DescentBB

Canuck wrote:How many practicing Muslims does each poster know? I want a count.

Five. One of them was my Calculus professor.

I chatted with a couple of guys today about this whilst on a coffee break this morning. Sarwan and Adnan, brothers, in their thirties and forties. They have a family buisness that does building work. From designing through to the finished product...he did the extension on my house. They're both practicing Muslims, they don't drink (though many do) or eat pig. Fast on ramadan ect ect.

When i questioned them, and referred to the thread here, they suggested that 'the west' reads the books and watches the TV to learn about their culture, but doesnt actually engage in conversation with them. They couldn't give a toss about the spreading of 'muslamity' (cute word) They just wanted to make enough money for the kids, family ect, and get on with their life. Normal blokes.

I'd never actually told them i wasn't jewish, which they were surprised about...but both said...what does it matter as long as you're a friendly bloke.

They had issues, for sure, with American and Israeli foriegn policy...but that's a different subject.

Three guys, one atheist and two muslims having a coffee break overlooking the sea of Galillee...chewing the cud.

That's 2 vs 10,000. That's not a good ratio. A good start, perhaps...

lol..i deserved that didn't i?

You're right. There are nutters. The trend at the moment to attack the arts for 'blasphemy' is bloody ridiculous, on the other hand the media do tend to pump the public with it.

The thousands of screaming 'protesters' that you talk about look pretty daft too, especially when you take into contest what they're all het up about. A thing to take into account here though is that arab culture is very tribalistic, from a family level (the husband being the big chief) to a nationalistic scale. If you go against the grain, or are a member of a different faction, you better have your mates behind you.

It's a different culture is all. At times it's brutal, abrupt or angry. At others it's warm, fascinating and insensly polite. If any of you have been invited to dinner at a Muslim families house you know you get treated with so much respect it's almost embarrassing.

I say that if a doctrine is found to be wanting, drop it like a bad habit; don't modify it to your liking--if the core is bad, get rid of it! (I consider this to be very basic common-sense)

I have the same issue with anyone who claims to be a Christian, but doesn't really believe the Bible. If they don't believe some of the things Jesus himself said, they would be better off rejecting it altogether. I believe they would be wrong, but at least they wouldn't be deluded (which I am convinced, in life, has worse consequences than merely being wrong).

Canuck wrote:How many practicing Muslims does each poster know? I want a count.

I know a handful, but I wouldn't be able to give an exact count. When we had PE in school, they'd be excempt from it during Ramadan.

I think a better question would be 'how many extremist Muslims do/did any posters know personally'. Because it'd be nice if any anti-Islam people here actually knew of someone like that, and not just took what they heard or read of.

I see two discussions going on here. One about Islam, and one about Muslim individuals.

I'm not against Muslim individuals, I'm sure any number of them are just like us in many ways (taking care of their families and living their lives), but I am necessarily wary of anyone involved in the Islam religion, because, as ThunderBunny states, Islam is not a religion of peace!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I see two discussions going on here. One about Islam, and one about Muslim individuals.

I'm not against Muslim individuals, I'm sure any number of them are just like us in many ways (taking care of their families and living their lives), but I am necessarily wary of anyone involved in the Islam religion, because, as ThunderBunny states, Islam is not a religion of peace!

But Muslim individuals are involed in the Islam religion.

Oh ★■◆●, they are?! *runs away screaming*

It means that while just because all of the 9/11 bombers were Muslim terrorists doesn't ipso-facto mean that all Muslims are suicide bombers, everyone who calls themself a muslim has the potential to adhere to the teachings of the Koran, which involves the subjugation that ThunderBunny wrote of.

See, most Americans that I've heard have bought into the alternately extreme view that \"Islam is peace\", to combat the post-9/11 extreme view that \"all Muslims are Suicide Bombers.\" But what TB, myself, and a number of others are pointing out is that it's the \"Islam is peace\" group, not the murderers, that are the dissenters of Islam (and that's assuming that they're not just lying--an assumption that I make only for the sake of debate).

How many practicing Muslims does each poster know? I want a count.

I know two.

Practicing christians? three.

I know two. Nice blokes, never hurt a fly and condemn terrorism.

What I find odd is that we have a number of non-Muslims here trying to claim \"what true Islam really is\", when it's clearly a matter of some debate, even among Muslim theologians.

Fundamentalist Muslims will tell you that Islam \"really is\" : subjugation of the infidels, domination of women, violence against those who oppose.

Non-fundamentalist Muslims will tell you that Islam \"really is\" : peace, worship of Allah, and living a good life.


... So if it's debated even among expert Muslims, why should I give credence to any non-Muslim's interpretation about which of these Islam \"really is\"?

I'd be much more inclined to listen to Muslim theologians debate the \"true nature of Islam\" than anyone here. (Do we have a Muslim in the house?)

I think a problem with Quran interpretations like TB's is that we naturally assume to know the context in which the texts should be read, and draw the conclusions from that. But consider how the meaning of many often-cited bible quotes changes once Lothar or Foil or Kilarin have given their input and given the appropriate context. Why would this be any different for Islam, from which we non-believers are even more removed than from the bible? How can anybody of us really believe he would understand a word of what is implied by the texts without having really studied it and talked to the relevant scholars?

(edit: posted at the same time as Foil's post above)

Bet51987 wrote:
Anyway, I promised myself I would control my online temper this year and be a good forum member.

Bee

Are you truly trying to become boring?

Foil wrote:I'd be much more inclined to listen to Muslim theologians debate the "true nature of Islam" than anyone here.

That's like listening to what Jack Thompson has to say about videogames.

Foil wrote:(Do we have a Muslim in the house?)

Apparently muslims don't know how to fly 360DoF space ships...

Canuck wrote:I don't see that on my news here but I suspect if some Muslim came up with a stuffed camel called Jesus, or wrote a book called "Jesus was just a guy" there would be more than a few Christians offended.

Offended yes but not homicidal. Imagine how the the muslums would react if Allah of Mohammad were depicted thusly:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/c ... donna.html

Ferno wrote:

Foil wrote:I'd be much more inclined to listen to Muslim theologians debate the "true nature of Islam" than anyone here.

That's like listening to what Jack Thompson has to say about videogames.

Exactly.

Pandora wrote:I think a problem with Quran interpretations like TB's is that we naturally assume to know the context in which the texts should be read, and draw the conclusions from that. But consider how the meaning of many often-cited bible quotes changes once Lothar or Foil or Kilarin have given their input and given the appropriate context.

Maybe they can interpret Sura 4:34 for me. Then we can go from there.

Bee

A bunch of foreigners threw tons of tea off of boats and into the ocean because of taxes.

Think of the fish....

That's brilliant... Let's ask the foxes if they plan on eating any of our chickens!

Bet51987 wrote:Maybe they can interpret Sura 4:34 for me. Then we can go from there.

I can imagine how you would interpret it, so I don't ask. But you might want to read this interpretation here. For instance, the author discusses the ambivalences in translating the critical word 'adribu' which is often translated with 'to beat somebody'.

As it happens, words derived from this same root occur no less than 58 times in the Qur’an, and are used in different contexts in ways that can be ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. In none of these other places is it used or translated in the sense of to hit, strike or beat. [...] In the context of Surah 4.34, I feel we are faced with a choice of three main possibilities; the first is that it did give the husband the right to hit his wife; secondly, the most appropriate meaning of the word would surely be ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’ – in which case the entire notion of a man having rights to beat his wife becomes irrelevant. The third most appropriate meaning would be ‘to return to normal life’ which in this context would certainly imply the meaning of ‘to return to having normal sexual relations’.

Which one of these interpretations is correct? I don't know, but neither do you. But if you read it, the author makes quite a good case that option 2 and 3 are the most appropriate translations.

Pandora wrote:Which one of these interpretations is correct? I don't know, but neither do you.

Which is why I asked.

Your link shows the author to be a women who converted from Christianity to Islam so what would you expect her to say. Of course she is going to defend her religion, but her attempt is weak.

If you look here you will find the approved english translation for Sura 4:34. It clearly states what I mentioned about the treatment of women. Then look at the asterisks and see how the author tries to lessen the impact.

Bee

Pandora wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Maybe they can interpret Sura 4:34 for me. Then we can go from there.

I can imagine how you would interpret it, so I don't ask.
...
Which one of these interpretations is correct? I don't know, but neither do you.

Thank you, Pandora. That's my point exactly; without an interpretation by a Muslim scholar (of course, even their scholars disagree on these things), it would be a mistake for me to make my own conclusions about what their scriptures mean. I've seen how badly Biblical scripture can be mis-interpreted by those who decide to make uninformed conclusions, so I'm not going to make that same mistake.

Now, it has to be said that we can and should oppose the whackos, terrorists, as well as the kind of teaching that advocates violence against women or caucasians, and so forth. That's very very true.

Please, please don't get that confused with the point being made here: the blanket no-distinctions claim "Islam is fundamentally evil, thus any true Muslim is evil" can't be proven, simply because there are a number of different interpretations of what Islam is at it's core.

--------------

In other words:

We can say: "Fundamentalist Islam is evil because it advocates violence, terrorism, and inhuman treatment of people.", because we have seen the evidence for this.

We can't say: "Fundamentalist Islam is the only True Islam", because the definition of True Islam is disputed, even among Muslim scholars. To say we know more about Islam than the Muslims do is ridiculous at best.

Links regarding the interpretation of Sura 4:34 in the Qur'an wrote:Posted by Pandora:
http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/beating.htm

Posted by Bettina:
http://www.submission.org/suras/sura4.htm

I'd say that makes my point!

One is by a woman who came out of a Christian perspective, one is from a site called "Submission.org"... of course they're going to disagree.

If I assumed Islam was like Christianity, I'd agree with the first one.

If I assumed Islam was purely evil, I'd agree with the second one.

However, I know enough to know that I'm no expert on Islamic scripture, so I'm not going to assume either way.

Foil wrote:One is by a woman who came out of a Christian perspective, one is from a site called "Submission.org"... of course they're going to disagree.

So, are you saying the Approved English Translation is just "another site"? It seemed pretty clear to me as well as the other areas and history of the Islamic movement I've researched.

Where would you suggest I go to get more data on what those words mean.

Bee

Ideally, we should get a Muslim Qur'an scholar in here, and look at the various translations in detail, word-by-word, but also in terms of meaning and consistency with the rest of their scripture.

However, I think the reality is that there's just too much dispute surrounding the truth of the matter for a non-Muslim like myself to cut through. Wikipedia even attests to the fact that the meaning of that verse is one of the most disputed in the Qur'an.

Foil wrote:However, I think the reality is that there's just too much dispute surrounding the truth of the matter for a non-Muslim like myself to cut through. Wikipedia even attests to the fact that the meaning of that verse is one of the most disputed in the Qur'an.

Are you naive enough to believe that it's because this is one of the most difficult portions to translate? Or is it merely because it's under attack?

Foil wrote:Please, please don't get that confused with the point being made here: the blanket no-distinctions claim "Islam is fundamentally evil, thus any true Muslim is evil" can't be proven, simply because there are a number of different interpretations of what Islam is at it's core.

You are unnecessarily confusing the issue. We can and should make an informed decision about Islam, based on its writings (combined with its history), because whether you realize it or not, it is an issue in our world today. I heard that Barack Obama was raised Muslim... I don't read too much into that, and I haven't researched it yet, but you really never know. People (Americans) in general are way too careless.

I hope you don't jump to the conclusion that I'm out and out against Muslims, as I said, and believe me, I'm not. I wouldn't treat someone with any less respect and courtesy for being Muslim, but at the same time I wouldn't let my guard down just to be politically or socially correct somehow.

First day in Sunday school as a Protestant a teacher says that we are going to play a game, keep in mind that you are 5 years old and are pretty into playing games. The game starts with the teacher whispering into the ear of the first child a very short story or parable. The rules are that you cannot speak that phrase aloud, and you can only whisper that phrase to the person next to you. When the last child is asked to recite the short story I guarantee you that it will be drastically different than the first. Lost in translation over thousands of years that story is how accurate?

The majority of translations for the verse that Bett is upset with, does honour the woman and grants her some pretty powerful rights as I see it.

This argument to me has a facet that is like arguing that Adam is superior to Eve because he was made first and she picked an apple. Being able to strike a woman for cheating and taking her dowry was a way of dealing with things thousands of years ago. Hmmm isn't it Ok the Bible somewhere to stone an adulteress? Pretty sure stoning is mentioned more than once too.

I have met modern day Arabs divorced by their Wives... if they cannot financially support them the Wife has the right to Divorce him, they are ashamed and emotionally devastated. It makes sense if you think about their culture a bit more. Keep reading though.

Sorry Foil, but what Islam is at it's core is the very nature of the problem that I have complained about all along. The \"interpretations\" are merely a weak attempt to coverup what the Koran clearly states. Do you think you could find a Muslim scholar that wouldn't be biased? I don't think so.

Canuck. The classroom example doesn't work here because the children would be simply passing an already written book to each other. The Koran is considered by Muslims to be perfect, and without error, or alterations. Some follow it; some don't.

Bee

you really think you know more than most devout muslims, don't ya bee.

LMAO

Bet51987 wrote:Sorry Foil, but what Islam is at it's core is the very nature of the problem that I have complained about all along. The "interpretations" are merely a weak attempt to coverup what the Koran clearly states. Do you think you could find a Muslim scholar that wouldn't be biased? I don't think so.

And you are sure that you understand the truth about the Quran, that you are not biased yourself? Could you then clearly define what this "core" is you are complaining about? But please references hat show that you are interpreting the scriptures correctly.

Bet51987 wrote:Sorry Foil, but what Islam is at it's core is the very nature of the problem that I have complained about all along. The "interpretations" are merely a weak attempt to coverup what the Koran clearly states.

Why are you so sure that your interpretation is what Islam "really is" at its core, and other interpretations are "weak attempts / coverups"?

--------

I learned this lesson a couple of different times when I was younger. For example, I was taught to believe that the "only true" interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was a strictly literal one, so the "only true Christians" were young-earth creationists. Until college, I was convinced that was the "only true way" to interpret those scriptures, and any other interpretation was intentionally promoting atheism. I distinctly remember arguing that other interpretations were "weak" and "misleading", without a firm reason for saying so. Of course, I know better now.

I'm not going to make the same mistake by assuming that I (a non-Muslim living outside Islamic culture, who only indirectly has studied the Qur'an, without talking to knowledgeable scholars) know what Islam "really is at its core".

Please don't misunderstand me here; I'm not someone who is attempting to water down the evils we've seen from fundamentalist Muslims. That's not my point at all.

What I'm trying to point out is that it's a mistake to assume one's own interpretation must be the correct one, without a firm basis for that belief.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:You are unnecessarily confusing the issue. We can and should make an informed decision about Islam, based on its writings (combined with its history)

Foil is not "unnecessarily confusing the issue". He (and I) just argue that you should withhold judgment if you don't have all the necessary context to make an informed decision. From the recent discussion here it is quite obvious how sensitive the Bible is to quote-mining, and how easy it is to present certain verses in a damning light that they were not meant to be understood. I am sure that the same is true for the Quran, and I am also sure that in the current state of the world many people are very interested to promote a view of Islam that swings public opinion towards a certain course of action and lets others seem unsensible. It is therefore almost certain that most of what we hear about the Quran is inaccurate, taken out of context or shameful lies.

Remember the propaganda about WMDs, Saddam's meat grinder, the children thrown out of incubators, and so on. All turned out to be lies, but once again people are ready to believe every word that is preached about the muslim world. Why not take a step back and have a look if you have all the evidence first, especially in times of war.

Foil wrote:That's my point exactly; without an interpretation by a Muslim scholar (of course, even their scholars disagree on these things), it would be a mistake for me to make my own conclusions about what their scriptures mean. I've seen how badly Biblical scripture can be mis-interpreted by those who decide to make uninformed conclusions, so I'm not going to make that same mistake.

Bingo. This is why I'm willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt.

Ferno wrote:you really think you know more than most devout muslims, don't ya bee.
LMAO

LYAO? I really would have liked your opinion on Sura 4 instead of just giving me my first burn of the year which I will not return.

Pandora wrote:And you are sure that you understand the truth about the Quran, that you are not biased yourself? Could you then clearly define what this "core" is you are complaining about? But please references hat show that you are interpreting the scriptures correctly.

Biased? How? I don't believe a majority of the bible either, old testament especially. I gave you a link showing the supposed approved english copy of the Koran showing Sura 4. If it's wrong, show me a version that is more correct than the version I have, and I will buy it and read it. Just because the Muslims read it and don't practice it doesn't take away from those in the Middle East that are practicing it... Oh, and the core of Islam is is here

here is another link with some excerpts below on translations.

"I am not apologetic about why the Koran says this," (ref.sura 4:34) said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic scholar who teaches at George Washington University. The Bible, he noted, addresses stoning people to death."

"The verse 4:34, with its three-step program, is often called a reform over the violent practices of seventh century Arabia, when the Koran was revealed. The verse was not a license for battery, scholars say, with other interpretations defining the heaviest instrument a man might employ as a twig commonly used as a toothbrush."

I have seen women and girls in Afghanistan after we invaded it. The oppression was brutal, all brought about by the verses in the Koran and administered by the Mullahs. If all those words in the Koran are like snowflakes, then point me to the stones.

Foil wrote:Why are you so sure that your interpretation is what Islam "really is" at its core, and other interpretations are "weak attempts / coverups"?

The coverups are to make the Koran more palpable to the West. And, I have given links to "scholars".

This is difficult for me. I don't want to hate Islam, but what I've seen so far offers me no choice. Every day some kind of incident happens where tens of thousands of Muslims want to kill someone. The Sudan teacher was the latest but next week it will be something else.

I'm also having difficulties with the offense I seem to be causing forum members who are becoming protective of Islam. If any of you are insulted, please PM me.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:This is difficult for me. I don't want to hate Islam, but what I've seen so far offers me no choice.

I just had to quote this so people can't overlook how bigoted it makes you sound.

Bet51987 wrote:
LYAO? I really would have liked your opinion on Sura 4 instead of just giving me my first burn of the year which I will not return.

Bee

I don't think I need to say anything because I see what you did there.

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.

C'mon, let's not make this personal, guys.

Bet, newspaper articles (especially WorldNetDaily, lol) really isn't what I was looking for. Do you have something directly from an Islamic university or professor? I'm not just being difficult here; I really just want to see something that's directly from a knowledgeable source, not filtered through any media bias either way.