• alapakala@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why am I being replied to?
      I am not confused as to how theocracies work.
      Are you denying Islam by doctrine isn’t imperialistic?

      • OilyArena@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        41 minutes ago

        You obviously do not know what “Imperialism” means. You’re not automatically right just because you use fancy big terms, especially if you use them incorrectly.

      • SpacemanSpiff@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Are you denying Islam by doctrine isn’t imperialistic?

        Yes I deny it. It’s a core part of my belief system and how I was raised and it’s completely uncontroversial among a wide segment of Muslims, if not the vast majority.

        Here for example, is a snippet from the translation of the Quran by Leopold Weiss, aka Mohammad Asad:

        "This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta’tadu signifies, in this context, “do not commit aggression”; while by al-mu’tadin “those who commit aggression” are meant.

        The defensive character of a fight “in God’s cause” - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to “those who wage war against you”, and has been still further clarified in 22:39 - “permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged” - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Qur’anic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22:39).

        That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Qur’an is evident from 60:8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4:91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.

        In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction “slay them wherever you may come upon them” is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that “those who wage war against you” are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war “in God’s cause”).…

        This is completely uncontroversial and you can find however many mainstream Muslims you want who believe in these exact words as explained by Weiss. Here is the mainstream Sunni influencer Adnan Ibrahim saying verbatim “the Quran is very very clear that there is no justification for war except in self defence.” This guy is a totally normal sunni conservative. Here is the Grand Mufti of Tripoli making the same point on Saudi tv. He explicitly states that religiously jihad is to be done only in self defence, and that this is different from what he calls “jihad by demand/order” which is fighting for a state. Again: totally regular conservative establishment guy not any kind of radical renegade thinker. This is why far right movements and thinkers in the Islamic world went to such lengths to justify attacks on the US and others by arguing that as democracies the entire population is culpable, and that by stationing military bases in Arab countries and supporting Arab dictators, they have initiated the war. That’s the standard terrorist group argument