The point of the exercise is understanding motivations for actions. I don’t think that document shows that “moral deprivation” it’s sufficient for Bin Laden to justify a violent attack in which civilians die.
Bin Laden would be happy if the whole world would turn to Islam but that’s not how he justifies the use of force where civilians die, in that document.
Bin Laden elsewhere says “There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, thereby physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword—for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
In what context? Picking statements out of context allows you to do many things with another persons message. Sam Harris writes in his book that he thinks it’s justified to kill people for what they believe. Specially Afghans.
Paying taxes to the government of a country isn’t that strange from a Western perspective.
I never said bin Laden shows “moral deprivation”, I said he had a morality that had nothing in common with that of the West. Again, in his list of demands, the first thing, the very first, is a call to submit to Islam, next to abolish usury, homosexuality etc., next to admit that the US is “a nation without principles and manner”, and then, and only then, to stop supporting Israel in Palestine, or India’s claim to Kashmir.
The jizya isn’t just a tax, it is an integral part of the system of subordination and degradation of the dhimmi. The point is to make the dhimmi “feel subdued”—a parallel would be the institutions of segregation in America to prevent blacks from “getting uppity”. You may want to examine the state of live is for infidels living under the Shariah.
The context is that Saudi scholars wrote an article saying “how can we coexist”. Bin Laden answered that the idea that Muslims and Infidels could coexist as equals was flat out heretical, and contrary to Islamic teaching. Islam must rule, and who doesn’t convert must either die, or—if he belongs to the “people of the book”—become a dhimmi.
Re:context, I can only suggest that you look at the Harris quote in context.
Nor have I claimed that you said so. I claimed that you advocate that freedom of the west (or moral deprivation from Bin Ladin’s perspective) is sufficient for Bin Ladin waging war against the US. That’s what I understand “They attacked us because they hate our freedom” to mean.
The jizya isn’t just a tax, it is an integral part of the system of subordination and degradation of the dhimmi. The point is to make the dhimmi “feel subdued” -
From your perspective the point is to make the dhimmi feel subdued, but I don’t think you have shown that’s the point in that particular passage.
Re:context, I can only suggest that you look at the Harris quote in context.
The point I was making is that you quote without providing context. It’s quite easy to quote without naming sources in a way that allows you to make them appear worse than they are.
If we are playing that game, than Harris was advocating that it’s okay for the US to kill Aghans outside of what’s tradtionally allowed by interantional law while other people do think that international law is important.
Ah, sorry, it was a little unclear and we were talking past each other there.
“From your perspective the point is to make the dhimmi feel subdued, but I don’t think you have shown that’s the point in that particular passage.”
I could cite source after source of Islamic jihad scholars who explain that this is the purpose of the jizya and the surrounding institutions of degradation and subordination that make up dhimmitude—but this comment is, sadly, not large enough to hold it. So if I might suggest you take a look into the doctrines and history of dhimmitude and see how it was used.
Good discussion, but sadly I need to be travelling now, and hope to continue at a later date.
The point of the exercise is understanding motivations for actions. I don’t think that document shows that “moral deprivation” it’s sufficient for Bin Laden to justify a violent attack in which civilians die.
Bin Laden would be happy if the whole world would turn to Islam but that’s not how he justifies the use of force where civilians die, in that document.
In what context? Picking statements out of context allows you to do many things with another persons message. Sam Harris writes in his book that he thinks it’s justified to kill people for what they believe. Specially Afghans.
Paying taxes to the government of a country isn’t that strange from a Western perspective.
I never said bin Laden shows “moral deprivation”, I said he had a morality that had nothing in common with that of the West. Again, in his list of demands, the first thing, the very first, is a call to submit to Islam, next to abolish usury, homosexuality etc., next to admit that the US is “a nation without principles and manner”, and then, and only then, to stop supporting Israel in Palestine, or India’s claim to Kashmir.
The jizya isn’t just a tax, it is an integral part of the system of subordination and degradation of the dhimmi. The point is to make the dhimmi “feel subdued”—a parallel would be the institutions of segregation in America to prevent blacks from “getting uppity”. You may want to examine the state of live is for infidels living under the Shariah.
The context is that Saudi scholars wrote an article saying “how can we coexist”. Bin Laden answered that the idea that Muslims and Infidels could coexist as equals was flat out heretical, and contrary to Islamic teaching. Islam must rule, and who doesn’t convert must either die, or—if he belongs to the “people of the book”—become a dhimmi.
Re:context, I can only suggest that you look at the Harris quote in context.
Nor have I claimed that you said so. I claimed that you advocate that freedom of the west (or moral deprivation from Bin Ladin’s perspective) is sufficient for Bin Ladin waging war against the US. That’s what I understand “They attacked us because they hate our freedom” to mean.
From your perspective the point is to make the dhimmi feel subdued, but I don’t think you have shown that’s the point in that particular passage.
The point I was making is that you quote without providing context. It’s quite easy to quote without naming sources in a way that allows you to make them appear worse than they are.
If we are playing that game, than Harris was advocating that it’s okay for the US to kill Aghans outside of what’s tradtionally allowed by interantional law while other people do think that international law is important.
A half dozen different Koran translations list “subdued”, “humbled”, “brought low”, “in a state of subjection”, “belittled”. I don’t think that ThePrussian is inventing his own personal perspective here.
Ah, sorry, it was a little unclear and we were talking past each other there.
“From your perspective the point is to make the dhimmi feel subdued, but I don’t think you have shown that’s the point in that particular passage.”
I could cite source after source of Islamic jihad scholars who explain that this is the purpose of the jizya and the surrounding institutions of degradation and subordination that make up dhimmitude—but this comment is, sadly, not large enough to hold it. So if I might suggest you take a look into the doctrines and history of dhimmitude and see how it was used.
Good discussion, but sadly I need to be travelling now, and hope to continue at a later date.