The religious imperative

[solicitr]

Anwar al-Aulaqi, Hasan’s one-time spiritual leader, after the mass murder:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a U.S. soldier. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.

Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.

The fact that fighting against the U.S. army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right — rather the duty — to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

Do you mean specifically radical islamic religious imperative? The words of this "spiritual leader" are the result of his blindly fundamentalist version of islam, but not an indication of islam itself. He is using his religion as rationale to stand up for what he believes similar to how some fundamentalist christians use their religion as rationale to bomb abortion clinics. Each group is still standing up for what they believe, which cuts to the heart of the question of the moral imperative. It doesn't matter if you stab someone with a knife or a sword, you are still stabbing him.

[solicitr]

I'm just observing that it's a religious imperative. It exists and is expressly religious: the boundaries of this particular belief-set are another question.

Awlaki has served as an Imam in Colorado, California, and most recently in the Washington, D.C. area where he headed the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Centre and was also the Muslim Chaplain at George Washington University.[2] He began serving formally as the imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in January 2001; it was shortly after this that his sermons were attended by 3 of the 19 9/11 hijackers and Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.[3]

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

It is expressed as religious, but I wouldn't say it is religious.

[solicitr]

That's interesting, ED; are you saying that a proposition of the form, "The Deity commands us to do X" can ever not be a religious statement?

[Primula Baggins]

Certainly a lot of politically based wars have been carried out because "God commanded them."

[solicitr]

Certainly a lot of politically based wars have been carried out because "God commanded them."

The principal ones I can think of, such as the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War, were pretty much declared to be religious wars.

What, after all, is the secular political motivation of an American-born Yemeni cleric claiming "God commands it"?

[Primula Baggins]

Succeeding as a cleric in Yemen?

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

The principal ones I can think of, such as the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War, were pretty much declared to be religious wars.

The key is "declared to be religious wars." Even the Crusades were not exactly religious (the popes knew that this would rile up the uneducated), but motivated by a desire to expand influence and access to resources (greed essentially).

"Deity X tells me to do Y" is couched in religion, but the resulting action is no more religious than "Coca-Cola makes me hyper and my mom yells at me."

[Cerin]

It is expressed as religious, but I wouldn't say it is religious.

I don't understand why you would say it isn't religious. But then again, I don't quite understand the premise of the thread.



So this man, is he an American citizen? It's funny how we welcome people here who declare themselves to be enemies of the state and openly and publicly support and incite criminal acts. (But I guess that's a topic for discussion elsewhere.)

[solicitr]

Even the Crusades were not exactly religious (the popes knew that this would rile up the uneducated), but motivated by a desire to expand influence and access to resources (greed essentially).

I would say that, in secular terms (if they can be divorced from the religious), the Crusades were primarily a counteroffensive against the expanding Caliphate which had swallowed Asia Minor and was threatening Constantinople. The direct argument, however, was the destruction of churches and banning of Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land.

Why are people so loath to acknowledge that people often do things for purely religious reasons based on genuine belief? It amazes me to watch the Leftosphere scramble for any wisp of a "cause" on which to hang the Ft Hood massacre other than the plain and explicit one.

[Cerin]

Why are people so loath to acknowledge that people often do things for purely religious reasons based on genuine belief?

On the contrary, I think people are often eager to do so because they see religious belief as a source of great evil.

[solicitr]

Succeeding as a cleric in Yemen?

One would in that case expect him to post in Arabic, not English.

But at least you seem to be acknowledging that, in at least one community in one corner of the world, "succeeding" as a religious leader involves preaching hatred and death.

[Cerin]

"Deity X tells me to do Y" is couched in religion, but the resulting action is no more religious than "Coca-Cola makes me hyper and my mom yells at me."

I don't understand why you don't regard the resulting action as religious (in the first case).

[vison]

Succeeding as a cleric in Yemen?

One would in that case expect him to post in Arabic, not English.

But at least you seem to be acknowledging that, in at least one community in one corner of the world, "succeeding" as a religious leader involves preaching hatred and death.

It so often has, hasn't it? The pages of the last 1,000 years of European history prove that quite thoroughly.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

"Deity X tells me to do Y" is couched in religion, but the resulting action is no more religious than "Coca-Cola makes me hyper and my mom yells at me."

I don't understand why you don't regard the resulting action as religious (in the first case).

There is underlying rationale for why you choose to take action X. What does your god say about it? It is wrong? So, underneath the religious fervor is a moral component. I divorce morality from religion. Religion is not necessary for morality, despite its inclusion. Clearer?

Why are people so loath to acknowledge that people often do things for purely religious reasons based on genuine belief? It amazes me to watch the Leftosphere scramble for any wisp of a "cause" on which to hang the Ft Hood massacre other than the plain and explicit one.

Is that what this thread is about? Ft. Hood? I'm not loathe to acknowledge anything (and I'm no friend to religion, I think it's pure garbage), other than that I think religious rationale is a symptom of an underlying cause. For example, I drink Coca-Cola because I like it, but not because it is what I require to survive--drinking liquids is what I require, Coke is just my specific choice. Clearer?

Why does it amaze you that the "leftosphere" wants to find another reason for Ft. Hood? Is the "rightosphere" jumping to its common boogeyman? If this discussion is about Ft. Hood, I'd be happy to continue it over at b77. If not, then I'd be happy to continue figuring out what the point of the thread is...

[solicitr]

Is the "rightosphere" jumping to its common boogeyman?

Because it's all fevered right-wing imaginings? There isn't the slightest shred of evidence of any connection between Ft Hood and religion?

------------------------------

Vison: I would say about the past 10,000 years of human history.

[sauronsfinger]

And I thought this thread might be about the Air Force Academy christianity scandal.

[solicitr]

Old, old, old news, SF. Nice try.

[Cerin]

There is underlying rationale for why you choose to take action X. What does your god say about it? It is wrong? So, underneath the religious fervor is a moral component. I divorce morality from religion. Religion is not necessary for morality, despite its inclusion. Clearer?

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it makes much sense from the religious perspective. That would mean, for example, that the suicide bomber or murderer of abortion doctors are taking that action because they believe it's right. But there is no way they would believe it was right without the underlying component of their religion. It seems you have it reversed from the way it actually works for a religious person. You prefer the idea that morality is divorced from religion because you don't acknowledge religion as a source of your morality, but that isn't the paradigm for people who do have a source of morality outside of themselves. If your theory were correct, wouldn't it mean the murderer of abortion doctors would be murdering others because of the underlying rationale that murdering is good?

<snip>I think religious rationale is a symptom of an underlying cause.

And I guess I'm proposing that the religious beliefs are or can be the underlying cause of the actions of a religious person, and that's what defines those actions in moral terms for those people.


edit, re-think