violence.
Can you name me one scholar who has criticised such violence? Can you name one Muslim writer who has criticised such violence?
The question should be who doesn't condemn it? When all terrorism has been denounced by Islam, it is quite obvious that such acts of violence are denounced as well.
We were talking about acts of violence and I pointed out that every scholar condemned such abuses. Trying to equate the Muslim expansion with acts of violence is an obvious case of horrible reasoning.
2. Every Muslim scholar condemns acts of injustice, abuse and violence. None of the people you mentioned condone violence. Tariq Ramadan responded to the following question:
You denounce the "ideology of fear," but what about Islamist terror?
Terror is a fact, not an ideology, and we must be very clear in condemning it (23/10/2005 MACLEANS magazine)
And he says
Everything, in the message of Islam, calls for peace and coexistence between men and nations. In all circumstances, dialogue must be preferred over silence and peace over war. That is to the exception of one situation that makes of struggle a duty, and of opposition a testimony of faithfulness to the meaning of faith. {Jihad} is the expression of a rejection of all injustice, as also the necessary assertion of balance and harmony in equity. One hopes for a non-violent struggle, far removed from the horrors of armed conflict. One loves that men will have this maturity of spirit that allows for a less bloody management of world affairs. However, history has proven that the human being is bellicose by nature and that war is but one means by which he expresses himself. Resisting the very violent expression of this tendency and trying to implement the necessary balance of forces are the conditions essential for attaining an order that is human. Situations whereby violence is sustained, repression imposed or rights denied, are the only time whereby violence is given legitimacy. (
SOURCE)
Abu'l 'Ala Maududi writes:
it is essential for the preservation of human life that everyone should regard the life of the other as sacred and help to protect it. The one who takes the life of another without right, does not commit injustice to that one alone, but also proves that he has no feeling for the sanctity of human life and of mercy for others. Hence he is most surely the enemy of the whole human race, for if every individual suffered from the same kind of hard-heartedness, the whole human race would come to an end. On the contrary, if one helps to preserve a single human life, he is indeed a helper of all mankind for he possesses those qualities upon which depends the survival of the whole human race. (Tafhim Al-Qur'an)
And Sayyid Qutb states:
Orientalists have tried to paint a false picture of Islam, showing it to have been spread by the sword. These Orientalists know very well that this is absolutely false, but they deliberately try to distort the underlying principles of Islamic Jihad (Fi Zilalil Qur'an, vol. 7, p. 24)
So all these people condemned violence.
3. It seems to me that you are confusing two issues when you refer to Sayyid Qutb and Maududi. You are confusing their theories on the legitimate use of force with condoning violence, and as the quotes above demonstrate, there is no basis for equating the two. None of these people condoned violence. Every Muslim scholar has condemned violence.
4. Lastly, the Muslims you mentioned were prominent da'ees (or historians as is the case with Ibn Khaldun), not Islamic scholars.
Regards
Bookmarks