The truth about Islam

[charred_heart]

600 word description (http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_truth.pdf)

The prophet Mohammed's veiws & sayings on:
Forgiveness:
Do not say, that if the people do good to us, we will do good to them; and if the people oppress us, we will oppress them; but determine that if people do you good, you will do good to them; and if they oppress you, you will not oppress them.

Once Muhammad was asked, "O Apostle of God!" How many times are we to forgive our servant's faults?" He was silent. Again the questioner asked, and Muhammad gave no answer. But when the man asked a third time, he said, "Forgive your servants seventy times day."

There is no man who woundeth and pardoneth the giver of the wound but God will exalt his dignity and dimish his faults.

That man is nearest to God, who pardoneth, when he had in his power him who would have injured him.

Jihad:
The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self

Compassion:
When the child (of Zainab) was brought to Muhammad, dying; its body trembling and moving; the eyes of the Apostle of God shed many tears. And Sad said, "O Messenger of God! What is the weeping and shedding of tears?" Muhammad replied, "This is an expression of the tenderness and compassion, which the Lord hath put into the hearts of His servants; the Lord doth not have compassion on and commiserate with His servants, except such as are tender and full of feeling."

Charity:
What actions are most excellent? To gladden the heart of a human being, to feed the hungry, to help the afflicted, to lighten the sorrow of the sorrowful, and to remove the wrongs of the injured.

The best of alms is that which the right hand giveth, and the left hand knoweth not of.

The best of almsgiving is that which springeth from the heart, and is uttered by the lips to soften the wounds of the injured.

Almsgiving is duty unto you. Alms should be taken from the rich and returned to the poor.

The Dead:
A bier passed by Muhammad, and he stood up; and it was said to him, "This is the bier of a Jew." He said, "Was it not the holder of a soul, from which we should take example and fear?"

Do not speak ill of the dead.

Gentleness:
Verily, god is mild, and is fond of mildness, and he giveth to the mild what he doth not to the harsh.

Whoever hath been given gentleness hath been given a good portion, in this world and the next.

God is gentle and loveth gentleness.

Verily you have two qualities which God and His Messenger love - fortitude and gentleness.

[philonightmare]

I've never been able to make it clear to people why Islam does not equal terrorism. This does a good job of explaining it, for once: http://www.twf.org/News/Y2005/1025-Oxymorons.html

What ticks me off is when people say that arguing terminology isn't needed. I think it is rather important to understand a word as it was originally intended (and influences the ideologies associated with such words). Much like with the differences between alogic, illogic, etc. I don't think it's taking things out of context, rather it is seeking to create an accurate perception of the whole.

Anyway, I think a problem with that 600 word description is that sometimes the structure of the sentences (and even some of the terminology) contradicts the meaning it's supposed to convey. I'm also not sure what is meant by "creation"? Is the author referring to humans, all things on Earth, etc? what?

[nonsequitur]

Jihad:
The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of self
Indeed, that is something that most of the Western media does not understand. The usage of the term "Jihad/Jihadists" has been used interchangably with suicide bombings, when that was not the original meaning behind the word. It's actually a really spiritual term.

Thanks for posting that.

[philonightmare]

Indeed, that is something that most of the Western media does not understand. The usage of the term "Jihad/Jihadists" has been used interchangably with suicide bombings, when that was not the original meaning behind the word. It's actually a really spiritual term.

Thanks for posting that.
What's really funny is that there are some really misguided and brainwashed people (ie: some Muslims) that use that term to describe their actions and in a way validate them. The whole concept of terrorism goes completely against the concept of jihad in the truest sense.

Misconceptions on both ends. It's easier to remain ignorant, even as a believer.

[nonsequitur]

What's really funny is that there are some really misguided and brainwashed people (ie: some Muslims) that use that term to describe their actions and in a way validate them. The whole concept of terrorism goes completely against the concept of jihad in the truest sense.

Misconceptions on both ends. It's easier to remain ignorant, even as a believer.

Hmm, but isn't that so only for the fundamentalists and extremists? The deliberate mis-interpretation of the word so as to use religion as a justification for their aims? As far as I can see, that's not the fault of the religion, but the fault of the people who are doing this. What I take issue with most of the time is the blanket labelling.. and journalistic misuse (deliberate or otherwise) of the terms. It is inaccurate and to say that a billion Muslims are violent (by nature of their religion) is just.. bleeping stupid. That is often what is implied in the Western media. I have yet to decide if there is a political motive behind it or if people are really that stupid.

[Helios]

Well, I didn't read this thread, and I knowing nothing about Islam nor him, but clearly charred heart is a terroriest and should be sent to Gitmo ASAP!!

[philonightmare]

Hmm, but isn't that so only for the fundamentalists and extremists? The deliberate mis-interpretation of the word so as to use religion as a justification for their aims? As far as I can see, that's not the fault of the religion, but the fault of the people who are doing this. What I take issue with most of the time is the blanket labelling.. and journalistic misuse (deliberate or otherwise) of the terms. It is inaccurate and to say that a billion Muslims are violent (by nature of their religion) is just.. bleeping stupid. That is often what is implied in the Western media. I have yet to decide if there is a political motive behind it or if people are really that stupid.
People are usually stupid enough to believe everything they read/see (edit: hear)without putting forth any effort to think for themself. This is not the fault of religion itself (unless the religion's aim is to keep people from thinking freely), however with the people who practice any ideology. Blanket labelling serves to further fuel the fire, in other words, ignorance. Journalism evens out though, in some ways, however one must be willing to take the time to search for better sources which will depict alternate perspectives. I think there's more than a political motive involved... personal, economic, etc. I cannot say what it is, specifically, but tis a common pattern in history. I'm not at all surprised people are misusing terms/concepts all over the place.

[nonsequitur]

People are usually stupid enough to believe everything they read/see without putting forth any effort to think for themself. This is not the fault of religion itself (unless the religion's aim is to keep people from thinking freely), however with the people who practice any ideology. Blanket labelling serves to further fuel the fire, in other words, ignorance. Journalism evens out though, in some ways, however one must be willing to take the time to search for better sources which will depict alternate perspectives. I think there's more than a political motive involved... personal, economic, etc. I cannot say what it is, specifically, but tis a common pattern in history. I'm not at all surprised people are misusing terms/concepts all over the place.
I guess the problem is that journalism has its own vested interests too. And people only search for things that will support their own prejudices. So while they continue painting themselves into a corner with their own "well-supported" views, they ignore the alternate views that perhaps form a more accurate picture of the situation. So perhaps it's not just stupidity, but the fact that everyone wants to believe that they are correct, and it's easy to find information to reinforce their own views. The vested interests of journalism support that need, giving rise to extremism.

I agree that there is probably more than a political motive involved in this, but what I was thinking of was a possibility that there was a certain ideology behind all of this. Within the Middle East, Western nations are portrayed in the media as meddling imperialists attempting to detroy their "way of life" and "culture and tradition". That is one possible political motive, which I personally think is difficult to justify (but that they think is evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). I was wondering about other possible ideological motivations.

[philonightmare]

I guess the problem is that journalism has its own vested interests too. And people only search for things that will support their own prejudices. So while they continue painting themselves into a corner with their own "well-supported" views, they ignore the alternate views that perhaps form a more accurate picture of the situation. So perhaps it's not just stupidity, but the fact that everyone wants to believe that they are correct, and it's easy to find information to reinforce their own views. The vested interests of journalism support that need, giving rise to extremism.
Agreed.

I agree that there is probably more than a political motive involved in this, but what I was thinking of was a possibility that there was a certain ideology behind all of this. Within the Middle East, Western nations are portrayed in the media as meddling imperialists attempting to detroy their "way of life" and "culture and tradition". That is one possible political motive, which I personally think is difficult to justify (but that they think is evidenced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). I was wondering about other possible ideological motivations.
People are taught to act on their, at times, irrational feelings and not to think before acting. Suicide bombers, for example. This transcends the boundaries of actions done by people claiming to be Muslim or Jew. Yes, there is a mindset in the Middle East which does nothing but foster their own people's misconceptions. Instead, people are taught to fear the unknown --the West. Other ideological motivations? I dunno. I think most of these religious idelogies in their purest form want for their followers to be "good, righteous people". The issues that stem from this occur when people inevitably form their own versions of what constitutes "good" and what criterion are necessary before behaving in a righteous manner. For example, the three big religions all believe in a God, however their conceptions of God are all different in some respect. People are apt to feel more fury over the differences than to brush off the differences by the, dare I say it, frequent commonalities between all three.

[charred_heart]

Well, I didn't read this thread, and I knowing nothing about Islam nor him, but clearly charred heart is a terroriest and should be sent to Gitmo ASAP!!
:mad: ! You have revealed my true identity! Die you freakin infidel!!! :laser:

OK immaturity aside, philonightmare has a point about that 'truth about islam' pamphlet in that it's a bit fuzzy. But at least it does show that war is not one of the pinnacles of Islam as some people think. I am yet to find a decent overview of Islam in English, maybe I'll write one myself in the future.

[PenguinHunter]

Yes, there is a mindset in the Middle East which does nothing but foster their own people's misconceptions. Instead, people are taught to fear the unknown --the West.

I'd actually tend to disagree with this. It's kind of surprising how pro-West/USA a lot of the Middle East is. There are certain things that can't be compromised, mostly religious issues and the cultural norms that come with Islam, but everything European/American that can fit in without directly contradicting any fundamental Islamic principles is slotted in beside everything else and seen as a positive step. Cars, clothes- especially top end fashion, food, general stuff like that. Everyone who can afford it goes to the US and Europe for holidays.

There's exceptions like Iran where where there is a block (by the US or Iran I can't remember now - maybe both) on US goods so you can't get Coke in Iran but there is an Iranian equivalent. All the rich kids (most of them) go abroad for University. Even Saudis (especially Saudis) like American things but there is a backlash too. It's kind of hard to describe; for a lot of people in the Middle East I think there is a sort of love-hate relationship where they see a lot of value to certain aspects of American culture but at the same time wish the West would stop messing in it's affairs and stop trying to change Arab life. Maybe sort of like disliking the government but liking the culture? But more complicated.

From my experiences in both Western culture and Middle Eastern culture I see the misconceptions in the West as far more wide-spread and damaging than what you find in the Middle East. I have never been to Saudi so I can only comment from other areas and from Saudis I've met and people I know who lived there.

[ApeTheDog]

The problem is that many, many - MANY people think they know something about the islam, and that actually there are so many of them that think they know something, none of them feels the need to bother checking it out on their own.

I really like the quran. I've read some parts of it, and whilst a lot of is doesn't really move me much, there are some parts in there that got right to the core of my being. At one point, I could actually put myself right into the position of a believer, and I adored it all. I wanted it to all be true - it was so beautiful.

This was over pretty soon again. I can't stop being true to myself for very long.

But I was inspired, and really thought it interesting how different the book was from how I had imagined it to be. I was so certain it wouldn't be interesting at all, I didn't feel a need to check it out. I was so certain I knew the jist of what the islam was all about, I didn't feel a need at all to investigate further.

Nobody ever smells a turd, do they? You already know it stinks - why subject yourself to it?

But that is my point. We should all smell turds more often. And investigate things on our own.

The nature of prejudices is such that many people believe that, if many people believe something - it must be true. That creates a form of viral messaging whereby if enough people believe something is true, it spreads on it's own, regardless of whether or not there is any truth to it at all.

The islam has such a thing going against it. There are so many people who are convinced it is a sadistic, backwards religion (I consider it a far more advanced one than christianity at it's core) that they convince everybody else as well that there is some truth to that.

Ah well... I guess the moral here is to not rely on people to not suck, I guess, or something.

[philonightmare]

I'd actually tend to disagree with this. It's kind of surprising how pro-West/USA a lot of the Middle East is.
The first place that comes to mind is Dubai. I know that that country is very Westernized itself.

There are certain things that can't be compromised, mostly religious issues and the cultural norms that come with Islam, but everything European/American that can fit in without directly contradicting any fundamental Islamic principles is slotted in beside everything else and seen as a positive step. Cars, clothes- especially top end fashion, food, general stuff like that. Everyone who can afford it goes to the US and Europe for holidays.
True. There are some countries in that region whose people have managed to get out of the harmful mindframe and have accepted other cultures' values, to a degree.

There's exceptions like Iran where where there is a block (by the US or Iran I can't remember now - maybe both) on US goods so you can't get Coke in Iran but there is an Iranian equivalent. All the rich kids (most of them) go abroad for University. Even Saudis (especially Saudis) like American things but there is a backlash too. It's kind of hard to describe; for a lot of people in the Middle East I think there is a sort of love-hate relationship where they see a lot of value to certain aspects of American culture but at the same time wish the West would stop messing in it's affairs and stop trying to change Arab life. Maybe sort of like disliking the government but liking the culture? But more complicated.
I think you hit on a good point there. Most people find disagreement with how their government grovels to the U.S. gov't and makes the people appear weak and unable to fend for themselves. Thing is, to maintain all of those niceties such as Coke products, clothing from Tommy Hilfiger, etc, the Saudi gov't must make concessions with Western countries which the people find arguable. I think the culture is also to blame (for the harmful ideologies), in that those that aren't rich and able to leave their country at will are often viewing and hearing propoganda from their fellow people --people that could very well have their own agendas for why they find so much fault with how the gov't is run. So the misconceptions continue, despite their desires for American/Western products. Yes, definitely complicated.

I see the misconceptions in the West as far more wide-spread and damaging than what you find in the Middle East.
Damaging and irresponsible in building accurate perceptions, perhaps? I find it rediculous given the amount of resources available, that people still remain ignorant to much of what is going on around them and what is the truth. Then again, it's easier to believe what you're told than to discover it for yourself. And many people just don't care. Which is fine, of course, until they are directly affected, then of course, apathy isn't satisfying any longer.

I have never been to Saudi so I can only comment from other areas and from Saudis I've met and people I know who lived there.
Hmm, I lived in Saudi for a while and there wasn't any blatant flags flying around saying that all westerners should die, whatnot. The atmosphere was more that one had to remain modest in dress and of course, was not exactly free of sexism (but sexism did not arise from Islam, let me just make that clear lest someone think of something like that stupid 72 virgins example). One could say that sexist attitudes were eliminated in Western society and that's one thing the Middle East wishes to keep --and thus not want the West to interfere with their crock of bullshit that females should be given the same opportunities as males. *rollseyes* When I mentioned that there are misconceptions in that region, I meant that they (the non-rich) are often taught in their local hookah-bars, homes, etc that there is a danger in living the Western way. That to do so will result in loss of their own heritage. I don't think people are running around proclaiming that Westerners will teach their children to forget God, and that they ought to all be castrized.

I think it's the poorest, most undereducated regions, which are a majority, that are the source for the people we call terrorists. Not given all the facts, nor the resources, such the internet, to find out for themselves if what they think is an accurate reflection of reality, they do what they know, not what is true.

[nonsequitur]

People are taught to act on their, at times, irrational feelings and not to think before acting. Suicide bombers, for example. This transcends the boundaries of actions done by people claiming to be Muslim or Jew.
Indeed. People are stupid at times. :P


Yes, there is a mindset in the Middle East which does nothing but foster their own people's misconceptions. Instead, people are taught to fear the unknown --the West.
This is the impression that I get, especially among the poorer Middle Eastern nations, and will address in my reply to PenguinHunter.


Other ideological motivations? I dunno. I think most of these religious idelogies in their purest form want for their followers to be "good, righteous people". The issues that stem from this occur when people inevitably form their own versions of what constitutes "good" and what criterion are necessary before behaving in a righteous manner. For example, the three big religions all believe in a God, however their conceptions of God are all different in some respect. People are apt to feel more fury over the differences than to brush off the differences by the, dare I say it, frequent commonalities between all three.
Hmm, the thing is that I suspect that this is not a purely religious issue. Sure, there are Christian fundamentalists too who believe that Islam should be destroyed (just like there are some Muslim fundamentalists who believe that the Jews in Israel should be destroyed), but I hardly think that is the driving motivation that fuels all of this hatred. I think this is a minority of people.. and I can't help but feel that there must be an ideological war going on (beyond that of religion) that is making the world so full of prejudice and in general, screwed up. The thing is that I don't know what it is, either.


I'd actually tend to disagree with this. It's kind of surprising how pro-West/USA a lot of the Middle East is. There are certain things that can't be compromised, mostly religious issues and the cultural norms that come with Islam, but everything European/American that can fit in without directly contradicting any fundamental Islamic principles is slotted in beside everything else and seen as a positive step. Cars, clothes- especially top end fashion, food, general stuff like that. Everyone who can afford it goes to the US and Europe for holidays.
And I would disagree with you. What you describe seems to be a pattern that you observe among the upper/upper-middle classes. The fact remains that most of the people do not own a tv, or car, or branded clothes. The upper/upper-middle classes can afford all of these items, and therefore are happy. The majority living in poverty are those who see their homes get destroyed by the newfangled "super-accurate" targetting weapons systems employed against them. Watch Al-Jazeera, and you will see that the way in which the West is portrayed is extremely negative.


There's exceptions like Iran where where there is a block (by the US or Iran I can't remember now - maybe both) on US goods so you can't get Coke in Iran but there is an Iranian equivalent. All the rich kids (most of them) go abroad for University. Even Saudis (especially Saudis) like American things but there is a backlash too. It's kind of hard to describe; for a lot of people in the Middle East I think there is a sort of love-hate relationship where they see a lot of value to certain aspects of American culture but at the same time wish the West would stop messing in it's affairs and stop trying to change Arab life. Maybe sort of like disliking the government but liking the culture? But more complicated.
What you describe is again what you observe among the upper/upper-middle classes. Perhaps the educated elite are those who do form a love/hate relationship with the West. The poor, uneducated people are those who are recruited by the religious fundamentalists to further their ends. As the rich are those who form close links with the West, you find that they are in a difficult position too. For example, the Saudi royal family is playing a very dangerous game - on one hand, they have to get the support of the fundamentalists at home, and on the other, they must also sell their oil to the US. That is one reason why the Saudi royal family cannot take an extreme stand "against terrorism". It would be suicide. It is far more complicated than that, of course, I'm just giving a general over-view of how messy the actual situation is.


From my experiences in both Western culture and Middle Eastern culture I see the misconceptions in the West as far more wide-spread and damaging than what you find in the Middle East. I have never been to Saudi so I can only comment from other areas and from Saudis I've met and people I know who lived there.
I would say that the misconceptions on both sides are extremely prevalent and damaging.. and seeing as politics is so complicated and no one really seems to be working towards peace, that is why I think that there is an underlying ideological war that goes beyond religion. but again, I have been unable to form a theory as yet.

Edit: :lol: I said almost exactly the same thing as you, philo.. :ph34r:

[charred_heart]

I'm also not sure what is meant by "creation"? Is the author referring to humans, all things on Earth, etc? what?
Maybe that's down to the translation. Are you referring to this?
"Reflect upon God's creation but not upon his nature or else you will perish"
creation here means all of God's creation.
That last part "or else you will perish" is too ambiguous. I know that according to Islam God cannot be described or classified because God (since God is neither male or female in islam i can't say 'he') does not resemble anything found in creation i.e existence. So that last part may imply that it would be folly to think you can search for a description of God.

[philonightmare]

Hmm, the thing is that I suspect that this is not a purely religious issue. Sure, there are Christian fundamentalists too who believe that Islam should be destroyed (just like there are some Muslim fundamentalists who believe that the Jews in Israel should be destroyed), but I hardly think that is the driving motivation that fuels all of this hatred. I think this is a minority of people.. and I can't help but feel that there must be an ideological war going on (beyond that of religion) that is making the world so full of prejudice and in general, screwed up. The thing is that I don't know what it is, either.
Personal opinion: Fundies from any ideology scare the shit out of me and I seek to avoid them as much as possible. :ph34r:

It could just be human nature to hate and want to destroy that which you believe threatens your way of life... even if it, in reality, could work side-by-side peaceably. You're right, the people with the mindset that they must become martyrs for their causes are a minority. Even in the OP, or that 600 blurb, can't remember, it's mentioned that Islam is a religion of moderacy. The problem is that these easily brainwashed minorities are going to be extremely selective over which parts of their holy books they choose to follow... taking things out of context to suit your own selfish desires (including validation) is only natural for them. Prejuidice sucks. I hate people who are prejuidiced. ; )

Edit: :lol: I said almost exactly the same thing as you, philo.. :ph34r:
Yeah, I just noticed that... it reaffirms my sense that I'm right. :smooch:

[nonsequitur]

Personal opinion: Fundies from any ideology scare the shit out of me and I seek to avoid them as much as possible. :ph34r:
;) I must hide my closeted fundamentalist well, then.


It could just be human nature to hate and want to destroy that which you believe threatens your way of life... even if it, in reality, could work side-by-side peaceably. You're right, the people with the mindset that they must become martyrs for their causes are a minority. Even in the OP, or that 600 blurb, can't remember, it's mentioned that Islam is a religion of moderacy. The problem is that these easily brainwashed minorities are going to be extremely selective over which parts of their holy books they choose to follow... taking things out of context to suit your own selfish desires (including validation) is only natural for them. Prejuidice sucks. I hate people who are prejuidiced. ; )
I strongly dislike people who are prejudiced, but I can understand where they are coming from. If you have certain generalisations about the world, it becomes far simpler and easier to deal with than say, if you consider multiple possibilities and perspectives. I don't believe that it's in human nature to be prejudiced and to hate, though. If that were so, we would not be having this discussion now. :ph34r:


Yeah, I just noticed that... it reaffirms my sense that I'm right. :smooch:
;) I was so amused to read what you wrote after I was finally done typing that reply.

[philonightmare]

Maybe that's down to the translation. Are you referring to this?
"Reflect upon God's creation but not upon his nature or else you will perish"
creation here means all of God's creation.
That last part "or else you will perish" is too ambiguous. I know that according to Islam God cannot be described or classified because God (since God is neither male or female in islam i can't say 'he') does not resemble anything found in creation i.e existence. So that last part may imply that it would be folly to think you can search for a description of God.
No, I was referring more to the this part:

The creation is like God's family...
So, everything created by God = creation?

But, yes, I wondered over the part you quoted as well. True, God cannot be described in anthropomorphic ways in Islam because he isn't like any of his creations. However part of what you wrote in the OP contradicts the notion that God cannot be described when it says that "God is gentle and loveth gentleness". How can we possible know what is meant by Godly gentleness and love? Wouldn't it be different from what we experience becuase God is nothing like us? Or is this just a way for some of his traits to make some sort of sense to us humans... otherwise there would be no contemplation over his traits at all and thus one would be left not knowing the nature of the being one worships? But then wouldn't this simple and unquantifiable amount of ponderance over his traits qualify as reflecting upon his nature? Thus, I shall perish?

[PenguinHunter]

And I would disagree with you. What you describe seems to be a pattern that you observe among the upper/upper-middle classes. The fact remains that most of the people do not own a tv, or car, or branded clothes. The upper/upper-middle classes can afford all of these items, and therefore are happy. The majority living in poverty are those who see their homes get destroyed by the newfangled "super-accurate" targetting weapons systems employed against them. Watch Al-Jazeera, and you will see that the way in which the West is portrayed is extremely negative.
I agree a lot of my perceptions come from the upper-middle class having spent a lot of my time in the Emirates. More than anything I guess this highlights the difficulty of trying to establish a Middle Eastern consciousness or general consensus. There is definately a disconnect between the oil states where the are no poor locals and a country like Iran. But I have also met and talked to a lot of relatively poor Middle Eastern people. Of particular interest are some Palestinian refugees I've met making their way in the UAE. There still is not that loathing of the West present in them. There is obviously a distinct hatred of Israel but the don't connect Israel to Western culture. It's politics. Obviously I've never been through the slums of Tehran or Cairo and searched for feelings there. However I have talked to relatively poor Iranians and Egyptians - (how poor is hard to speculate on and the extent to which that affects their perceptions is I think a difficult thing to feel out as well) - and I still more or less stand by my original statements.

I've watched Al-Jazeera before and I occasionally visit the website. I generally find it has a worse reputation than it deserves. There have been some questionable things on it for sure, but there has also been some good reporting from it. (Just as a bit have a side not have you ever seen the movie/documentary Control Room? It's kind of interesting, I think it was made by some Danish person - but maybe I'm way off there - about Al-Jazeera reporting and the Iraq war etc.



What you describe is again what you observe among the upper/upper-middle classes. Perhaps the educated elite are those who do form a love/hate relationship with the West. The poor, uneducated people are those who are recruited by the religious fundamentalists to further their ends. As the rich are those who form close links with the West, you find that they are in a difficult position too. For example, the Saudi royal family is playing a very dangerous game - on one hand, they have to get the support of the fundamentalists at home, and on the other, they must also sell their oil to the US. That is one reason why the Saudi royal family cannot take an extreme stand "against terrorism". It would be suicide. It is far more complicated than that, of course, I'm just giving a general over-view of how messy the actual situation is.

I'm sure there is a global correlation between wealth and becoming a religious fundamentalist but I'm not sure that it follows through in what would be generally be considered the Middle East. Perhaps it would be better to assume two perspectives. In the group that exhibits my original generalizations, (the traditionally understood Middle East, excluding Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan) I think you would find a relatively poor correlation between poverty and Islamic fundamentalism. I think most of the 9/11 guys were relatively well off, right?

Any discussion of the Saudi royal family is extremely complicated though because it is hard to determine (perhaps philonightmare could shed more light on this) to what extent they are in synch with the general population. I am under the impression that the Saudi royal family is extremely unprogressive compared to the rest of the population. There are occasional votes that I've heard of, for example, on issues such as women's driving etc, where you will find an 85% majority in favor of changing the laws but this goes unheeded by the royalty simply because they are strictly conservative. Curiously their links to the West are not generally the point of conflict with the royalty but rather the conflicts and protests that occasionally occur are demanding progressive reforms and a shift towards democracratic structures. (But maybe I am wrong about some of this - the majority of conflicts are like this etc - just my current understanding.)

I don't even know if it would be possible to discuss Iraq in these terms, at this point anyway.

Hmmm, I have spewed a lot out here and it's getting late. To try and summarize: We may need to consider that the Arabian Penninsula and the Arab/Islamic world are not in synch and this may be the heart of our disagreement on the "general feeling" or the region.


I would say that the misconceptions on both sides are extremely prevalent and damaging..

Yeah I can agree with that. My "far" statement was too strong.

[philonightmare]

;) I must hide my closeted fundamentalist well, then.
argh! *runs away*

I strongly dislike people who are prejudiced, but I can understand where they are coming from. If you have certain generalisations about the world, it becomes far simpler and easier to deal with than say, if you consider multiple possibilities and perspectives. I don't believe that it's in human nature to be prejudiced and to hate, though. If that were so, we would not be having this discussion now. :ph34r:
Easier doesn't necessarily equal truth, however. I don't think many people are striving for truth though... more like efficiency. And for efficiency's sake, I too, can see why developing hateful prejuidices can be an advantage. I think a mild form of prejuidice and discrimination is needed though, and actually is wired into our brains. We can do nothing about it, save recognize that it holds some control over our selves. If we could not make distinctions, we would have killed ourselves off long ago by eating poisonous red berries instead of eventually learning that the yellow berries are safe to eat. We humans do this all the time with social interactions. If one were repeatedly beat up by their peers because they were wearing a green shirt, eventually, for the sake of staying away from the pain, one would adopt the wearing of another colored shirt. Eventually, one discerns between which behaviors are beneficial for themselves and which behaviors yield discomfort.

;) I was so amused to read what you wrote after I was finally done typing that reply.
I was as well heh ;)

[distraction tactics]

"While Muslims are quick to observe that there is an inner (or 'greater') jihad, which involves waging a war against one's own sinfulness, no amount of casuistry can disguise the fact that the outer (or 'lesser') jihad - war against the infidels and apostates - is a central feature of the faith." - Sam Harris, The End of Faith

From the Hadith:

"A day and a night fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer."

"He who dies without having taken part in a campaign does in a kind of unbelief."

"Paradise is in the shadow of swords."

In Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death. "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (...Paging Salman Rushdie.)

"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels, and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pastime." (5.57)

"On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can...not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist.", Harris

"The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter a what price and regardless of quality, honor and dignity." - Sayyid Qutb, Sunni scholar

--

My point? To ignore the bad is as fallicious as to focus only on the bad.

[charred_heart]

No, I was referring more to the this part:

So, everything created by God = creation?

But, yes, I wondered over the part you quoted as well. True, God cannot be described in anthropomorphic ways in Islam because he isn't like any of his creations. However part of what you wrote in the OP contradicts the notion that God cannot be described when it says that "God is gentle and loveth gentleness". How can we possible know what is meant by Godly gentleness and love? Wouldn't it be different from what we experience becuase God is nothing like us? Or is this just a way for some of his traits to make some sort of sense to us humans... otherwise there would be no contemplation over his traits at all and thus one would be left not knowing the nature of the being one worships? But then wouldn't this simple and unquantifiable amount of ponderance over his traits qualify as reflecting upon his nature? Thus, I shall perish?

The traits the prophet mohammed mentions in his sayings come from the Quran, which is God's word therefore they are true existing traits vouched by God himself. Contemplating God's origin or his appearance for example, things that no creature can possibly 'discover' would lead to false conclusions. The logic of that is since we exist within God's creation, there is nothing within our grasp or existence that would lead to evidence of such traits. Even those traits which are mentioned in the Quran must be taken at face value(literally), we cannot quantify God's love -or any of the traits mentioned in the Quran- for it is also outside of our existence. We cannot say that it is infinate or finite because these are terms that apply only to our existence.

This also applies to the soul, we cannot contemplate the nature of a creature's soul. This is the difference between Christianity/Judaism and Islam, that the soul cannot be measured, detected or likened to any form of matter in existence.

A muslim identifies the soul and God according to six foundations: the six pillars of Iman (faith). You can find a more detailed explanation here:
http://anwary-islam.com/life/pillars_iman.htm

[charred_heart]

"While Muslims are quick to observe that there is an inner (or 'greater') jihad, which involves waging a war against one's own sinfulness, no amount of casuistry can disguise the fact that the outer (or 'lesser') jihad - war against the infidels and apostates - is a central feature of the faith." - Sam Harris, The End of Faith


In Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death. "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (...Paging Salman Rushdie.)

"On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers. On almost every page, it prepares the ground for religious conflict. Anyone who can...not see a link between Muslim faith and Muslim violence should probably consult a neurologist.", Harris

"The Koran points to another contemptible characteristic of the Jews: their craven desire to live, no matter a what price and regardless of quality, honor and dignity." - Sayyid Qutb, Sunni scholar


These are opinions therefore I cannot consider them a valid representation of the Islamic faith.




"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels, and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pastime." (5.57)


This verse is misinterpreted. It should say:
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of those pagans and those who were given the book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pastime"
This verse came after an incident where the prophet was passing a group, some of whome were muslim but mostly Jewish and Pagan, and took the opportunity to preach about Islam. One of the group called out sarcastically "There is nothing better than what you say, if it is the truth then why do you pester us with it where we sit(or want to relax)? Go back to where you came from, and if someone comes to you then preach to him". The muslims called out "we are here for you so speak to us!" and a row ensued between the muslims and the non-muslims in the group. That's why the verse came down, to tell muslims not to sit with people who openly mock their religion and don't respect it.
It's just to keep things civil. It is not a generalisation on all Jews and pagans!!!

EDIT: This only applies to those prejudiced against Islam. To give a simpler example, a group of african americans can accept participating in a debate with a KKK group, but they might not accept sitting down with them in a restraurant and suffer racial slurs and jokes. They might not be openly hostile to each other (it's the 21st century), but that doesn't mean they'll ever be friends.
Also, this is not a direct order in that a muslim sins if he/she does not follow the message in the verse. This is in the category of tawjih(advice or education). It doesn't make sense to befriend anyone who doesn't respect you anyway so the verse can apply to anyone.

I will also look into the origin of the hadiths you mentioned, but all the hadiths regarding war that I know of speak of self defense, not conquest. I will look into it, because I don't have a book on the sayings of the prophet.

[illusivemind]

charred_heart,

I'm certainly quite ignorant about the Islamic faith, however it seems to me that you have terrorist types screaming that this is their Islamic duty and the moederates screaming right back that "That is not Islam."

Buy anyone can point to certain texts and claim that they justify their interpretation. The Ku Klux Klan claim to be Christains. And they are Christains, only some centralized beauracracy i.e. a church can tell them thet they are in breach of the membership requirements.

But to just call yourself a follower of Christ or a follower of Mohammed, it really doesn't matter what you do. The only thing that puts serious doubts into your claims of faith is public opinon and that changes through public and constant denouncements from the so-called religous leaders.

[distraction tactics]

These are opinions therefore I cannot consider them a valid representation of the Islamic faith.

A Sunni scholar isn't a valid representation of the Islamic faith? Accurate depictions of the Islamic faith aren't valid representations of the Islamic faith? Do you actually know who Salman Rushdie is? Do I really have to dredge up some garbage quote from some mullah, imam, caliph or ayatollah to show the shitty aspects of Islam?

Maybe we should just turn this into a discussion on communism. You know, one without any of that messy 'real life' stuff - just pure theory. After all, reality has no place when determining the merits of a philosophy.

When was the last time a Buddhist flew a jet plane into a skyscraper?

When was the last time a Hellenist blew themselves up at a wedding reception?

When was the last time a Christian stoned a rape victim to death?

You're the kind of person who is too drenched in your faith to even consider acknowledging what might be truthful aspects of Islam. Brick-fucking-wall.

[Serotonin]

If Islam permitted alcohol, that may have replaced some of their followers' thirst for blood.

[MacGuffin]

If Islam permitted alcohol, that may have replaced some of their followers' thirst for blood.Hell if they eased up on that and the pork thing I might join.

[charred_heart]

A Sunni scholar isn't a valid representation of the Islamic faith?
How did that scholar you quoted come to the conclusion that Jews desperately cling to life at whatever cost? I have heard some christian sermons in the US warning against the evil that is Islam, and they come up with the weirdest crap. Those priests didn't seem to be very knowledgeable about the subject, they were just telling their followers what they wanted to hear. That sunni scholar was probably doing the same thing - telling his listeners what they want to hear. I don't think he can back up such a ridiculous claim.



Maybe we should just turn this into a discussion on communism. You know, one without any of that messy 'real life' stuff - just pure theory. After all, reality has no place when determining the merits of a philosophy.
Here's the reality: Islam exists in many countries. One of these countries was occupied 57 years ago and is about to disappear from the face of this earth. Some Muslim countries have a history of tribal warfare and vigilante justice. Some groups from these countries don't like that another muslim country is occupied and decided the best way to fight is to blow stuff up in the countries supporting the occupier. Real enough for you?
Did all this start with a quote from the Quran? You seem to believe so. Now who's more realistic?

[PenguinHunter]

A Sunni scholar isn't a valid representation of the Islamic faith? Accurate depictions of the Islamic faith aren't valid representations of the Islamic faith? Do you actually know who Salman Rushdie is? Do I really have to dredge up some garbage quote from some mullah, imam, caliph or ayatollah to show the shitty aspects of Islam?

Maybe we should just turn this into a discussion on communism. You know, one without any of that messy 'real life' stuff - just pure theory. After all, reality has no place when determining the merits of a philosophy.

When was the last time a Buddhist flew a jet plane into a skyscraper?

When was the last time a Hellenist blew themselves up at a wedding reception?

When was the last time a Christian stoned a rape victim to death?

You're the kind of person who is too drenched in your faith to even consider acknowledging what might be truthful aspects of Islam. Brick-fucking-wall.

You can find a partial response to this in my posts in claverhouse's thread about the French riots. (posts 19 and 22) http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7214&page=2&pp=10

I'm trying to explain Islamic fundamentalism away from Islam itself, as a modern movement arising from geography and economics rather than one rooted in the Koran.

[Wiki]

The prophet Mohammed's veiws & sayings on:
Forgiveness:
Do not say, that if the people do good to us, we will do good to them; and if the people oppress us, we will oppress them; but determine that if people do you good, you will do good to them; and if they oppress you, you will not oppress them.

Once Muhammad was asked, "O Apostle of God!" How many times are we to forgive our servant's faults?" He was silent. Again the questioner asked, and Muhammad gave no answer. But when the man asked a third time, he said, "Forgive your servants seventy times day."
That sounds similar to what Jesus said give or take seven. The similarities are as if they were the same person recorded under different names.

Noah has been recorded as Gelgamesh in a similar flood story.

Interestingly enough I find a lot of Christianity religions saying that Allah is not the same as their God. Now this may be true to an extent due to the fact that many religions recognize Christ as God rather than the son of God.

It was a 50/50 split until about the 4th century where the roman catholic church had made up its mind to deify Christ, and somehow the tetragramaton, YHWH or Yahweh got removed from future translations of the bible and replaced by 'Sovereign Lord ' and 'Lord'.

This is confusing because Christ was often referred to as Lord prior to that and now also. So I can see how the trinity doctrine emerged.

In the King James version widely accepted today which translated YHWH to Jehovah in English, it also replaces Jehovah with 'Lord' and 'Sovereign Lord' in all but two scriptures to where you can still find God referred to as Jehovah.
You can also find Jehovah in Websters dictionary.

I found it very interesting that there is a footnote referring to this change in the front of the bible that the Protestants use.

After doing much research on the matter the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions says that Allah is Arab for God (this is the same God of Abraham).

So Allah is God as Yahweh and Jehovah is the same God, and if you believe in the trinity doctrine (which I do not) then Christ is also Yahweh, Allah, and Jehovah.

Same God being worshiped in so many different ways and all of his children fighting with each other.

The path to true enlightenment, the narrow road which leads to eternity, must exist outside of all these seperatist and elitist religions.

[charred_heart]

But to just call yourself a follower of Christ or a follower of Mohammed, it really doesn't matter what you do. The only thing that puts serious doubts into your claims of faith is public opinon and that changes through public and constant denouncements from the so-called religous leaders.
I am guessing you are trying to say that anyone can bend religion to their own personal view. Is that what you're saying?

[illusivemind]

I am guessing you are trying to say that anyone can bend religion to their own personal view. Is that what you're saying?

Sure that's what I'm saying. But I'm also saying who are you to say which interpretations are malicious deviations and which are truthful? Who is anybody to say such things? Who am I to say who are the 'real' Christians and who are not?

In the absence of clear, centralized modern rules as to what qualifies as a 'just interpretation' of scripture, what is there? A thousand conflicting book reports.

If you have theocracies who still support ideas that modern, moderate Muslims find despicable it is hard to see the Islamic faith as having progressed from it's more Medieval incarnations, given the assumed religious authority of such states, even though moderate Muslims do rail against them.

But maybe moderate Muslim makes no sense like Moderate Christian makes no sense. People call themselves Christians because they were baptised and go to church at Christmas and Easter.

Some have suggested that the problem with Islam in places like Saudi Arabia is that it has not undergone a Renaissance (http://www.newint.org/issue342/time.htm).



The message for the Muslim world must be that an era of fear and silence has to come to an end. It is the duty of every Muslim to defend Islam’s intent and essence against those who have hijacked its meaning. Breaking the silence is the only solution for moderate Muslims who wish to avoid being tarred with the same brush as ‘perceived Islam’. Moderate rulers, who succumbed to the dictates of official Islam, will have to transmute this catastrophe and redirect their nations towards a valid future. Or else a new Muslim leadership will emerge to mobilize the faithful towards ijtehad: a reinterpretation of the Holy Qur’an based on the original intention of Islam, rooted in the tradition of Abraham, inspired by the example of Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him – and in keeping with the times.

[philonightmare]

illusivemind, I just want to let you know, I'm glad you mentioned Islamic reform/renaissance here. Very good point to mention. Too many people are still stuck in the past and unwilling to live life in the present, nor think of how their religion must be adaptable for the future... living along with their religious beliefs intact, though modified to keep the true essence of the religion --not all of those contradictory and useless fatwas. Many "Islamic nations/societies" are so f'in backward in how they APPLY the religion... it sucks beyond belief. :mellow:

[Wiki]

illusivemind, I just want to let you know, I'm glad you mentioned Islamic reform/renaissance here. Very good point to mention. Too many people are still stuck in the past and unwilling to live life in the present, nor think of how their religion must be adaptable for the future... living along with their religious beliefs intact, though modified to keep the true essence of the religion --not all of those contradictory and useless fatwas. Many "Islamic nations/societies" are so f'in backward in how they APPLY the religion... it sucks beyond belief. :mellow:Is Chrisianity not backward in many of it's issues that cannnot be agreed upon threfore resulting in dividing and subdivided into sects aslo? Did they not siege lands and convert pople in some instances by violent force? Didnt we just drown alleged witches a few hudred years ago at Salem in the name of God?

[philonightmare]

Is Chrisianity not backward in many of it's issues that cannnot be agreed upon threfore resulting in dividing and subdivided into sects aslo? Did they not siege lands and convert pople in some instances by violent force? Didnt we just drown alleged witches a few hudred years ago at Salem in the name of God?
Yes, Christianity is guilty as well, imo. All groups, no matter what one labels them, are guilty of inclusion of some sort. The methods used to exlude and retaliate, however, should be taken into consideration... preferably, with a more global perspective. Unfortunately, many do not.

[distraction tactics]

The point is not that Islam is unique to cases of extremism, nor is it to a lesser extent that the Qu'ran explicitly encourages violence against non-Muslims.

(Implicitly it's there. No amount of 'contextualizing' from apologists can deny the fact that the Qu'ran is extremely hostile to non-believers, supports the concept of martyrdom and armed conflict for the faith, and promises great rewards in the afterlife for religious intolerance - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/011214.html)

The point is that a religion is more than its holy book. Ever hear of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy? It's subtly applicable to some of the views in this thread.

So one might conclude, so what? By this definition, EVERY worldview has something wrong it this. First, you're entirely correct. Secondly, it doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things. It only matters in this specific case because the OP paints a one-sided view of Islam, and pretends to pass it off as the 'truth' about Islam. One only has to consider the atrocities Muslims have commited using their religious faith as justification to see this is widely incorrect.

(In light of this and in the context of the OP, the quote, "Now who's more realistic?" has me wondering whether I should be laughing my ass off or banging my head against the wall.)

What's interesting is that in his most recent response to me, charred heart no longer denies these unpleasant elements of his faith. Instead he tries to rationalize it away by accusing Christianity of the same sort of behaviour. First of all, dragging something down to your level doesn't make you any more right - in the company of thieves, if you will - it only helps you sleep better at night. Secondly, I dislike Christianity more than Islam, so your attempt to corner me into emotional defensiveness falls flat on its face.

Maybe you should try attacking atheism instead. :duel:

Or maybe instead of trying to convert people to your religion or starting incorrect PR campaigns for people who largely don't give a shit about your unrealistic beliefs, you should be condemning those among your ranks with extremist views who pose a very real physical, social, economical and political threat to modern day society.

--

Political motivations may (or may not) play a role in Islamic extremism, but to deny the religious influence is akin to denying religion had anything to do with the conflict in Northern Ireland. What's worse in the case of Islam, is that extremists are using their religion to justify specific methods of armed conflict.

[charred_heart]

I'm gonna post again with a proper response as I am not lucid at the moment. Did you post a reference about Islam showing a satire of an arab with a dynamite up his ass distraction_tactics? Doesn't seem very objective, or reliable!
I'm sure you can do better than that...

I'm not denying how the world is, and I'm not accusing any other religion for what is happening now. How did you come to this conclusion from my posts?

Converting people? PR?

Look, I'll come back with a response to your post but you have to clarify where you came up with all this. You seem to have a preconception of me and I want to know where it came from because I don't think it's from what I said.

[meshou]

I tenatively say:

You can't say that the extremist Islam is not Islam, especially when it makes up a good chunk of Islam. For every peaceful quote that supports charred's views and practice of it, I'm sure we could turn up one that supports the views of the extremists.

You can argue a large part of Islam has twisted the teachings of its founder, but can't disown them.

I don't feel Charred has to apologize for this, as he is no extremist. But when we look at what a good portion of what the Islamic world does, it does not match the ideals he espouses.

[charred_heart]

thanks for that meshou,
For those who are under attack by any extremist group: you have a right to defend yourself and your loved ones.

I did not start this thread to aid extremists, or even to disassociate myself from them. I view the members of these groups as people who have to be dealt with according to their actions.
I started this thread because I have discovered that the propeganda of these groups has completely eclipsed the true beliefs of the religion I am practising, and I had to counter that.

How can you tell what is true to Islam and what is extremism? That is a question you can answer yourself by employing logic and reasoning.
can any religion contain text that encourages people to hold a school hostage and kill it's students? Or to publicly abuse a rape victim?

I would also like to add that I do not search for obscure evidence from modern or 'alternative' Islamic scriptures to promote my own personal beliefs, I go directly to the source: the Quran.
I was disenchanted with Islam for years. I only realised that Islam is a moderate religion after reading more of the Quran and legitimate literature, the sayings of the prophet - hadith. Even when answering a post regarding a verse from the quran, I gave the interpretation specific to that verse. I did not evade or bring in any other sayings or verses because I also have to test my beliefs if I am to know that they are based on reality and not my own romantic aspirations.

[distraction tactics]

I'm gonna post again with a proper response as I am not lucid at the moment. Did you post a reference about Islam showing a satire of an arab with a dynamite up his ass distraction_tactics? Doesn't seem very objective, or reliable!
I'm sure you can do better than that...


I can state with 100% certainty I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Posting again later when you're 'lucid' sounds like an excellent idea.


I did not start this thread to aid extremists, or even to disassociate myself from them. I view the members of these groups as people who have to be dealt with according to their actions.
I started this thread because I have discovered that the propeganda of these groups has completely eclipsed the true beliefs of the religion I am practising, and I had to counter that.

When I see a post detailing all positive features of a religion, under the title of "The truth about Islam", I am not wrong in assuming this is the message you're consciously trying to push, or what you actually, personally, believe to be the 'truth'. However, when the reality of the religion is much different that the image you wish to portray, I'm calling you on your shit, plain and simple.

There is nothing in meshou's post not directly stated or reasonably inferred from my own, yet somehow she's more palatable (granted, she's skilled in diplomacy). Your position has gone from "that's not REAL Islam" to "now you're just hurting my feelings". I'm sure you're a 'good dude' and all that, but that's not the point. This is an argument over your claims about the 'truth' of Islam, not you yourself. Learn to diffrentiate between the two.

[charred_heart]

I can state with 100% certainty I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
didn't you include this link in your previous post? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/011214.html

[Sammy]

For all the iNTP's out there, I point you to this:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

[charred_heart]

For all the iNTP's out there, I point you to this:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
funny

[Sammy]

funny

yes truth can sometimes seem that way when you've been away from it too long.

[panda]

I strongly agree with distraction tactics. Sammy's link is good, too.

[PenguinHunter]

The point is not that Islam is unique to cases of extremism, nor is it to a lesser extent that the Qu'ran explicitly encourages violence against non-Muslims.

Political motivations may (or may not) play a role in Islamic extremism, but to deny the religious influence is akin to denying religion had anything to do with the conflict in Northern Ireland. What's worse in the case of Islam, is that extremists are using their religion to justify specific methods of armed conflict.

This is not the impression I got from your post #25:




When was the last time a Buddhist flew a jet plane into a skyscraper?

When was the last time a Hellenist blew themselves up at a wedding reception?

When was the last time a Christian stoned a rape victim to death?

Perhaps this was a rash statement made in the heat of the debate. If so, I'll ignore it, if not you will have to explain this quote in the context of your more recent posts because I don't get it.

I agree with you on some points but I don't see a need to attack charred_heart's interpretations of Islam. The fact that some other Muslims attempt to use the Koran to justify their own destructive actions is irrelevent to what I interpreted to be charred _heart's personal "Truth" about Islam.

I'm sure if you asked him, he would immediately condemn suicide bombers and other such extremists (he may have already I can't remember).

I disagree with your NIreland example because I don't think you necessarily should view religion as the primary cause of conflict there. Similarly, it has made up some of the surface tensions but underneath other social, economic and political factors are more important.

Also worth noting is that some interpretations may be viewed as better or more accurate and more fully backed up - sort of like writing an english paper. So the "truth" may simply be the closest you can get to what the novel advocates or represents. In the case of a book as complex, and in some cases contradictory, as the Koran more than one argument may seem the best to different groups of people. So, as I said, no need to condemn ch's analysis because others (including yourself) view it differently. I've seen no evidence so far to suggest that you or him are making a stronger case.

Now you will probably attack him for suggesting that he is presenting the ONLY view of Islam but if you look at his second (third?) post he admits that his link is a little fuzzy and could be better argued so he is clearly far from inflexible. He sees a problem with specifically pointing out the destructive interpretations because he doesn't feel that these interpretations are in line with the text as a whole. (I am extrapolating a bit here so correct me if I'm wrong). I see nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, you have not really addressed the issue of Islamic extremism as a political movement rather than a religious one. Your Northern Ireland parallel seems a little weak in my opinion. What is it that makes you feel that Islam is specifically important to the rise of the Arab/Islamic World regional extremism? Either Islam is just another doctrine which may be abused (something which you have alluded to although I have now pointed out one of the contradictions within your posts in that you do seem to be heavily against Islam in particular) or it is fundamentally bad and should be singled out from other world views, the vibe I'm getting at the moment.

Unfortunately I have to cut this short (heh, it's longer than I thought) because I have to make sure I finish a paper on time, but I am going to try and come back to try and show, using the example of the rise of Hamas, how important regional politics and economics is to extremism.

[PenguinHunter]

Continued. . .

So I finished my paper and as promised I would like to try and explain why I believe one should not think of "Islamic Fundamentalism" as a religious movement. I'll use some examples and hopefully get to Hamas, a group often associated with Islamic Extremism. Hopefully this will help show to better explain my previous arguments. (A lot of this is from a class I'm taking on Arab-Israeli politics just so you don't think I'm pulling this out of my ass. I'm also hoping this will help for an upcoming exam so sorry if there are a few extra, possibly irrelevent details. A lot this was derived from Robinson's Building a Palestinian State (http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=1037_1215_1289&products_id=20703)).

The first important thing to understand about Islamism is that the leaders who come on to the scene of such extreme movements or revolutions are more likely to come out of the more modern parts of Middle Eastern society rather than spiritual centres. Often a religious leader is used to give legitimacy to a movement but his base is almost always going to be a group of disgruntled 20 or 30-somethings in a highly modern urban centre. These people are often university students who have studied abroad or have studied in secular schools at home. In short, Islamists generally have the same background as nationialist leaders like Nassir and the Ba'thists from the generation before the shift to Islamist politics.

A primary example of this is the Iranian revolution. Ayatullahs Khomeni and Taleqani did not have traditional, conservative, religious bases of support (from both clerics and the masses) in cities like Qom and Mashhad (more religious centres of Iran) but rather in Tehran. Their support was built largely from university students and prisoners convicted under the shah.

Some stats: 70% of the Egyptian islamist group Tanzim al-Jihad (who assassinated the Egyptian leader Sadat) was made up of secular students and professionals. Most of the members were just well-educated 20 or 30-somethings. Similar trends appear in the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front and in the government backed Islamist movements of Sudan.

The point of this is to show that Islamism derives most of its support from a secular background rather than a religious one. The question is then, why do does this new middle class not use secular arguments to invoke change and instead go to religious ones? This can be explained by the perception, by much of this group, of a distinct failure of past secular regimes. There were all kinds of promises made when much of the Middle East was granted independence. People had high hopes for their new nations. Thinking particularly of Egypt here, when economies began to slump and promises of jobs, education and overall increased standards of living were not fulfilled, there began to be a distrust for government and a shift towards privitization of social services. As this happens however, there is also a window which Islam gets to step into. Naturally Islam, like most religions, has strong anti-corruption vibes so it was seen as more pure and mosques begin to become social centres. You go there not just for religion but in the hopes of meeting an employer. Religious organizations set up healthcare services, nurseries and schools which the government is struggling to pay for. The young generation bulge gets a sense of belonging and hope from joining the religious community more fervently (but not necessarily violently) because it is the religious institutions who are providing many of the key social services. (To hopefully cut off the feminist critique it is important to note that many young women also chose to express themselves through traditional dress at a time when such practices where not widespread. This was not a testament to barbaric religious traditions, it was a cultural statement made in full-knowledge of their social rights.)

There are external factors too. The Arab world could look at Israeli miltary strength in its defeat of Egypt, Syria and Jordan in '67 and say look at what happens when a nation organizes itself around a religious identity. Look at the solidarity. Back to Iran they can say, look at how Islam took down the shah who had a professional military, oil money, AND US support. (Obviously religion is not the reason for these events but that doesn't change how they are perceived. Keep in mind though that this could just as easily be a communist or capitalist identity or some other far reaching secular identity. The most important thing is that if lots of successful groups of people share this identity more will join this identity and claim that it is the cause of success, whether it is or not.)

So to Palestine and Hamas. Initially Hamas was actually indirectly supported by Israel (in that they did not attack it directly and did their best to allow it to develop because it was seen as an institution in opposition to the Palestinian Authority). Hamas wanted to reform the government corruption and cronyism present in the PA, something it felt was necessary before it could take on Israel. Again here we have Islam as a unifying force but it is not Islamic principles that are being fought for. It wasn't until 1987-90 that Hamas became a full-fledged opponent of the Israeli occupation (once the PLO has been shipped away to Tunis). The first Intifada was not a religious movement, it was an aggressive movement against Israeli occupation, but Hamas (then still a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood) was able to tap into this and give it official support, creating more unification by pointing out religious commonality between all the members of this grass-roots rebellion.

I'm trying to show that although Hamas (and most of these groups) has been incorrectly labelled as an institution based on religion rather than regional politics. Islam becomes a form of social expression which serves only to connect people with a common political cause.

One can extend this smaller more concise example to larger ones in the region. First comes colonialism (or neocolonialism), then comes nationalism and then comes Islamism. But "nationalism" and "Islamism" only refer to the surfaces of the movements because both had the same goals in mind. In one case extremist groups fight for freedom while waving a flag to unite them, in the other case the extremist groups fight for freedom while reading from a book to unite them. Islamism is not (despite its name) rooted in Islam. As we look to the current backlash against America, the Islamist is simply viewing the US as the current oppressor. They support direct occupation in Israel and Iraq they support indirect occupation by being an economic powerhouse. The terrorist attacks are clothed in religion but the fundamental goal of the movement is firmly secular.

So to conclude it is not a question of Islam, nor is it a question of religion but rather it is a question of social identity. You are going to fight for an institution that you perceive as giving you a better standard of living and hope for the future. Islam as a religion is separate from this desire. You can attack Islam as a social identity but no more so than you can attack American/Canadian/European patriotism as a social identity.

Finally this hopefully elaborates on my suggestion that the "truth about Islam" should be a personal endeavor and we can evaluate the different arguments as they come in. Look a the Koran separately from it's current use in movements you disagree with and you may find that you agree with the overall feel of the work. I think at the moment you are still too concerned with how others are interpreting the Koran instead of simply reading it and taking your own stance. You said you have to take the bad with the good but it seems to me that if the overall tone is positive as charred_heart suggests then there is no reason to dig up quotes which may seem to contradict that view. If the overall tone is in fact bad then I would like to see a more thorough discussion grounded in the text itself rather than a collection other people's disconnected quotations and world events.

I hope I explained all this well, it is getting a bit late. (I also hope that wasn't really boring to read.)

[Johnny]

Jihad:
The most excellent Jihad is that for the conquest of selfI find this the most interesting and the most ironic, seeing as the majority of posts here imply or request some sort of validation by others

What is the self and how does one conquer the self

What is left after the self is conquered...a waste of land between trenches a la WWI...an oasis paradise in the desert...both/neither?

Maybe it was just a poor choice of words and I am inferring something unintended, but I don't understand how conquest ever did anything but preserve the self

[charred_heart]

conquest of the self: overcoming your obstacles, rising above your fears, reaching your goals etc.

[Johnny]

conquest of the self: overcoming your obstacles, rising above your fears, reaching your goals etc.
Maybe that's not always such a good thing...maybe some obstacles, some fears should be honored and paid tribute rather than disarming or destroying no?

[distraction tactics]

didn't you include this link in your previous post? http://www.straightdope.com/columns/011214.html

Hmm, wow.

Yes, I felt the information contained in the article was relevent to whatever point I was making at the time. I never noticed the cartoon, and had that been the point of the link, I would have instead slapped the pic up on photobucket and posted it directly in this thread. That cartoon is deliciously crude, but it doesn't have much use other than to offend. Believe it or not but that was never my focus in this thread.

[distraction tactics]

This is not the impression I got from your post #25:

Then please reconsider.

Post #25 details three examples of recent violent acts unique to Islam to bolster my claim that the negative aspects of the religion ignored in the OP do, in fact, exist. By providing examples specific to one faith in the context of my opposition to the OP, it does not logically follow that my argument is only Muslims ever commit violence. There is no need to detail Buddhist, Hellenist and Christian crimes when the topic at hand is Islam.


I agree with you on some points but I don't see a need to attack charred_heart's interpretations of Islam. The fact that some other Muslims attempt to use the Koran to justify their own destructive actions is irrelevent to what I interpreted to be charred _heart's personal "Truth" about Islam.

I'm sure if you asked him, he would immediately condemn suicide bombers and other such extremists (he may have already I can't remember).

No one's saying charred heart is sympathetic to extremists, least of all myself. I shouldn't have to say that is not my point.

The OP may be charred heart's 'personal truth' as you put it, but the fine distinction to appreciate is that because he makes no claims of its sole personal relevence, it's fair game to examine and attack the OP as an objective statement about Islam - applicable to all parties, not charred heart's personal, subjective beliefs.

This reminds me of how Eileen the INFJ argues the metaphorical significance of Christianity (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7311), acting as though the millions of Christians who approach Christianity from a literal point of view are not relevent to Christianity. Perhaps I'm being unfair to her - that may never have been her intention. Nonetheless, for most Christians it's a serious matter of a literal father figure existing and taking an interest in their lives.


I disagree with your NIreland example because I don't think you necessarily should view religion as the primary cause of conflict there. Similarly, it has made up some of the surface tensions but underneath other social, economic and political factors are more important.

Are you saying the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with the Catholic/Protestant divide? Would you also state the conflict between Israel and Palestine is purely of secular reasons and not the Muslim/Jewish divide? Come on, bro, give me a break.

I don't know why it's so politically incorrect to criticize religion, but I'm calling it like it is. Religion is a fundamental part of human society, and as such, is a fundamental part of conflict between different societies. To argue otherwise is completely absurd.


Also worth noting is that some interpretations may be viewed as better or more accurate and more fully backed up - sort of like writing an english paper. So the "truth" may simply be the closest you can get to what the novel advocates or represents. In the case of a book as complex, and in some cases contradictory, as the Koran more than one argument may seem the best to different groups of people. So, as I said, no need to condemn ch's analysis because others (including yourself) view it differently. I've seen no evidence so far to suggest that you or him are making a stronger case.

I'm not convinced your worth as an arbiter on the subject is of any. No offense intended.



Now you will probably attack him for suggesting that he is presenting the ONLY view of Islam but if you look at his second (third?) post he admits that his link is a little fuzzy and could be better argued so he is clearly far from inflexible. He sees a problem with specifically pointing out the destructive interpretations because he doesn't feel that these interpretations are in line with the text as a whole. (I am extrapolating a bit here so correct me if I'm wrong). I see nothing wrong with that.

Extrapolate what you will, play with your N possibilities - I'm concerned in nailing down specific points both contrary and related to the OP, not charred heart's spiritual struggle. My advice on spiritual matters has not been sought, nor would it be appreciated. At three pages into the thread I'm resigned to let charred heart detail his motivations behind the OP.


Furthermore, you have not really addressed the issue of Islamic extremism as a political movement rather than a religious one. Your Northern Ireland parallel seems a little weak in my opinion. What is it that makes you feel that Islam is specifically important to the rise of the Arab/Islamic World regional extremism?

First of all, what makes you think it isn't? Second, this isn't a discussion about the roots of Islamic extremism. Third, Islamic extremism was used as an example to paint a picture of reality not depicted in the OP. Some believe that wasn't justified as it didn't coincide with the rosy-posy picture of what they want Islam to be.

However, it seems silly to point out that if there wasn't a religious element to Islamic extremism, 'extremism' wouldn't be sub-defined as 'Islamic'. Cultural term? Perhaps, but maybe not - Christian culture has traditionally been sononymous with western society. Was Timothy McVeigh a Christian extremist? No. How about members of the NRA? Ah, but you can't state 'no' with the same confidence because religion was a fundamental part of that conflict.

It's as if you believe people check their religion at the door. Even in our highly secular society Christianity breeds political intolerance towards, for example, gays. Or do you assert the mass Christian opposition to gay marriage is founded in purely secular reasoning with no religious influence? If we were to actually take a look at nations with a majority Muslim population, I wonder how many of them would be (budding) theocracies? The idea that Islam doesn't influence the political climate of the middle east and Africa is to ignore, for one, the Taliban in Afghanistan. The burka is not the result of secular reasoning, but it is a testament to what a large portion of Muslim men believe to be the status of women. Religion is public life and plays a huge role in political events.

Please realize the claim that X influences Y is not the claim that X is the sole reason for Y. I see a bit of this going on and I think this board is better than that.


Either Islam is just another doctrine which may be abused (something which you have alluded to although I have now pointed out one of the contradictions within your posts in that you do seem to be heavily against Islam in particular) or it is fundamentally bad and should be singled out from other world views, the vibe I'm getting at the moment.

As this is a topic about Islam, and as my objections are in regards to the OP, is it not logical my focus would be on Islam? I am against religion in general and hold no special animosity for Islam. Attitudes concerning religion are not an all or nothing deal, and when speculating on personal motivations/beliefs, it's a crude characterization to frame them solely in black and white, absolute terms.

I don't believe I have done this to charred heart, because I don't do this to anyone with opposing beliefs. No one believes exactly the same thing all the time with the same intensity. However, if I did, I apologize. It certainly wasn't my intent, only my failing to be completely anal about every single word being typed from my fingers backed by a written contingency to every possible misinterpretation of my points.

Edit: I'm taking a break, but I will read your essay and try to respond within a day or two.

[PenguinHunter]

Then please reconsider.

Post #25 details three examples of recent violent acts unique to Islam to bolster my claim that the negative aspects of the religion ignored in the OP do, in fact, exist. By providing examples specific to one faith in the context of my opposition to the OP, it does not logically follow that my argument is only Muslims ever commit violence. There is no need to detail Buddhist, Hellenist and Christian crimes when the topic at hand is Islam.

It was more the tone I was getting at. It seemed to me that there was a heavy implication in the part that I quoted that Muslims cause problems, not Buddhists, Hellenists etc. But that's ok, I'll just leave it alone as I seem to have misinterpreted your intentions.



No one's saying charred heart is sympathetic to extremists, least of all myself. I shouldn't have to say that is not my point.

The OP may be charred heart's 'personal truth' as you put it, but the fine distinction to appreciate is that because he makes no claims of its sole personal relevence, it's fair game to examine and attack the OP as an objective statement about Islam - applicable to all parties, not charred heart's personal, subjective beliefs.

This reminds me of how Eileen the INFJ argues the metaphorical significance of Christianity (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7311), acting as though the millions of Christians who approach Christianity from a literal point of view are not relevent to Christianity. Perhaps I'm being unfair to her - that may never have been her intention. Nonetheless, for most Christians it's a serious matter of a literal father figure existing and taking an interest in their lives.


Ok, we probably do need charred_heart to clarify here. There is more about this in my continuation though so I will let you respond to that before I respond fully to this.



Are you saying the conflict in Northern Ireland had nothing to do with the Catholic/Protestant divide? Would you also state the conflict between Israel and Palestine is purely of secular reasons and not the Muslim/Jewish divide? Come on, bro, give me a break.

I don't know why it's so politically incorrect to criticize religion, but I'm calling it like it is. Religion is a fundamental part of human society, and as such, is a fundamental part of conflict between different societies. To argue otherwise is completely absurd.

That is precisely what I'm saying. My continuation hopefully explains this view more fully. Religion only works as an identifier in this conflict (and does not always work that way even) but is not an underlying cause. A Palestinian who goes to the US will not attack a Jew for being Jewish but he may attack a Jew if he is known to support Israel financially. Jews and Muslims lived together quite peacefully before the massive colonization from Europe. It's Israelis that draw the fire not Jews. Again my second post elaborates on this at length, hopefully I did the argument justice.

It's certainly not politically incorrect to criticize religion but I'm just trying to make sure that the criticisms are well justified.


I'm not convinced your worth as an arbiter on the subject is of any. No offense intended.
:lol: fair enough


First of all, what makes you think it isn't? Second, this isn't a discussion about the roots of Islamic extremism. Third, Islamic extremism was used as an example to paint a picture of reality not depicted in the OP. Some believe that wasn't justified as it didn't coincide with the rosy-posy picture of what they want Islam to be.

This discussion turns into one about Islamic extremism the moment you claim that it provides evidence for the "bad" parts of Islam. I say that Islamic extremism is not based in Islam, it is a far more secular struggle in which religion plays only a very minor (if any) role. Again a lot of this is comes up in my second post so I look forward to discussing the parts your feel to be relevent in greater detail. I'll leave the rest of it this until you get a chance to go through the second installment, heh.

Thanks for getting into this by the way. I think it's really interesting. I was a bit worried my long posts would kill the chance of a debate because people often can't be bothered or don't have time to get in to something in such detail.

[distraction tactics]

Thanks for getting into this by the way. I think it's really interesting. I was a bit worried my long posts would kill the chance of a debate because people often can't be bothered or don't have time to get in to something in such detail.

You're being extremely tolerant of me, and I appreciate this a great deal. Don't think I am ignoring your essay, I will respond. Discussing literal features of theism/agnosticism/atheism (the other thread) is second nature to me, therefore of little effort. Not so with subjective political situations with numerous variables - I need to spend some time mulling it over, partially because I used to agree with your position.

[PenguinHunter]

You're being extremely tolerant of me, and I appreciate this a great deal. Don't think I am ignoring your essay, I will respond. Discussing literal features of theism/agnosticism/atheism (the other thread) is second nature to me, therefore of little effort. Not so with subjective political situations with numerous variables - I need to spend some time mulling it over, partially because I used to agree with your position.

Haha, no worries I have a lot of real work (so to speak) of my own to do. Exam time soon. Don't feel that you should respond to it all at once either; it might be easier on both of us to go at it bit by bit if we can separate the most important issues out.

[charred_heart]

I couldn't reply sooner because my internet connection was out these past 2 days..

Maybe that's not always such a good thing...maybe some obstacles, some fears should be honored and paid tribute rather than disarming or destroying no?
I don't see any clash between overcoming your limits and remembering you had them ?



The OP may be charred heart's 'personal truth' as you put it, but the fine distinction to appreciate is that because he makes no claims of its sole personal relevence, it's fair game to examine and attack the OP as an objective statement about Islam - applicable to all parties, not charred heart's personal, subjective beliefs.
What I wrote did not cover the fundemental beliefs of Islam, it was a collection of the prophet mohamed's sayings that were meant to be thought provoking especially to people who are biased against Islam in particular.
I am guessing you didn't think it was appropriate of me not to include anything about war or violence d t. I was actually waiting to see people's reactions, and you responded by presenting a number of quotes and a verse from the quran as a way of showing the "other side" of Islam.

I can tell you with all honesty and complete confidence that there is no verse in the Quran or quote from the prophet Mohamed that would condone the killing of civilians, or any act of violence or destruction.

The question is what drives many Muslims into performing acts of violence.
Religous education plays a part in it, some scholars teach their students only about the praise of being a hero in battle and very little else. Politics also plays a role. In muslim countries despots pass their own idealogies as Islamic law which leads to whole generations being brought up on conspiracy theories and violent rhetoric. While in college I got to know a secular muslim who was from my home country, Sudan. One night we got into the topic of suicide bombers, and I mentioned that targetting an area where there were civilians -especially women and children- was wrong. He gave me this look and said "The non-muslims don't count". There's nothing in the Quran that supports his claim, but he's convinced he's right. We're from the same country, but I lived abroad. Both the country I come from and the country I live in are predominantly Muslim, but my country is run by a corrupt government with a unique idealogy that they enthusiatically include in all aspects of society. There's your answer for how a violent muslim comes to be.

Getting into a discussion about the negative aspects of Islam is more interesting and beneficial to me, but only if people are accurate and objective. Going with the 'Muslims are monsters' approach will get us nowhere.
If you want to present any statement as Islamic law, it has to be based on the Quran and in regards to an Islamic practice - a saying from the prophet Mohamed is permissible. Anything else is Hearsay. That's why I discounted four of the quotes you included distraction tactics because there was no proof accompanying the quotes (and by proof I mean a verse from the Quran). You also included some sayings of the prophet but you did not want to go into a discussion about them, maybe you thought I was just countering whatever you were saying and was unwilling to be open to debate. This is entirely untrue and I am clarifying it now so we can stick to the subject.


The Quran is also incomplete in English unfortunately, because the translated verses are not accompanied by the date and place they were recorded and also the reason the verse came to be, so an interpretation based on the translation alone is inaccurate. An example is the verse you mentioned in your first post which has a completely different meaning without this accompanying information:
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the pagans, and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pastime." (5.57)
Literal interpretation:
the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers
Correct interpretation:
Do not befriend those amongst the people of the Book (people who believe in one God) and those amongst the pagans who do not respect your religion
See my earlier post for details on why this verse was written (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=200178&postcount=23)

[distraction tactics]

What I wrote did not cover the fundemental beliefs of Islam, it was a collection of the prophet mohamed's sayings that were meant to be thought provoking especially to people who are biased against Islam in particular. I am guessing you didn't think it was appropriate of me not to include anything about war or violence d t. I was actually waiting to see people's reactions, and you responded by presenting a number of quotes and a verse from the quran as a way of showing the "other side" of Islam.

Understood, and on this point I apologize for willfully ignoring this possibility.


I can tell you with all honesty and complete confidence that there is no verse in the Quran or quote from the prophet Mohamed that would condone the killing of civilians, or any act of violence or destruction.

I won't deny this as I have not read the Qu'ran in its entirety (as well it's a translated text). However, skimming the first few pages of 'The Cow' it's remarkable the venom directed at unbelievers. This continues throughout the text, and I will never be convinced this is in any way positive.

However, The Hadiths exist and are also sources of Muslim belief, and the point of religion being more than its holy book still stands.


Getting into a discussion about the negative aspects of Islam is more interesting and beneficial to me, but only if people are accurate and objective. Going with the 'Muslims are monsters' approach will get us nowhere.
If you want to present any statement as Islamic law, it has to be based on the Quran and in regards to an Islamic practice - a saying from the prophet Mohamed is permissible. Anything else is Hearsay. That's why I discounted four of the quotes you included distraction tactics because there was no proof accompanying the quotes (and by proof I mean a verse from the Quran). You also included some sayings of the prophet but you did not want to go into a discussion about them, maybe you thought I was just countering whatever you were saying and was unwilling to be open to debate. This is entirely untrue and I am clarifying it now so we can stick to the subject.

Despite my distaste for religion in general, I am capable of divorcing a person from their religious beliefs. I have heard the question asked, "...but surely you can respect my belief?" No, I can't, but that does not mean I don't respect the person you are. I'm not trying to villify Muslims as a whole - I support those on practical grounds who are speaking out against the extremists - but I do villify religious extremists (of any faith) and I don't believe, er, 'progressive' or 'normal' Muslims are justified in divorcing themselves against extremists. To say 'not real Islam' is like 'no true Scotsman', and it is okay to speak out against your brothers.

When it comes to debating the Qu'ran, I simply don't have the knowledge and that's beyond the scope of my intent for this thread. However, knowing how Christian apologists can gloss over ugly parts of the Bible (and not being truthful in doing so), I am prepared to believe Muslims do this as well. It serves their purpose and why not? When we support something it's easy to ignore or downplay potential problems.


The Quran is also incomplete in English unfortunately, because the translated verses are not accompanied by the date and place they were recorded and also the reason the verse came to be, so an interpretation based on the translation alone is inaccurate. An example is the verse you mentioned in your first post which has a completely different meaning without this accompanying information:
"Believers, do not seek the friendship of the pagans, and those who were given the Book before you, who have made your religion a jest and a pastime." (5.57)
Literal interpretation:
the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers
Correct interpretation:
Do not befriend those amongst the people of the Book (people who believe in one God) and those amongst the pagans who do not respect your religion
See my earlier post for details on why this verse was written (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=200178&postcount=23)

I understand the limitations of translation and the nature of context. However, that's not the only quote to be found. The aforementioned book The End of Faith has several pages of intolerant quotes from the Qu'ran and is but a small sample.

[charred_heart]

I'm sorry i didn't reply to you distraction_tactics because I believe your post deserves one, for being gracious.
I didn't reply because I am low on energy because of life. It would take some effort from me to post again with something meaningful that would be clear and to the point, which is something I feel I can't do at the moment. I'd like to continue this conversation, and hope to when I can come back with a more solid contribution.

[distraction tactics]

I'm sorry i didn't reply to you distraction_tactics because I believe your post deserves one, for being gracious.
I didn't reply because I am low on energy because of life. It would take some effort from me to post again with something meaningful that would be clear and to the point, which is something I feel I can't do at the moment. I'd like to continue this conversation, and hope to when I can come back with a more solid contribution.

No worries, broseph. I'm facing the same scenario in regards to PH's essay. Unfortunately I'm a lazy schmuck who, by all rights, shouldn't be humoured with a sincere post.

[Maniac]

In muslim countries despots pass their own idealogies as Islamic law which leads to whole generations being brought up on conspiracy theories and violent rhetoric.

Exactly. When people say they have a problem with Islam, I would think they don't mean the religion itself, wrapped up in its blanket of ideals, but I think they mean the way it is practised today. How many Imams completely twist and pervert Islam to brainwash people into doing acts of violence such as suicide bombing? Islam as a religion may be great, but nobody really cares, because more and more we see people running around like your friend, who says that "non-muslims don't count," than the opposite. Stop defending the religion, it's not under fire. The way it's practised (and therefore, the people who practice it) are.

[Nemesis]

you might want to be careful with this thread. maniac is online now