a counter suggestion: take yourself less seriously and choose your battles more rationally

Submitted by bos (United Kingdom), Mar 29, 2008 at 22:36

Wow. Really got under your skin didn't I.

No it wasn't an admission of a lack of familiarity, it was a simple colloquial friendly overture, a sop because I felt you had read my initial comment with a tone that I had not intended when I wrote it. That said I stand by it.

In fact the entire tone of my response was intended (obviously with incompetent execution) to mend that fence, with the assumption that it might be nice to engage in a conversation/debate on this site that didn't descend into a point scoring grudge match.

That obviously isn't going to happen and it is a shame, I have no intention of having such a grudge match with you but out of courtesy because you answered my request, because I acknowledge having unintentionally offended you and because few things are as rude as ignoring another persons argument I will make a response

Your source for this notion that "non military Jihad did not enter the islamic lexicon until the ninth century" comes from where?

If you re read my post you will see it has been changed already, I mistyped, obviously it should have read non military martyrdom, I noticed, posted a correction and someone on Mr pipes staff has very kindly already corrected it., my source is simply part of my ‘admittedly limited knowledge' based on previous study, I have no intention of trawling my bookshelfs to cite you specific texts, I suspect that you like me, tend to cite them here only when they are to hand or easily recalled, some basics must be accepted or disproved, these after all are not our doctoral thesis.

Why should the previous statement color anything? The first part is about intentions; the second on who is guaranteed entry into paradise. Such a disjunctive format can be observed in any interview. Precisely what does that have to do with the TALIBAN? I Think you're posing a straw man by bringing it up: remember Occam's razor. As far as "intecessionary rights"; what are you talking about?

Again I may have been colloquial but I don't think the inclusion of an historically verifiable death by collapsing structure that is unlikely to be perceived as martyrdom to be irrelevant or excessive, In fact I think you only mentioned Occam's razor in the hope that I wouldn't know what it was, and have actually reduced your comment to a pot calling a relatively untarnished kettle black.

Further, exegisis of the hadith is no more likely to respect your notions of obvious distinction than biblical exegisis.

But the primary point is I posed you a friendly and broad query partly to encourage friendly discourse, partly to gauge the depth of your knowledge. I must say I'm disappointed. On both counts

Regarding a martyrs right to intercession on behalf of others, it does appear your knowledge isn't as expansive as your confident tone suggested, again I am not going to cite the sources I originally gained the information from but a quick google will bring up some starting points such as this

http://www.islamfortoday.com/firestone01.htm

mine also threw up this - Tafseer-e-Jilaul Azhaan, Gaazor, vol 2, pg. 151-153

Bukhari 4:46 was thrown in simply to see if you would deliberately misconstrue it as saying more than it does, and I can only refer you back to my second post in this exchange.

As a matter of fact, I already did just that in my previous reply. Furthermore, in the Islamic view, the rewards of paradise are not solely limited to martyrs alone

Perhaps my question was pedantic, but considering the houri issue I wondered whether a hadith I am not familiar with states explicitly that all forms of martyrdom carry the same reward. As for your above comment, first, no you didn't, second, I didn't for a second suggest they were.

I checked out your wiki link. It proved irrelevant to my comment and added little to my knowledge, again I think it was flippantly included for derogatory effect.

Deuteronomy 7:1., I nearly typed it out, but I'm sure you remember it as well and/or have a bible so I suggest you re-read it, yes they are obviously ‘idolators' but my distinction is not pedantic and your objections are further obfuscation.

Sure thing, but that does not mean that the Hadith are to be trivialized either

Check again, where did I even remotely intimate such a thing? Thanks for the link though, I will check it out.

The vitriol of your response is permeated with the suggestion that having less knowledge of a subject than another should preclude comment or opinion, and lead to self exclusion from debate. That there is something offensive in choosing a subject other than your primary forte in which to indulge a lesser portion of your energies……………… in nearly eight years of further education I never heard such drivel from a seemingly educated person. Debate, the contention of opinion and its justification has always been the ideal environment for those wishing to broaden there knowledge, develop their opinion and test their convictions. Shame on you.

I earlier cautioned you against getting caught up in the confrontation of argument, I feared you would assume an attempt at patronisation but if you re-read our last exchange you may instead recognise my foresight.

Again, I believe my first comment which would have been fine with a smile and friendly tone has in cold type appeared much harsher than intended and I accept responsibility. That said I must also retract my earlier comment regarding your intelligence.

If I have missed anything, it is not through design, our clocks jump forward tonight and for a conflict I neither want nor can be compelled to engage in, I have already pointlessly dedicated too much time.

actually one last thing, thank you for the hadith link, yes i may have found it easily enough but having only recently decided to extend my reading in that direction when a current project reaches its imminent end I thought that as you quote so readily you may have a good source (much online material as i am sure you know is dross) and that the request itself may be percieved as freindly and discourage an escalation of rhetoric. I have apologised for my failure to realise that my tone may have seemed harsher than intended (that much was intimated in an earlier response), but not for the comment itself, it was accurate.

Normally, I'm not that generous to someone who has shown themselves to be so trite and careless in their remarks (and then not apologize for making them when they've been discredited); but, today I feel inclined to be generous.

LOL, seriously that attempt at condescending magnanimity was a bit pathetic.

It's a pity really

Peace

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".