10 reasons

[Sergeant Thorne]

The only POVs that I've heard so far in favor of Islam involve a lot of unknowns and abstractions! You folks have made anything but a solid case! The only case you've managed to put together is that we can't know, and as a matter of principle I don't buy that. And now you try to call Bettina out as a bigot because she won't budge from her view that's based on the Koran itself. That pisses me off! You're bankrupt...

[edited to take into account Foil's latest reply...]
And just how are we supposed to find an unbiased knowledgeable source? Did you know that the Koran authorizes Muslims to lie to the infidels?

[Ferno]

The only POVs that I've heard so far in favor of Islam involve a lot of unknowns and abstractions! You folks have made anything but a solid case!

and those against have??

yeaaa...

there's only been a few people in this thread who haven't been BS artists. and they know who they are.

[Flabby Chick]

Dismissing Islamic culture out of hand is not the same as dismissing the bastardization of the religion by fanatics.

Bet, i agree with you. The people who interpret their book as a means to gain power, money, status or free virgins are arseholes who should be hunted down. I do not believe 1.6 billion Muslims believe this however.

The way of dismissing Islam in terms of in or out of favour is the first step towards racism, ethnic cleansing and holocausts.

[Spaceboy]

Bett, I was trying to show that stories and books written thousands of years ago and translated by untold scribes aren't exactly what was said originally and have been embellished and have changed in some cases quite dramatically. I think that at this point you just refuse to accept any other person's point of view outright without actually even stopping to think about it or have a valid supporting argument. Especially over this Sura 4:34 verse. Get a grip. And your sources are laughable... how much more right wing can you get? Copying and pasting links to unsubstantiated "News" articles doesn't count either. Both articles reek of American propaganda to the Nth degree. Why don't you just join the army and go over there like a good little soldier? Then you can set things "right" with Sura 4:34 once and for all. And how does the actions of an extremist militant group in Afghanistan years ago cause you to condemn an entire religion? Wow... just wow. No wonder the Arabs hate Americans.

You have it all wrong. Bet is always right. 100% of the time. Every aspect of her argument and every third party site she's pulling information from, I'd... just have to say it's perfect. Only the translations that go along with her agenda are correct, out of hundreds that have existed. You should listen to her, she has some insanely strong points. That's exactly why 1.6 billion muslims are all attacking the world right now.

[Foil]

Spaceboy, you could have voiced your stance without the sarcasm or making it personal.

Let's keep this discussion professional, guys.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Look, I know that this is directed at Bettina, but I would like to respond anyway.

Dismissing Islamic culture out of hand is not the same as dismissing the bastardization of the religion by fanatics.

First of all, this doesn't mean much in the context of this discussion (assuming you're all keeping up with it). Bastardization of the religion by fanatics is what you folks are claiming is responsible. You'd have to prove that before you could use it with any effect in another argument. Secondly, if we're going to start talking about Islamic Culture, I think there are some very good things, morally, about Islamic culture, but you're missing the point and detracting from the discussion: Islam is a religion--an ideal, as discussed in this topic.

Bet, i agree with you. The people who interpret their book as a means to gain power, money, status or free virgins are arseholes who should be hunted down.

That's not the position she was taking, that's your position. But it's always a relief to know that you agree with yourself. Our stance (correct me if I'm misrepresenting any of you), is that it's the core of the religion that's wrong. If you can't prove otherwise, then you're just blowing a bunch of smoke.

I do not believe 1.6 billion Muslims believe this however.

Welcome aboard, I don't know how many believe it, but its right in the Koran for any Muslim who's honest enough to see it. And therein lies the danger. The ones who reinterpret the Koran to align it with peace are deceiving themselves, those they teach, and the West. They're just complicating the problem. If it's there, and we join in saying it isn't, and a devout Muslim comes along and finds it for himself, we've all been lying and that puts him in the right (though in the wrong)!

The way of dismissing Islam in terms of in or out of favour is the first step towards racism, ethnic cleansing and holocausts.

Should we close our eyes to the nature of Islam, so that we won't be temped to be prejudiced against the people themselves?! We cannot make sound decisions unless we see things for what they really are. And I'm not speaking in terms of in or out of favor, but in recognizing something as dangerous, because it is.

[Foil]

Our stance ... is that it's the core of the religion that's wrong. If you can't prove otherwise, then you're just blowing a bunch of smoke.

... and if you can't prove your own stance, then you're just blowing a bunch of smoke, too.

Maybe you're right and the fundamentalist whackos are the followers of "true Islam". Maybe you're wrong, and the fundamentalist whackos are the ones who have perverted "true Islam". I know enough to be aware that most Westerners who claim one way or the other are basing their claim on limited (and probably media-hyped) information.

I'll ask it again: what makes you so sure you're right? How do you know that the propaganda on one side is right, and the propaganda on the other side is wrong? Have you talked to Islamic theologians?

Note that I'm not saying I know otherwise. I'm saying that I'm not arrogant enough to make the assumption that I (as a non-Muslim, living in a very different culture, and far from being an expert on Islam) know more about the 'core' of Islam than many Muslim scholars.

I'm a Christian living in the overly-media-hyped West. I would have to be a fool to think I have an unbiased firm grasp on what the core of Islam "really is".

I do not believe 1.6 billion Muslims believe this however.

Welcome aboard, I don't know how many believe it, but its right in the Koran for any Muslim who's honest enough to see it.

Again, why are you so sure the fundamentalist whackos are looking at their scripture "honestly", and the rest are being "dishonest" in their interpretations?

The way of dismissing Islam in terms of in or out of favour is the first step towards racism, ethnic cleansing and holocausts.

Should we close our eyes to the nature of Islam, so that we won't be temped to be prejudiced against the people themselves?!

Again, you're assuming that your view of "the nature of Islam" is the "correct" one.

I think Flabby's point is a good one, especially since we're talking about the idea that "the beliefs of a whole group of people are evil by nature". In many people's minds, that statement equates to "the whole group of people are evil by nature", which is a dangerous way of thinking.

...dangerous, because it is.

"...because it is."? *sigh*

I still have yet to see anything not filtered through Western media here. C'mon, any Muslims in the house?

[Bet51987]

Krom, MD-2389. You two have called me names more than anyone else but I will accept them because of what I said to you last year.

Ferno, I admire you. Always \"playing it safe\" in every discussion by using simple one liners. I have to start doing that.

Canuck, I would have answered you but it's getting too personal.

Spaceboy, I'm not always right but I am always worried and if your going to insult me, at least be original.

Foil, in the links I have been providing, I produced quotes from:

Ms. Bakhtiar, who has a doctorate in educational psychology.
Khaled Abou El Fadl, Law professor and Islamic scholar at the University of California.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islamic scholar, George Washington University
Ingrid Mattson, Islamic history expert, first woman to be president of the Islamic Society of North America

I doubt I can find any scholar's in the Middle East that would be willing to tell the truth and still be able to live there. However, if you can give me some links I will read them.

Bee
(P.S. Thanks Seargeant

[Krom]

I doubt I can find any scholar's in the Middle East that would be willing to tell the truth and still be able to live there. However, if you can give me some links I will read them.

Again this is just your bigoted personal opinion not based on any real experience. I have actually BEEN THERE to the Middle East, spoken with devout Muslims, been in mosques, and had conversations about politics with them.

I'm not denying that the extremists are wrong, but I find someone saying that "all Muslims are bad" to be offensively arrogant and foolish beyond what I'm willing to let pass.

[Foil]

Okay, this has gone way out-of-bounds into personal attacks.

(Edit: mods - thanks for removing the flames.)


P.S. Krom, they aren't quite saying \"all Muslims are bad\", they're saying \"all true Muslims are evil, and the rest aren't really following true Islam\".
(Which I still don't agree with because I question their rationale for who the \"real Muslims\" are... but clearly that discussion has just served to initiate personal attacks. I thought we were more mature than that here. )

[Bet51987]

EDIT: flame removed by Lothar. Don't do it again.

MD, I'm not complaining about your verbal attacks on me, or what those astericks really mean, but I'm surprised your a moderator since the moderators I've seen on respectable boards tend to be people who guide and set examples for the forum. I also know you have a lot of friends here so I would be stupid to step on you.

However, As long as I'm not flaming anyone (like I did last year ) I will continue to give my pov on all subjects, and provide links to back them up, until the other moderators tell me to stop.

Bee

[Krom]

P.S. Krom, they aren't quite saying "all Muslims are bad", they're saying "all true Muslims are evil, and the rest aren't really following true Islam".
(Which I still don't agree with because I question their rationale for who the "real Muslims" are... but clearly that discussion has just served to initiate personal attacks. I thought we were more mature than that here. )

Yeah, splitting hairs like that is only going to fool people who are desperate to be fooled and will take anything.

Also backing up ones position with links on the SPINternet is about as likely to be unbiased as asking for an opinion on Jews at a Nazi convention.

[Lothar]

stories and books written thousands of years ago and translated by untold scribes aren't exactly what was said originally

As it turns out, with both the Bible and the Koran, we can come very close to recovering the originals. We're not dealing with a giant game of telephone. (With some ancient works, we are, but not with either of those.) There's no doubt as to the original-language words on the page in this case.

The issue with the particular passage in question isn't "we're not sure what was originally written on the page", it's "we're not sure what he meant by it." Kinda like when a modern politician speaks and five talking heads debate over what exactly he meant by "is"... the word can have multiple meanings, and which one we select can drastically change what the passage means. So before we go arguing about what a horrible teaching it is, we'd better be damn sure we've picked the right original-language word.

like arguing that Adam is superior to Eve because he was made first and she picked an apple...

As an interesting aside: the creation order is other stuff, then man, then woman. Doesn't that imply that Eve is superior to Adam because she was the crowning achievement? Also according to the story, Eve was tricked, but Adam was not -- she was fooled, but he intentionally did wrong.

[Ferno]

\"all true Muslims are evil\"...

and yet.. Krom has blatantly stated he's spent time with a true muslim. Very few people are actually taking that into account.

[Lothar]

Some would argue that the person Krom has spent time with is not a true Muslim.

Personally, I think all you really have to do is look at the life of Muhammed, the guy Muslims are supposed to emulate. Are his actions the sort that should be emulated?

[Flabby Chick]

That we should judge that he should be emulated or not, is the point no?

I can't be bothered with this to be honest...

..if any of you want to come for a coffee, beer or whotnot, give me a ring.

Paul

[Canuck]

Quote Lothar;
As it turns out, with both the Bible and the Koran, we can come very close to recovering the originals. We're not dealing with a giant game of telephone. (With some ancient works, we are, but not with either of those.) There's no doubt as to the original-language words on the page in this case.

I'm telling you there are probably 11 or 14 different versions of these verses that I am aware of due to tribal and cultural translations. Some words translate much differently or not at all correctly to English so therein lies the confusion... and phrases do change meaning over time... so I do agree there is an underlying thread I do not think its the absolute truth due to translation difficulties, time factors and cultural differences.

[Duper]

Canuck, there isn't \"that much confusion\". This horse has been beat into the ground, grown up as peas and then boiled down into stew here. Lothar has done some very painstaking posts on this very topic in the past.

Besides, the many scriptures predate the Koran by hundreds and thousands of years. The Jewish scribes were far more picky that you give them credit for. Much of the old testament can be translated from the Septuagint(?) which was Greek.

[Ferno]

Some would argue that the person Krom has spent time with is not a true Muslim.

Personally, I think all you really have to do is look at the life of Muhammed, the guy Muslims are supposed to emulate. Are his actions the sort that should be emulated?

There's always: you have to walk a mile in a man's shoes before you judge him. I also think it's best to take the wisdom of older people and those who have actually experienced other religions first-hand in this case. youthful exuberance is one thing, but age and experience always wins out IMO.

[Bet51987]

Personally, I think all you really have to do is look at the life of Muhammed, the guy Muslims are supposed to emulate. Are his actions the sort that should be emulated?

You mean the difference between Mohammed the warrier, and the man who died for me? Sadly, too many are emulating the warrier.

Bee

[Duper]

Bet, they were the same person.

[Bet51987]

Bet, they were the same person.

Are you trying to trick me? Jesus Christ and Mohammed were two very different men, with very different methods.

Bee

[TechPro]

Bet, you're right. Jesus Christ and Muhammad are NOT the same person.

Any one who thinks they're the same person is seriously un-informed or highly mistaken. Take your pick.

[Canuck]

That Jesus Christ link crashed mozilla

I'm still saying with 14 different translations of a text written long ago we cannot in all honesty truly understand, due to cultural and due to words not being able to translate to English at all, the true context of ancient translations.

[Palzon]

It is wholly naive to assume that military tactics of the Islamic world against the West, i.e. terrorism, has more to do with their relgion than it does their military inferiority. Pragmatically, they cannot stand toe to toe with any major power, West or East. It is assinine to suggest this makes them inferior morally. Should they array themselves in a neat phalanx and challenge the Western powers to meet them at sundown at the OK Corral? The tactics they use may be dastardly by 21st century standards, but there is nothing barbaric about them in the overall context of history. In fact, it is indisputable that the Western powers proved in the 20th century that they were the most barbaric on eath in any time period.

This thread misses the point entirely. We don't have Islamic terrorism due to Islam. We have Islamic terrorism due to political instability in the Islamic world. Citizens of the West risk breaking the pelvis bone by bending over so far backwards to ignore this. And that includes most of the people in this thread (sorry).

If every citizen of the world were an atheist, there would still be terrorists attacking the West from the same parts. This is because so much of the Arab world is disenfrachised. Colonial powers dominated those regions and then abandoned them to local despots. Yet the local despots cannot provide stability or national unity. Naturally a power struggle ensues. Local opposition resents Western support of the local despots. (And Jews have always made great scapegoats). The West becomes a legitimate target (not morally legitimate as no war is moral, but pragmatically so).

Religion does not create the political or military aims. Religion is merely a convenient tool of propaganda to motivate imbeciles (of any faith) to martyr themselves. And what's more, attacking the \"enemy\" on the basis of his religion is equally a shameless tactic of propaganda. Thunderbunny is undoubtedly aware of this since his posts are nothing save propaganda. Let me just say this unequivocally: Christianity, Judaism, or any other is not superior to Islam. To even have such a debate is fantastic waste.

[Flabby Chick]

Very good post Pally.

[Pandora]

Very good post Pally.

x2

[Krom]

x3

[Lothar]

Thought-provoking post, Palzon.

Christianity, Judaism, or any other is not superior to Islam. To even have such a debate is fantastic waste.

So long as religions or philosophies differ from each other in any way, they can be "superior" or "inferior", at least in a given aspect as measured by a given standard. We have plenty of reason to debate such things, and to challenge people to adopt the superior rather than the inferior. That's the whole reason E&C exists -- we're trying to discover superior ideas and convince others of them. There's nothing special about Islam/Christianity/Judaism that exempts them from the same sort of critical debate we apply to other religious, political, moral, ethical, or philosophical positions.

That said, we should be careful in our judgement, but we often are not. If we're judging a religion based on its founder, we need to understand his behavior and reasoning, as well as the behavior of his enemies and the historical situation. If we're judging based on its teachings, we need to understand what the teachings are (and how certain we are that we've correctly translated them), how they fit together with each other, and how they fit into the historical setting. If we're judging based on religious adherents during a particular time period, we need to understand their behavior and reasoning, as well as the history of that time period. The only sense in which debate is ever "a waste" is when we're not willing to put in the effort to do it right and actually learn about what we're debating.

It is wholly naive to assume that military tactics of the Islamic world against the West, i.e. terrorism, has more to do with their relgion than it does their military inferiority.

It's also naive to assume they engage in terrorism entirely due to military inferiority. It's not as though Islamic terrorism is aimed entirely at militarily superior western targets; various Islamic sects also terrorize each other. And it's not as though they're aiming their attacks primarily at targets of military value, as "insurgent"/"freedom fighting" forces have historically done; attackers often target everyday people doing everyday things like buying food at a market. It's not as though every militarily inferior force in history has used the same sort of tactics. Terrorism isn't about military inferiority; it's about psychology -- both of the targets and of the attackers. That means the psychology of the attackers, including its religious aspects, is a valid topic for discussion. (It's also valid to discuss the psychology of those engaged in WWII or some other war, if that's the topic of discussion -- but don't drag this one off that way unless you have good reason.)

We have Islamic terrorism due to political instability in the Islamic world.

... AND due to the particular cultural, religious, and philosophical influences of Islam. There are and have historically been plenty of parts of the world where people are disenfranchised, where colonial powers abandoned them to local despots, etc. Different groups have responded to such situations in different ways, some more violent than others, and some more prone to target civilians than others. If atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, or Hinduism was the dominant religion in the region, there would no doubt be a response to disenfranchisement and despotism, but not necessarily the same response. It's naive to disregard political instability and place the blame entirely on religion. It's ALSO wholly naive to act as though we must disregard the role of culture, religion, and psychology.

We need to form a coherent, inclusive view. Muhammed's teachings, modern Islamic sectarian beliefs, Islamic and Arab cultures, disenfranchisement, and Western support for despots are ALL a part of the picture. Some people bend over backwards to ignore one part of the picture. Don't be one of them.

[Bet51987]

It is wholly naive to assume that military tactics of the Islamic world against the West, i.e. terrorism, has more to do with their relgion than it does their military inferiority.

Unfortunately, for the Islamic world, it has almost everything to do with the religion and it's not naive to think that way, given the world wide examples. I also agree with Lothar's post.

However, I agree with you about the atrocities carried out by the West...big time.

Bee

[Ferno]

*cough*

*blink, blink*

[TIGERassault]

So long as religions or philosophies differ from each other in any way, they can be "superior" or "inferior", at least in a given aspect as measured by a given standard.

That only applies when comparing two religions, or anything for that matter, to a certain aspect, such as "which religion has the most violent followers". However, when it comes to a matter of 'which is superior outright', you need several aspects from both parties.

[dissent]

Am currently reading Lawrence Wright's \"The Looming Tower\". Pretty interesting so far, and discusses in some detail the development of modern jihadism, for example, [from pp. 142-143]

Takfir is the mirror image of Islam, reversing its fundamental principles but maintaining the semblance of orthodoxy. The Quran explicitly states that Muslims shall not kill anyone, except as punishment for murder. The murderer of one innocent, the Quran warns, is judged \"as if he had murdered all of mankind.\" The killing of Muslims is an even greater offense. He who commits such an act, says the Quran, will find that \"his repayment is Hell, remaining in it timelessly, forever.\" How, then, could groups such as al-Jihad and the Islamic Group justify using violence against fellow Muslims in order to come to power? Sayyid Qutb had pointed the way by declaring that a leader who does not impose Sharia on the country must be an apostate. There is a well-known saying of the Prophet that the blood of Muslims cannot be shed except in three instances: in punishment for murder, or for marital infidelity, or for turning away from Islam. The pious Anwar Sadat was the first modern victim of the reverse logic of takfir.
The new takfiris, such as Dr. Fadl and Dr. Ahmed, extended the death warrant to encompass, for instance, anyone who registered to vote. Democracy, in their view, was against Islam because it placed in the hands of people authority that properly belonged to God. Therefore, anyone who voted was an apostate, and his life was forfeit. So anyone who disagreed with their joyless understanding of Islam - including the mujahideen leaders [in Afghanistan] they had ostensibly come to help, and even the entire population of Afghanistan, whom they regarded as infidels because they were not Salafists. The new takfiris believed that they were entitled to kill practically anyone and everyone who stood in their way; indeed, they saw it as a divine duty.

The thirst for \"purity\" is a seductive current in religion (not just Islam), but it is not always apparent where the river came from, where the river is going, how deep the water is, or what else lurks in the water.

[Canuck]

Excellent work Dissent, I enjoyed reading your post and it shows fundamentalism of any sort regardless of how far these Religions and NutBars twist the \"words\" to come up with a version that suits their purposes. It does nothing but lead to an agenda for murder, profit, and power.

I've also been trying to say how twisted these words can become over time in my posts, but your post also helped me understand how a current version of these sects validate what they are doing and how they can recruit.

Plus I would be pi&&ed if a foreign Country sent their military into my Town and would fight back too.

[dissent]

Google takir and you get stuff like this –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir

http://www.muslim.org/movement/maudoodi/art-takfir.htm

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news ... id=2370047

It does not seem to be a very simple situation of a few buzzwords to wrap your arms around this, especially for those of us not well schooled in middle eastern history …

[Canuck]

We are also dealing with a language that has several meanings of the same word depending on the social situation... some mean drastically different things as illustrated. English literal translation doesn't and cant do it justice.

[Sergeant Thorne]

We are also dealing with a language that has several meanings of the same word depending on the social situation... some mean drastically different things as illustrated. English literal translation doesn't and cant do it justice.

That's a naive assumption. Hebrew and Greek share those kind of situations. I have some decent exposure to translation. My Dad has been involved with both Greek and Hebrew since before I was born. Those are the very kinds of things that scholars take into account in the translation. That is the important difference between "translation" and what might be called "transliteration."

That said, I can certainly see how someone could make that mistake, but I think it should serve as a warning to all of us in regards to making assumptions, or assumption-based abstractions, concerning things we really may not know enough about.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Here is the source, in the Koran, of what Thunderbunny mentioned concerning Muslims having infidels under tribute.

29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Let's look at it from a slightly different perspective. From this statement, it's clear to me that Islam is, at the very least, absolutely contrary to the ideals of freedom that America was founded on. For all of you folks who are against discrimination (and admirably so, in many ways), you should consider that to grant equality to a religion which entails political elements so absolutely contrary to those of our country is to invite the subversion or destruction of the very aspects of America that have made it great! If we consider this, it must be concluded that to classify the subject as merely a matter of discrimination or non-discrimination, is to take a dangerously simplistic view.

I could make a solid argument that Muslims should not even be allowed U.S. citizenship! The very suggestion of which would probably induce a seizure in people blindly dedicated to "non-discrimination."

[Pandora]

Again, context is everything. Your quote refers to \"Jizya\" which Wikipedia describes as follows.

Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah is a per capita tax levied on the state's non-Muslim citizens. The tax was in theory levied on able bodied men of military age, (with some exemptions, though these were discarded at various points in history). From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' subjection, \"just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes.\"In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.

or:

In return for the tax, those who paid the jizya were permitted to keep their non-Muslim religion. Their economic and political security was guaranteed (dhimma) by the Islamic state They could not serve in the military or bear arms, but their community was considered to be under the protection of the Muslim state, subject to their meeting certain conditions. Non-Muslims were also exempt from zakat, or mandatory alms paid by Muslims. If someone refused to pay the jizya, he could be imprisoned, according to Abu Yusuf. The jizya and zakat were kept separate, as it was considered inequitable to spend jizya (collected from non-Muslims) on the welfare of Muslims and vice versa.

so in fact the quote describes a pretty un-discriminatory attitude towards non-believers, especially if you consider it in its historic context.

[Bet51987]

...so in fact the quote describes a pretty un-discriminatory attitude towards non-believers, especially if you consider it in its historic context.

I don't think so. Non-Muslims living under Islamic law can only be seen as being an inferior form of life and I doubt non Muslims would welcome this sort of dual citizenship.

The Jizya "tax" is not only highly discriminatory, but is just another form of "mafia protection". Pay up, convert, or die.

Bee