I suppose Luther was a heritic, strictly speaking. But the question remains - did he ever apply and carry out levitical law in Germany or anywhere else or in any way comparable to how shari'a law based on literalist koran readings is carried out all over the mahometan world today?
However, our Constitution and judicial precedent consider death by stoning, etc. cruel and unusual punishment and thus illegal.
Which is precisely the point of difference with Iran, which doesn't. The biggest difference in our types of governments, of course, is theirs is Islamic.
We've already discussed bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So name some more.
Happily. There's the Hamas regime in Palestine, which shares a sunni variation of the caliphate dream. There's the Nasrallah thugs in the lawless regions of Lebanon, which adheres to a Shi'a version. Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Militia is running around in Iraq right now. Then there are dozens of nominally "secular" muslim dictators who fund jihadi groups dedicated to various versions of a Caliphate, the Mahdi Mailbox, and other various islamist causes - Assad in Syria, most of the Saud princes. And of course virtually every single islamic country on the planet has at least one political party that espouses jihadi goals.
The term itself is of very recent pedigree, first published just a few decades before the decline of "Mahomet".
The preferred 18th and 19th century counterpart to the Judeo was "Hebraic." The reference is to the same cultural influence though.
Should you believe that these Mahometans live set apart from the rest of the world, then by all means, continue to do so
Well, they certainly have done everything in their power to exclude modernity from their lives in favor of the 7th century existence they've maintained since...well...the 7th century.
Not Just by Augustinian standards. Pinochet and his cohort had no legitimate sovereignty. They fail the first test.
Incorrect. Two weeks before the coup the Chilean Chamber of Deputies adopted an ultimatum to Allende demanding he cease and desist his land seizures, and if he did not, directing the military to remove him by force. Allende ignored the ultimatum. So Pinochet took him out. The legitimacy of Pinochet's regime was promptly endorsed by the conservative party, by two former Presidents of Chile, and by the center-left majority in the Chilean Congress, the CDP. The CDP+conservatives made up a majority of the congress BTW. By the time the dust settled Pinochet had the support of virtually everybody in the Chilean government except for the Communists, who had only won 36% of the vote in the election that produced Allende.
Or rather, what they have said that has been quoted by extremists.
But that's the point. The extremists don't need to quote Taymiyya. They only need to hand out copies of his entire books, which are equally extreme as anything Qutb or Mawduddi or bin Laden put out.
To give another example, even the most moderate medieval Papal Bull dealing with Jews would be extreme by today's standards. The solution is not to try to explain the Bulls away as the works of moderates, but not refrain from citing them as theological precedent.
Big difference though. Papal Bulls on the Jews from medieval times were but a tiny fraction of medieval theological doctrines from many of the the same authors, including other topics that are of far greater importance today. Ghazali's Tahafut could be considered the islamist equivalent of some anti-semitic papal declaration in extremity, but whereas those declarations are generally ignored today Ghazali's Tahafut remains both his most significant work and one of the all time classics of mahometan thought.
You cannot blame Ghazali's for Qutb's selections from his works. Qutb is the one who gives them present meaning.
Once more, Qutb preferred Taymiyya. Ghazali is considered too "moderate" for him. But what you keep missing/intentionally ignoring is that Said Qutb did not need to select or excerpt or interpret or spin Taymiyya to produce something radical. It was already there IN TAYMIYYA'S WORK when read in full and in its own original context. Qutb is basically Taymiyya repeated.
"There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!"
Which is precisely the point of difference with Iran, which doesn't. The biggest difference in our types of governments, of course, is theirs is Islamic.
Or ours is secular. Take your pick.
Happily. There's the Hamas regime in Palestine, which shares a sunni variation of the caliphate dream. There's the Nasrallah thugs in the lawless regions of Lebanon, which adheres to a Shi'a version. Muqtada Sadr's Mahdi Militia is running around in Iraq right now. Then there are dozens of nominally "secular" muslim dictators who fund jihadi groups dedicated to various versions of a Caliphate, the Mahdi Mailbox, and other various islamist causes - Assad in Syria, most of the Saud princes. And of course virtually every single islamic country on the planet has at least one political party that espouses jihadi goals.
And, ignoring some important omissions and mischaracterizations for the moment, what's your point with all this?
The preferred 18th and 19th century counterpart to the Judeo was "Hebraic".
Maybe 18th century. Not 19th.
Incorrect. Two weeks before the coup the Chilean Chamber of Deputies adopted an ultimatum to Allende demanding he cease and desist his land seizures, and if he did not, directing the military to remove him by force. Allende ignored the ultimatum. So Pinochet took him out. The legitimacy of Pinochet's regime was promptly endorsed by the conservative party, by two former Presidents of Chile, and by the center-left majority in the Chilean Congress, the CDP. The CDP+conservatives made up a majority of the congress BTW. By the time the dust settled Pinochet had the support of virtually everybody in the Chilean government except for the Communists, who had only won 36% of the vote in the election that produced Allende.
The question is not one of support, it is one of legitimacy. The entire situation sounds very extraconstitutional.
But that's the point. The extremists don't need to quote Taymiyya. They only need to hand out copies of his entire books, which are equally extreme as anything Qutb or Mawduddi or bin Laden put out.
Once more, Qutb preferred Taymiyya. Ghazali is considered too "moderate" for him. But what you keep missing/intentionally ignoring is that Said Qutb did not need to select or excerpt or interpret or spin Taymiyya to produce something radical. It was already there IN TAYMIYYA'S WORK when read in full and in its own original context. Qutb is basically Taymiyya repeated.
So your point is that modern radical fundamentalists essentially parrot medieval bigots, who you understand to be medival "moderates" because they are parroted by modern radical fundamentalists who claim to speak for "true Islam". Do I have that right?