DescentBB

There is hope for coexistence and true reform from within Islam itself. Like I had posted many times in the past, although it is something that is difficult and almost impossible to expect, Islam can be reformed just as Christianity and Judaism have been before it.

One of the major groups here in America that we should all support against the radical or "traditional" form of Islam is the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD)

This organization could provide a "fire break" against the onslaught of political/militant Islam against western civilization. AIFD supports assimilation into western civilization - NOT trying to replace it with Islamic sharia or Islamic rule.

"AIFD's mission is derived from a love for America and a love of our faith of Islam. Dr. Jasser and the board of AIFD believe that Muslims can better practice Islam in an environment that protects the rights of an individual to practice their faith as they choose. The theocratic "Islamic" regimes of the Middle East and some Muslim majority nations use Islam as a way to control Muslim populations, not to glorify God as they portend. The purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic."

http://www.aifdemocracy.org/

.

Bet51987 wrote:I don't see that happening in my lifetime unless you take Mohammad's teachings out of the equation. Since that can't be done there will always be a violent Islam and violent followers.

Bee

We'll have an elephant pin on your lapell before the day's over!

there's no need for reformation of Islam

.

we need reformation of society. reforming into a different version of the same thing doesn't count.

Bet51987 wrote:As a humanist, that pin comes with way too much fundamentalist baggage to even have a chance of happening.

Bee

lol

That's the problem with over-intellectualization [You didn't know that was a word, did you? ^_~]... all this useless jargon that separates man from himself.

Thunderbunny wrote:Islam can be reformed just as Christianity and Judaism have been before it.

That statement really bugs me. The gross inaccuracy in all of the implications is painful to read.

The notion that the "reformation" of Islam is or could be anything like Christianity or Judaism is ridiculous. The reformation of Christianity came about as a direct result of Christian fundamentalism. Judaism I know less about, but I do know it's basically a religion in limbo, having missed the coming of its messiah. They're supposed to be doing animal/blood sacrifices to God to atone for their sins, which they're not, along with many other things. The Bible says that blindness, in part, has come upon them. Now tell me, where does the Islamic reformation come from, aside from a desire for freedom from the oppression of the Islamic states, looking to the example of a country founded a Christian nation? Maybe someone ought to grow some balls and tell them their religion is no good.

It’s my opinion that Islam has long since been “reformed” it’s just those damn radical Arabs and a few others trying to drag them all back into the past.

ST- the only good that can come from islamic reform is "defanging" it. Remove the violence and the will to conquer others. That's all I ask.

They can believe in the pink unicorn god for all I care- so long as they don't want to behead me or rape your sister for being infidels.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The reformation of Christianity came about as a direct result of Christian fundamentalism.

The reformation of Christianity came about as a direct result of a return to fundamental, original Christian doctrines -- peace, love, forgiveness, reconciliation, mercy, and living like you belong to a different kingdom (not a country or a church organization.) This shift took place primarily in the 1700s.

"Christian Fundamentalism" is something different entirely: a movement spawned in the late 1800s in response to "Christian Liberalism". Christian Liberalism was the philosophy that the Bible isn't true, that Jesus wasn't real but makes a good story, and that the Bible should be understood in terms of gender norms and other such BS. Fundamentalism arose in reaction to this, taking a hyper-literal view of scripture and heavily anti-intellectual positions (because liberalism claimed to be intellectual.) Fundamentalism had its good parts, but it was definitely an overreaction. And it definitely didn't have anything to do with reforming Christianity in the sense this thread is addressing.

The best way to "attack" fundamentalist islam is from the inside. Change the message sent from the mosque and imam from that of supremacism and conquest to one of coexistence and tolerance.

I think in the end it all boils down to what you want to believe in and you will gravitate to those whose preachings come closest to to your beliefs. If a Imam starts preaching killing infidels is not Allah's will and enough Muslim believe that, then and only then will you have a Muslim reformation. If Imams are afraid to preach this for fear of being beheaded then the Muslim reformation will never happen.

.

Lothar wrote:... peace, love, forgiveness, reconciliation, mercy, and living like you belong to a different kingdom ...

The more specific ideals of reverence for God's word and obedience to God over natural authorities belong before any of those. I appreciate your clarification, but I was using (perhaps misusing) fundamentalism in a more general manner. My point is that the "Christian" church was reformed as a direct result of a renewed faithfulness, if you will, to its true core, and historic ideals. It is being suggested that Islam can be reformed by taking quite a different route, and that reformation is being characterized as being essentially the same as the Christian reformation that we're talking about. This is obviously wrong. Not only that, but it is evident that an attempt to reform the Islamic religion after the same manner as the Christian church would yield very different, and conceivably very bad results. So what does this say about Islam? I disagree with Thunderbunny, and I'm sure that disagreement could lead into the topic of the existence of God and the validity of the Christian, Biblical world-view, but more specifically and immediately I think some wrong assumptions are being made, as I have briefly outlined, leading to misconceptions as to the outcome of a "reformation" of Islam. Changing the religion into something it isn't could very well lead to a legitimate and potentially bloody Islamic reformation. If peace and freedom are the goals, I think it is a mistake to compromise the very foundation by accommodating a false (though that is another topic) and tyrannical religion. It would be much better to tell a person that if peace and freedom are what they really want then they need to stop trying to follow the example of the "prophet" that was involved in so much violence and evil in the name of a deity that he stole and modified.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:My point is that the "Christian" church was reformed as a direct result of a renewed faithfulness, if you will, to its true core, and historic ideals. It is being suggested that Islam can be reformed by taking quite a different route, and that reformation is being characterized as being essentially the same as the Christian reformation that we're talking about. This is obviously wrong.

All true.

That said, Mormonism has "reformed" quite a bit by going away from its roots, with the biggest LDS denomination completely renouncing polygamy and anti-black teachings, and I see no reason why Islam couldn't reform in the same way. There would certainly be fundamentalist hangers-on, but getting the majority to ignore the worst of their prophet's teachings would be a big step.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:if you will, to its true core, and historic ideals.

what in your opinion are those?

Lothar wrote:There would certainly be fundamentalist hangers-on, but getting the majority to ignore the worst of their prophet's teachings would be a big step.

Already been done…do you really believe there are like a billion people ready to force you to convert to Islam with a sword? I’m pretty sure most Muslims don’t even own a sword.

Do you know how many Islamic sects there are?

Do you know the teaching teachings of all of them…and I don’t mean the Koran, I’m speaking of the common teachings, like in any Christian church. (because we really don’t want to discuss what the Bible really teaches…do we.)

Every time I hear someone blanket statement some religion, I want to go bang my head against the wall. There are a relatively small group of idiots trying to impose “their*” form of Islam on everyone else…until people understand this fact…things aren’t going to get any better.

*Fundamentalist Arabs…and some others.

Spidey wrote:

Lothar wrote:(because we really don’t want to discuss what the Bible really teaches…do we.)

PLEASE let's do!!!!
I'd like to see what you think it teaches and if your wrong.

Lol…sure, and who is going to be the judge?

Nice dodge of the actual point tho…

Spidey wrote:Lol…sure, and who is going to be the judge?

Nice dodge of the actual point tho…

I had no intention of judging, I'll leave that up to the Scriptures themselves. I would just point out what it says.

and back at ya on the Dodge

I’m not dodging anything, I already stated that I didn’t want a discussion on the bible in the post you quoted.

And you can’t have a good debate about the Bible without some kind of authority, all you get is a lot of yelling and name calling, like always happens here.

Dodging the point that most of Islam is already reformed, seems to be a special ability on this board, and I sometimes think the voice of reason is dead and buried.

…..Going to bang head on wall…

Bye

Spidey wrote:you can’t have a good debate about the Bible without some kind of authority

Yes you can, as long as you have sensible principles for making sense of it. And I don't mean "the Holy Spirit told me" or "I felt a burning in my bosom" or "pastor Bob said". I mean the exact same principles you use for making sense of any other piece of text.

most of Islam is already reformed

Yes, it is. But it'd be nice if "most" encompassed 99% instead of 70%.

Bet51987 wrote:I don't see that happening in my lifetime unless you take Mohammad's teachings out of the equation. Since that can't be done there will always be a violent Islam and violent followers.

Bee

just like that fellow that wrote the Old Testament, huh?

The Old Testament was written by a whole ton of people and then put together later.

.

SilverFJ wrote:The Old Testament was written by a whole ton of people and then put together later.

true, the way I see it, but some will attest that 'God' wrote it. My point, although Bee seems not to accept it, is that there are plenty of violent threats and exhortations in the OT, and those have been used, historically, to justify all manner of heinous behavior by Christians and Jews. Much good stuff was written here about the gradual change upon those religions over time, and the role of moderation in doing so. No reason to assume otherwise about Islam.....in fact, several nearly pacifist sub-sects of Islam already exist.

What people do and blame their behavior on is their deal.
I would condemn any "Christians" that resorted to violent acts and said the Bible insinuated that they should do so.
Sure, there is a lot of violence and hate in the OT, but thats just how the times were. It's commonly believed to be a historical record, not a guide-book.

...and I know you were probably kidding when you said "the feller that wrote the OT".

SilverFJ wrote:What people do and blame their behavior on is their deal.
I would condemn any "Christians" that resorted to violent acts and said the Bible insinuated that they should do so.
Sure, there is a lot of violence and hate in the OT, but thats just how the times were. It's commonly believed to be a historical record, not a guide-book.

...and I know you were probably kidding when you said "the feller that wrote the OT".

can't the same logic be applied to the writings of Mohammed?
Oh, and yes, I was kidding.

.

The same logic can and should be applied. The thing is, Muhammad taught violence and hate, and Jesus taught peace and love.

Bet51987 wrote:Are you seriously trying to compare Jesus with Mohammed? Or, are you just trying to start trouble here.

Bee

well, one certainly could. Only one claimed actual divinity, the other considered himself one of a long line of prophets. I am not terribly religious, so don't really buy the claims of either. I have no real beef with religion, either, I'm just aware that zealots of all types have used religion to justify all manner of atrocities.

Next week, the merits of Rastafarianism versus Scientology.

SilverFJ wrote:The same logic can and should be applied. The thing is, Muhammad taught violence and hate, and Jesus taught peace and love.

Most Ba'hai and Sufi adherents would disagree strongly with the above. Mohammad, in their view, focused on peace. Picking and choosing the emphasis merely shows your cultural bias, not reality.

.

callmeslick wrote:Picking and choosing the emphasis merely shows your cultural bias, not reality.

callmeslick, you just made a statement of reality by wielding one opinion against another without ever show the merit or fault of either. The only thing that can legitimately be derived from your reply is that you believe SilverFJ is biased. Now if you can just give a real reason for thinking so I can stop wishing your computer would melt down as a mercy to reasoned thinkers everywhere and start disagreeing with you.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Picking and choosing the emphasis merely shows your cultural bias, not reality.

callmeslick, you just made a statement of reality by wielding one opinion against another without ever show the merit or fault of either. The only thing that can legitimately be derived from your reply is that you believe SilverFJ is biased. Now if you can just give a real reason for thinking so I can stop wishing your computer would melt down as a mercy to reasoned thinkers everywhere and start disagreeing with you.

I guess my point, Sarge, is this: We ALL show our cultural biases. I'm not claiming his are any better or worse than mine or yours or anyone else's. I find it sort of humorous, though, whenever I read these broadbrush definitions of Islam as the Religion of Hate/Evil/etc coming from folks with utterly no cultural connection, nor deep study of the theology and it's practice. For example, few seem to acknowledge that in practice, Islamic mosques are as widely variant in thinking as the imams which lead them. Likewise, the interpretation of Sharia is massively variant between different cultural groups. To simply state, Islam is this, or Mohommed was that, is merely a reflection of your upbringing, your culture and your biases. It is in no way factual or accurate, if you are suggesting that ALL Muslims think the same.

callmeslick wrote: It is in no way factual or accurate, if you are suggesting that ALL Muslims think the same.

No one, Silver included, thinks "ALL" Muslims think the same. There is however, a large enough percentage that it is cause for concern

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote: It is in no way factual or accurate, if you are suggesting that ALL Muslims think the same.

No one, Silver included, thinks "ALL" Muslims think the same. There is however, a large enough percentage that it is cause for concern

agreed. and you cannot compare the minority Muslims in this country to the majority Muslims abroad. in every country where they have grown in numbers they move towards implementation of their laws and their way of life. Europe and France are a prime example. as a body they do not try to integrate they assimilate. your even starting to see it happen in this country. honor killings, Sharia law in arbitration cases.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28054

CUDA, in the article you cite, a close reading shows this to be the source of all 'facts' noted:
http://bearcreekledger.com/category/ten ... ed-topics/

you have to be freaking kidding me. What's next, the Luddite News and Gazette?