The problem with Washington and wars

[AAAhmed46]

But I dare you to go after the religion that's getting hungry for Europe, while holding hostage Africa and the Middle East, keeping them in the metal age. People die for that, you know.

People both legitamatly critique or outright unfairly insult islam all the time.

I give christianity credit and defense because when the SECULAR conquistadors were conquering falsely in the name of Christianity(forcing conversions), it was the primary CHRISTIAN institutions, such tas the Dominican monks who were the biggest critics of how the conquistadors treated their slaves and their blatant racism, they questioned aristotles theory that non-europians were naturally inferior. Aristotle was not a christian. Because if the 'indian' could be christianized, then they had a soul. If they had souls that could be saved, surely they are equal as human beings? So it was the CHRISTIANS that were the main critics of the religiously motivated inquesition. Isn't it strange that theologons would be the biggest opponent of religious fanatics?

Back to islam and insults, critiques:
There are a million people doing that again and again everywhere on the internet and in newspapers and books. Have you seen some of the cartoons drawn in australia for instance on Muslim woman? Im not talking about Mohammad, just portrayals of ordinary muslms in the same disdain you hold toward IJ's dislike of the common christian.


Africa had sophisticated governments, continuing to progress long after Islam came to it, as well as Arabia. Remember that library the mongols burnt down in bagdad? How so many academics bitched and complained that it got torched and set progress back? That library was built and maintain by Muslims and islam. The ottomans, for the good and bad they did were Muslims and very modern, very post medieval, very sophisticated empire.
Do you know where the university system came from in europe? It was greatly influenced by the concept of madrassas(IE trade and spain) Why did the Renaissance originate in Italy? Because it had contact with the east compared to the rest of europe. Painting for instance was greatly influenced by arab discoveries on optics and perception. Literacy flourished in the arab empires during the time europe was in the middle ages because many muslims memorized the quran, thus creating a social appreciation and exposure for written words.

Here is a few of many muslim scientists that influenced global culture and science to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_i ... rizm%C4%AB

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_al-Din_al-Tusi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Kindi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Sa ... _al-Tabari

there are more links if you want them......Wiki talks about alot, but there are even more names out there.

Here is something i picked up from history class:


When the spanish and Portuguese went wild around the world...their economies and empires did not flourish like the British or in case of profit, like the Dutch. Why? Because the spanish and portegese had few merchants to circulate the money within the country, a majority of the merchants were Jews and Muslims, at least before re-conquest. Alot of spains great architecture was a result of Muslim Spain. The british, because they did not have such a mass expultion, where able to spend their own money withing their own country and produce themselves, the dutch were producers, other people paid them to build and produce, when they conquered territory, which they didn't have much of(especially compared to the Spanish/portugese at that time) they took the wealth aquired from their territory and spent it within the country.

People have axes to grind against christianity, your right, and i came to it's defense. But don't think people stay silent about Islam in terms of critique or insults. I was training with a member of the canadian reserves. He is a good, kind compassionate man.We always got along well. Then talked about how he would snap the neck of some hajji's. I told him my father was a hajji(one who went to hajj) and he was shocked to realize i was muslim. And then explained the language used was one he saw in training.

Could you be reflecting the systemic dehumanization of a percieved enemy?

As for europe: More an issue for first generation, the youth is just as westernized and assimilated as any other immigrant youth. The salaf/wahabi got stronger after 9/11 due to hysteria, though they themselves are not inherently violent, but thier beliefs are contrary to western liberalism. The takfiri salafs...now that is different.(Professor Olivetti talks about this)

"The beginnings of the universities in Europe owe at least one central idea to the Islamic world. As we have seen, features in the structure of Muslim higher education bear striking parallels to later European ones(see page 214) The most significant of these developments was the college, which appeared in Europe about a century after it's Muslim counterpart, the madrasa, in the Islamic world. First at Paris, then at Oxford in English, universities began as collections of colleges , privately endowed residences for the logding of poor students. A medieval university was a corporation, an abstract juristic or legal entity with rights and personality. Islamic law accepted only an actual physical person as having a legal personality. Europeans adapted their legal principles to Muslim ideas of the college, and the notion of the university emerged in the west."

A history of world societies, Eighth Edition Volume B from 800 to 815. McKay Hill, Buckler Ebrey, Beck Crowston Wiesner-Hanks
Page 371-372


It's not some all prevailing ideology of ignorance. Lots of good things came about.



Just as Christianity, as i pointed out before....should not be maligned for it's crazies, neither should Islam. To ignore the total achievements of Christianity is ignorant, as well as ignoring the achievements of Islam despite the bad shape it's in today. The good and the bad should be looked at equally.

Lots of Xtians argue with me(mostly on the net) about my faith, but the bad ones i do not mix with the good, nor do i mistake them for the good. Your experiences as a soldier reflect on culture of many. If you had bad experiences, im sorry. But your talking one of many complex cultures within a giant religious culture with long rich history.


Now to link it with the christians: The biggest opponents of the backward state the muslims are in right now are....yes muslim theologons and scholars, clergy. The beggest threat to the theocracy right now in iran is some of the clergy taht arn't...nuts. Bin ladens biggest critics from sunni islam are clergy, some even from the ultra conservative retarded saudi salafi organizations, they were some of the first to condemn the takfiris, and are also the target of bombs as well, for though their ethics may be contrary to western culture, they are not fundamentally violent, and are the first to point out the backwards nature of the ummah.

[Jason Rees]

But I dare you to go after the religion that's getting hungry for Europe, while holding hostage Africa and the Middle East, keeping them in the metal age. People die for that, you know.

Just so we're clear, Aaahmed, it was me, not Ian, who typed that.

People both legitamatly critique or outright unfairly insult (insert controversial subject) all the time.

Welcome to life.

Have you seen some of the cartoons drawn in australia for instance on Muslim woman? Im not talking about Mohammad, just portrayals of ordinary muslms in the same disdain you hold toward IJ's dislike of the common christian.

Nope. Sure haven't. Granted, not something I usually look for. I have however, seen the controversies in, for instance, Australia, where women insist on wearing religious garb that covers them from head to toe, while insisting they be granted a drivers' licence.

Africa had sophisticated governments, continuing to progress long after Islam came to it, as well as Arabia. Remember that library the mongols burnt down in bagdad? How so many academics bitched and complained that it got torched and set progress back? That library was built and maintain by Muslims and islam. The ottomans, for the good and bad they did were Muslims and very modern, very post medieval, very sophisticated empire.

What Africa had and what it has now are entirely different things, my friend. Wherever Islam has infiltrated, progress has halted, governments have shattered, and human rights disappeared.

Do you know where the university system came from in europe?

The earliest universities in Western Europe were developed under the aegis of the Catholic Church, usually as cathedral schools or by papal bull as Studia Generali (NB: The development of cathedral schools into Universities actually appears to be quite rare, with the University of Paris being an exception — see Leff, Paris and Oxford Universities), later they were also founded by Kings (Charles University in Prague, Jagiellonian University in Krakow) or municipal administrations (University of Cologne, University of Erfurt). - Wikipedia

Could you be reflecting the systemic dehumanization of a percieved enemy?

Not at all.
Like the Christians I posted a link about in another thread, who are engaging in book-burning this Halloween, Muslims are all too human.

As for europe: More an issue for first generation, the youth is just as westernized and assimilated as any other immigrant youth. The salaf/wahabi got stronger after 9/11 due to hysteria, though they themselves are not inherently violent, but thier beliefs are contrary to western liberalism. The takfiri salafs...now that is different.(Professor Olivetti talks about this)

You're wrong. It's not just an issue of first generation youth. It's an issue of refusal to assimulate. The muslims immigrating into Europe are carrying a virulent form of Islam that knows no comprimise, that demands Muslim law, that stunts intellectual growth, stifles curiosity, and breeds contempt for Jews and anyone else different from them.

Anyone over there who tries to shed light on these issues over there ends up dead or in hiding. Van Gogh was killed for making a movie. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others live under perpetual threat of assassination, in Europe, and even here in the USA. The guy who did the cartoons was murdered. Salmon Rushdie is lucky to be alive, after at least one assassination attempt.

Go ahead and name one person in this age who has criticized Christianity and lives in fear for their life.

Just as Christianity, as i pointed out before....should not be maligned for it's crazies, neither should Islam. To ignore the total achievements of Christianity is ignorant, as well as ignoring the achievements of Islam despite the bad shape it's in today. The good and the bad should be looked at equally.

I'm not ignoring the contributions of the Arabic world to civilization. Nor do I feel it's pertinent to a conversation about the modern forms of Islam to drag out the positives of Arabic history before I engage.

Now to link it with the christians: The biggest opponents of the backward state the muslims are in right now are....yes muslim theologons and scholars, clergy.

Really... tell that to the many dead in Sudan. Those big theologians and scholars sure got in the way of all those bullets. Good men, those.

Now, are all Muslims like this? Probably not. Most likely not. But I have read the Koran, and I know that it alone doesn't form the whole basis of Islamic practice. It teaches subjugation. Of women, and of non-muslims.

You say the fruits, nuts and flakes of Islam face criticism from within Islam. I say not enough. These critics have not stopped a single assassination, not one honor killing, nor a mob.

Sorry, my tolerance for moral relativism is at an all-time low.

[AAAhmed46]

Welcome to life.

I didn't say it wasn't, but you assume it doesn't happen.

Nope. Sure haven't. Granted, not something I usually look for. I have however, seen the controversies in, for instance, Australia, where women insist on wearing religious garb that covers them from head to toe, while insisting they be granted a drivers' licence.

Why can't they drive dressed like that? With exception of a few loud mouths, most are willing to take the burka off to get a picture taken.

What Africa had and what it has now are entirely different things, my friend. Wherever Islam has infiltrated, progress has halted, governments have shattered, and human rights disappeared.

Actually that was after the portugese came in. Read history, not right wing anti-islamic sites.

Do you know where the university system came from in europe?

The earliest universities in Western Europe were developed under the aegis of the Catholic Church, usually as cathedral schools or by papal bull as Studia Generali (NB: The development of cathedral schools into Universities actually appears to be quite rare, with the University of Paris being an exception — see Leff, Paris and Oxford Universities), later they were also founded by Kings (Charles University in Prague, Jagiellonian University in Krakow) or municipal administrations (University of Cologne, University of Erfurt). - Wikipedia

I quoted a university textbook, and you quoted wikipedia. Hmmmmm. All the names i quoted were contributors to the text book.
Thats not to say Catholicism didn't have a huge influence or had anything to do with European universities, but so did islam, as it influenced and helped bring on the the Renaissance and the influence of Islamic science and philosophy, government structures.

Not at all.
Like the Christians I posted a link about in another thread, who are engaging in book-burning this Halloween, Muslims are all too human.

You're wrong. It's not just an issue of first generation youth. It's an issue of refusal to assimulate. The muslims immigrating into Europe are carrying a virulent form of Islam that knows no comprimise, that demands Muslim law, that stunts intellectual growth, stifles curiosity, and breeds contempt for Jews and anyone else different from them.[/quotes] Oh im well aware of the ultra-conservative influence. But it's not nearly as bad as Wilders and Spencer make it out to be, just go to a nigh club in britain if you want proof, western decadence for the win. Or go to a mosque, dress as a woman, watch the other woman leave, and see how many wear a hijab outside of the mosque? Very few. Even fewer wear burkas.

And lets face it, europe is way more racist then north america, despite what people may think. Im not saying their all racist, but i do believe it's worse in europe. Polls say anti-semitism is on the rise as well as anti-islam, hell anti 'different'.

Anyone over there who tries to shed light on these issues over there ends up dead or in hiding. Van Gogh was killed for making a movie. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others live under perpetual threat of assassination, in Europe, and even here in the USA. The guy who did the cartoons was murdered. Salmon Rushdie is lucky to be alive, after at least one assassination attempt.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali delibertly made up stories. She lied about half her stuff, then admitted it, then was pissed off that people who once supported her started to condemn her for lying. Come on. Then more and more dishonestly was uncovered as time went on.
As for Van gogh, go read a psychological profile of his attacker: isolated incident. His mosque didn't tell him to do it, he just got mad.

For Rushdie, it was more a shiite issue then a sunni one, the Ayotallah said some crap, so they flipped. Yep, sunnis cursed his name too, but it really became an issue after Khomeini opened his mouth.

Go ahead and name one person in this age who has criticized Christianity and lives in fear for their life.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/23801/c ... as-witches

Just more proof violence in teh name of religion tends to come out mostly depending on your culture.

As for an indiviual in danger of their life? Remember that artist who dipped an image of christ in human excrement? Apprently some christians tried to attack him, but unfortunatly i can't find the article anymore. Maybe my bias may skew the facts, but somewhere there was an article talking about christians who attacked them.

or soldeirs who joined the army after 9/11 specifically to shoot muslims in a belief that it's a new crusade and fighting for christ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKCq6C4rvUc
You can be just as crazy as muslims. You guys would have more crazies if you lived in schit holes like muslims.

I'm not ignoring the contributions of the Arabic world to civilization. Nor do I feel it's pertinent to a conversation about the modern forms of Islam to drag out the positives of Arabic history before I engage.

But these men were muslims, many very religious and were religious thinkers. So if it holds them back, how did they make so much progress?

Really... tell that to the many dead in Sudan. Those big theologians and scholars sure got in the way of all those bullets. Good men, those.

while there is a large islamic presense on both sides, you realize the tribal roots of this conflict? In my mosque many sudanese come and pray, from both sides of the conflict. You know what they say? Both sides are muslims, both hate eachother over ethnicity and past crimes done against one another. So really, religion is one of many, many dimensions.

Now, are all Muslims like this? Probably not. Most likely not. But I have read the Koran, and I know that it alone doesn't form the whole basis of Islamic practice. It teaches subjugation. Of women, and of non-muslims.

Oh really? Are you talking about surah 9? The surah that discusses TREASON? Because well after that surah was revealed, mohammed still set this down. So if your one of those spencer believers that think peaceful versus were abrogated by violent ones, realize that after those so called "violent'' versus were revealed, this still existed:

Prophet Muhammad's
Charter of Privileges to Christians
(Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery)


In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement,
freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented here:

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.


Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because

Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them.

Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.

The Muslims are to fight for them.

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).



Woman can keep money they have earned, the burka isn't exactly described in the quran. In heretence is less because woman don't have to pay taxes or share the money they earn, while the men do. The witness rule is for financial matters only, thats something you can grab me on, though i believe it was time specific, especially considering how it's too specific for the qurans general/deliberately ambigious style.

You say the fruits, nuts and flakes of Islam face criticism from within Islam. I say not enough. These critics have not stopped a single assassination, not one honor killing, nor a mob.

Sorry, my tolerance for moral relativism is at an all-time low.

Oh really? By reducing 10 assisns to one stopped them.

or the fact that CSIS worked with Muslim informants, born and raised Muslims that have foiled a terrorist attack? How about the muslims working with the FBI, CIA, born raised and believing muslims working in your own government? Robert Salaam talked about how many muslims he saw when working in the petagon. Colin Powell talked about the grave of a muslim soldier who died in iraq and others for their country? Or the imams who are running de-radicalization programs, and are educating the youth, steering them away from terrorism? Did i mention the many theologians and Imams working with intelligence agencies?

http://www.muslimmilitarymembers.org/in ... =Memorials

Mobs: A group of christians were buildign a church in nepal, they were killed and a the NDP(i think thats what it's called, nepalese defense force...blah) said 'all christians and muslims must leave nepal. And then even before that, nepalese workers were taken hostage in iraq, and so a huge mob was burning mosques yelling 'down with islam'.


Honor killings: Guess what? not islamic nor limited to muslims:
Yazdi
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/ ... index.html
Christian:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BAL81A4SU0.DTL


Now...why are tehy so crazy? Well...look at cold war history and the role allied powers played in fermenting and nurturing mujaheddin and extremism, directing it against the communists. Look at secular conflicts and how religiously charged they have become since 9/11? Hell look at palistine: Benny morris states that there is an increased religiousity from the palistinians since 2000(second intifada) which was not there before. In short, it's as I explained before, from the super conservative muslim to the drunken muslim youth in a bar, they are all upset as to why the west supports so many oppressive governments.
Guess who asks the same question? The terrorists, guess who hands out food and water and provides education when the governments in muslim countries don't? The extremists. So it shouldn't be too surprising it's on the rise, or how a doctor(who probably spent junior high in a school run by anti-western teachers) tries to do acts of terrorism. Matthew Alexander writes about many member of al-queerda, were mainly motivated out of fear of shiite militias or were getting paid good money.

[AAAhmed46]

Something you and many many many people fail to see about the 'islamic' world: Variation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j33J7G8CXs

He covers many topics, but summarizes the history of current iranian theology very well, and the political connections that caused current religious thinking, especially with the cold war and international involvement changing ideology.

[Jason Rees]

Ian, you were asking for a book recommendation. I haven't read it yet, but this one looks mildly interesting: The Case for God

[IJ]

Thanks. I will look into it. There are some interesting comments on Amazon:

"Christian fundamentalism according to her, "is in fact a defiantly unorthodox form of faith that frequently misrepresents the tradition it is trying to defend" (p. xvi). She argues: "Religion was a matter of doing rather than thinking" (p. 25). "Religious discourse was not intended to be understood literally because it was only possible to speak about a reality that transcended language in symbolic terms. The story of the lost paradise was a myth, not a factual account of a historical event" (p. 15). "Like any myth, its purpose is to help us to contemplate the human predicament" (p. 28). As such, the creation account "was emphatically not intended as a literal account of the physical origins of life" (p. 44). When it comes to Yahweh she argues, "There was no clear, consistent image of God in Genesis" (p. 35). Moreover, "Yahweh was simply one of the 'holy ones' in El's retinue" (p. 34). She challenges fundamentalists to therefore "face up to the implications of the Darwinian vision of nature `red in tooth and claw'" (p. 324). She argues that "if a biblical text appeared to contradict current scientific discoveries the exegete must interpret it differently" (p. 324). ... Her god is a distant god and as such her god can be safely ignored as having no relevance for one's life at all. She's practically an atheist."

Another wrote that she was making a case for believing in God, not for God. That doesn't make her book irrelevant, but it does raise an important issue. I can't believe something is true just because doing so may be beneficial. But on the other hand, I do recognize the great value in having people come together for a shared experience of awe and community. Atheist / agnostic "church," for me, could be a group of star gazers or visitors to Yosemite; a community of volunteers, whether local or international; or a gathering of nerds like myself who get really fired up about their mission for the community, in my case, trying to improve hospital systems. I do long for more of the feeling we can get doing those things.

PS: I think the issue with burkas and driving is that they're barely able to see anything. To me, they're also basically foot binding, but that's another matter. Many Americans have a difficult time separating the religion of Islam (which the peaceful followers say has been distorted by the violent ones) from culture that accompanies it (the actual cause of the messes we hear about, according to apologists). This isn't because we're stupid, it's because the people who do those horrible things attribute them to their religion, for one, and two, because their religion is linked to the culture, by such customs as Sharia law. Whether Islam is inherently trouble causing or whether it is merely an onlooker and merely the overwhelmingly dominant religion in areas that happen to have terrible culture, ultimately, is thus not a major concern for most people who worry about Islam / the company it keeps, at least as far as I can tell.

It's not the only culture that doesn't "play well with others" in the eyes of the world. China has more of a hive mindset than most Americans are comfortable with and is poised to take a dominant role in the world. And of course America is always comfortable throwing her weight around, and moving its language and aspects of culture (including guns) where they annoy people. What bothers me most is that the noble features of American culture (freedom, individualism, democracy etc) are not seen as the key features of the culture, even among many Americans. We seem to think if another country adopts junk food and jeans they're Americanized--and what can that say to other cultures about how we view ourselves??

[Jason Rees]

Why can't they drive dressed like that? With exception of a few loud mouths, most are willing to take the burka off to get a picture taken.

Let's look at it from both angles. Say they're willing to take the burka off to get the picture taken (and most of the controversy comes when they refuse to and then sue the government). Then they go drive around in the burka, and a cop stops them. And they refuse to remove the burka.

I've got an idea. How about assimulation, where people come to a country, and if they intend to become citizens, they learn how to live within the culture of the land they've adopted. There is NO possible justification for a burka in a modern country. None.

Actually that was after the portugese came in. Read history, not right wing anti-islamic sites.

Right. Somalia was obviously the fault of the Portugese. Kenya too. Siera Leone. The list goes on and on. Those wicked Portugese.

Thats not to say Catholicism didn't have a huge influence or had anything to do with European universities, but so did islam, as it influenced and helped bring on the the Renaissance and the influence of Islamic science and philosophy, government structures.

Right. Because the Western World reveres Islamic philosophy and uses alot of Islamic government structures.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali delibertly made up stories. She lied about half her stuff, then admitted it, then was pissed off that people who once supported her started to condemn her for lying. Come on. Then more and more dishonestly was uncovered as time went on.

You're fond of your sources, so let's see the one for that claim of admitting it.

As for Van gogh, go read a psychological profile of his attacker: isolated incident. His mosque didn't tell him to do it, he just got mad.

Do you read this crap before you post it?

For Rushdie, it was more a shiite issue then a sunni one, the Ayotallah said some crap, so they flipped. Yep, sunnis cursed his name too, but it really became an issue after Khomeini opened his mouth.

Sunni, Shiite... they're what? Muslim. Uh huh. You know, that's usually all it takes in that closeted mindset... someone to say some crap.

I asked you to name one person in this age who has criticized Christianity and lives in fear for their life. You post a link to a story eminating from a third-world country of someone specifically not criticizing Christianity, and yet in fear of their life. Is this a communication breakdown? Are you reading what I'm saying?

As for an indiviual in danger of their life? Remember that artist who dipped an image of christ in human excrement? Apprently some christians tried to attack him, but unfortunatly i can't find the article anymore. Maybe my bias may skew the facts, but somewhere there was an article talking about christians who attacked them.

Highly emotional stuff. The guy's not only alive, but he's not living in fear for his life, either.

or soldeirs who joined the army after 9/11 specifically to shoot muslims in a belief that it's a new crusade and fighting for christ?

Name one major Christian denomination pushing that belief.

You can be just as crazy as muslims. You guys would have more crazies if you lived in schit holes like muslims.

Maybe you should ask yourself why more muslims live in schit holes than Christians.

But these men were muslims, many very religious and were religious thinkers. So if it holds them back, how did they make so much progress?

Look around. What progress?

Oh really? Are you talking about surah 9? The surah that discusses TREASON?

No, I'm really not. I was referring to the Quran's teaching on wives.

"When your wives have purified themselves, you may approach may approach them in any manner, time or place."

And again...

"As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, scourge them and banish them to beds apart."

There are more. We both know this.

[cxt]

Jason

Good points and good reading.

The main "problem" with Islam....if indeed "problem" is the correct word is that its largely decentralized nature allows for a vast number of interpretations that often contridict each other yet all can be claimed as equally valid.

Adding to the problem is the nature of fatwa or relgious edicts which allows individual mullahs to issue individual decree's on almost any subject that allos them to essentially ignore otherwise solid rules.

Add to that that staggering number of people that can't read or write then think about what that could do to how you interperate the Quran......its hard to argue what the meaning of a passage might be when you have no option but to depend on what some SAYS it means....when you have little ability to check for YOURSELF.

Then you have deeper conflicts.......in the West, God essentially has to make some sort of sense.......a relic of Greek logic etc......if 2 passages contridict each other then we have to debate and explain why and decide which one to follow.......in Islam, the passages are BOTH treated as the direct word of God...and God is BEYOND little things like human logic......so if you have 2 passages that contridict one another often BOTH as seen as "true."
Its how you can get (my paraphrase) both......"you should respect the peoples of the Book" AND multiple versions of "kill the infidel" its how you can get "there is no compulsion in relgion" AND "convert or die" or "kill anyone whom leaves the Islam."

I spent a very interesting afternoon with a Strict Quranist not too long ago......a Strict Quranist BTW is someone that follows ONLY what is spelled out in the Quran....only it is the direct Word, everything else is human and flawed.
He was of the opinon that ANYONE whom called for Jihad should be put to death.......as the Quran clearly states that ONLY the "Caliph" is allowed to call for Jihad.

[Glenn]

The main "problem" with Islam....if indeed "problem" is the correct word is that its largely decentralized nature allows for a vast number of interpretations that often contridict each other yet all can be claimed as equally valid.

Keep in mind that all major religions have this "problem", Christianity included. It's the nature of widespread diffusion. The only major religious branch that has minimized this is the highly centralized and hierarchical Catholicism. It still has some variability between diocese, but a lot less contradiction of interpretations than is found in other branches/religions.

[IJ]

I thought the main idea for the Quran was that the new passages corrected the old ones. Problem is the stuff got less peaceful and more pro conquer as time went on.

As for the Quran being the uncorrupted word of God, well, har har. Like any ancient text there were competing editions and copies, and in the official companion text (name escapes me at present) most of what was gathered as sayings of Muhammed had to be discarded as junk. Anyone who displays a, well, religious devotion to the product has a bit too much confidence in the wheat from chaff process, IMHO.

[Jason Rees]

I thought the main idea for the Quran was that the new passages corrected the old ones. Problem is the stuff got less peaceful and more pro conquer as time went on.

Actually what I've read from the intellectual set is the problem has to do with all the Quran and the hadith passages being treated as equally true. Even if two passages contradict one another, they are both treated as absolutely true. Which explains why you have one person claiming non-muslims need to repent or die, and another person saying Islam is peace... and both absolutely believe it.

Sounds extremely painful to think about.

I'm not certain the verses became more warlike as time advanced, Ian. Something to look further into at a later date, I suppose.

[AAAhmed46]

Jason

Good points and good reading.

The main "problem" with Islam....if indeed "problem" is the correct word is that its largely decentralized nature allows for a vast number of interpretations that often contridict each other yet all can be claimed as equally valid.

Adding to the problem is the nature of fatwa or relgious edicts which allows individual mullahs to issue individual decree's on almost any subject that allos them to essentially ignore otherwise solid rules.

Add to that that staggering number of people that can't read or write then think about what that could do to how you interperate the Quran......its hard to argue what the meaning of a passage might be when you have no option but to depend on what some SAYS it means....when you have little ability to check for YOURSELF.

Then you have deeper conflicts.......in the West, God essentially has to make some sort of sense.......a relic of Greek logic etc......if 2 passages contridict each other then we have to debate and explain why and decide which one to follow.......in Islam, the passages are BOTH treated as the direct word of God...and God is BEYOND little things like human logic......so if you have 2 passages that contridict one another often BOTH as seen as "true."
Its how you can get (my paraphrase) both......"you should respect the peoples of the Book" AND multiple versions of "kill the infidel" its how you can get "there is no compulsion in relgion" AND "convert or die" or "kill anyone whom leaves the Islam."

I spent a very interesting afternoon with a Strict Quranist not too long ago......a Strict Quranist BTW is someone that follows ONLY what is spelled out in the Quran....only it is the direct Word, everything else is human and flawed.
He was of the opinon that ANYONE whom called for Jihad should be put to death.......as the Quran clearly states that ONLY the "Caliph" is allowed to call for Jihad.

The quran doesn't say only the caliph can call for offensive jihad, it's really more classic Islamic scholars that talk about a caliphs rights. Even hadith does not specifically say what a caliph can or cannot do.
(Mr. Qutb wasn't really a scholar, he never formally studied with an islamic scholar, liberal or conservative. Kume-de sent me a great e-book that talks about leftwing roots to his philosophy)
Salafi's believe only a caliph can declare imprealistic war like the british, but even among the wahabi there are those who say that the only time they can invade is if they percieve a threat(IE pre-emptive warfare, bush doctrine...but with Muslims) it certainly justified historical invasions(pre-emptive war)
HOWEVER: Certainly the caliph has a great deal of political/military power, though is that from the quran or simply the direction the society took when the shoorah elected them?

Well, the thing is, if you read tafsir(interpretations of the quran, even medieval ones(which many consider cannon) the whole concept of abrogation which spencer states is only limited to a few versus, for instance the whole concept that the 'sword' versus of surah 9 abrogate the rules of war set down in surah 8 (Anfal and tawbah i believe, i know 9 is tawbah, but eights title i coudl be wrong about) goes as follows: Only small parts of 8 are abrogated according to those who believe it, so those who believe in abrogation do not believe very much is abrogated., while just as many others do not believe in abrogation at all.

For instance, surah 9, the whole 'kill the infidels surah', even without the tafsir(interpretation) is explained just before the 'kill the infidels' first it discusses treason, breaking of a truce set about, then goes on about fighting and killing. Then it goes on more about treason, more about repentance(tawbah can be translated as 'repentence'). If your still unclear, the tafsir explain how the pagan arabs broke their truce and tried to attack. Certainly it does not contridict no compulsion to religion, it doesn't actually say 'convert or die' at all, for in that same surah it says NOT to kill the pagans that did not rise up or break the truce.(tafsir clears it more)
And im not talking liberal tafsir like yusuf ali or Mohammed Asad, im talking right wing ultra conservative salafi tafsir my dad's friend brought when going to hajj in saudi arabia.Thats right, even the wahabi don't think you can go nuts killing non-muslims.

What many fringe DO believe however is that surah 8 took out the ban of defensive warfare(IE imperial expansion like the British) but this doesn't mean you go around killing different people or force them to convert, though certainly promoting impreal expansion is not exactly something i or many others think is benevolent. But this primarily comes from hadith, the scholars that believed that defensive war was abbrogated came from hadith, and we know how unreliable that is. and on hadith....

Hadith(the sayings of mohammed) are far less conanocal, though many muslims use sahih al-bukhari,sahih al-muslim as the two most trustworthy hadith, and treat them as if they are cannon. I find them useful, most of it is about living well, treating others will kindness and a look on how to worship. If you look at Bukhari/Muslim's scholar ship, it was very thorough(CONSIDERING THE TIMES) But there are others that im really really suspicious about...some resemble too much platonic/Aristotelian philosophy(remember, hadith came about 200 after mohammeds death...and arabs were translating greek works at that time) .such as mohammed so called saying 'if someone changes their religion, kill them' which is where many in the taliban and other places base their apostate laws, which is funny because according to the hadith(if you believe it's true) it was because many pagan arabs pretended to convert, went over and spied, committing espionage, and then converted back to return to their people(remember the hudaibah pact? Spelling is off for hudaibah, i know) so to stop this he said if they change back, they die. Now historically, it's been looked at as very time specific, and specific only for treason, or depending on the ruler if they were hardasses, it was viewed as something for all apostates, like Thomas Aquines states in his theological writings on christianity. The quran basically says they will be dealt with by god, so leave them alone, but here we have Muslims taking hadith over the quran.


Decentralized? You bet Islam is decentralized!

But not in the way you guys think, only takfiri salafi's think you can kill non-muslims, a sub sect of salafism.
The devide is more on whether or not you should follow hadith word for word, whether or not a few lines were abrogated(a FEW, not a whole bunch, despite what spencer may claim) sufi practice versus salafi. Almost no mainstreamer thinks killing innocent people is allowed. John Espisito talks in depth about how even the 7% Thats highly anti-west, many among them want religious democracies like Isreal is for jewish democracy, based upon the Gallup polls and studies he conducted with Dalia Moghahed(totally spelled her name wrong) if you don't like a non-muslmi obama supporter, then lets discuss a libertarian right winger like Eric Margolis, who is a journalist and consultant on the middle east, discussed how muhahideen he talked to were fifty/fifty, some wanted to establish a caliphate through war, others want an islamic democracy.

Certainly at it's peak and foundation, Al quada is religiously motivated.

But it's foot soldiers are as split and confused as any other religious demographic.

Decentralized even among extremists.

Jared Cohen for instance interviewed terrorists, found many openly say they are more politically motivated, many female hezbullah he talked to didn't war scarves and went clubing, even his conversations with hamas, they were more pissed off about thier conditions then religious motivation, alot of their language is very religious, muslims will bring up gods name when eating or even passing waste(no joke) islam is actually ironically more similar to Judaism then it is Christianity in terms of traditions. Cohen is pro-bush and pro-isreal. In his book he talks about talking to a man studying the quran, he sat with the man, and they went through the quran, he then mentions as he talks about this story how so few of the terrorists he talked to, those that did call religious justification could not quote the quran or even hadith, while this old man could, and both concluded you could not kill non-muslms.Whats interesting is that this old dude(syrian) did not like america. So they ended up argueing about that.

Check out "Children of Jihad" by jared cohen. If i got his name wrong, just search ''children of Jihad" in amazon.com



Now just how much did all of you know about Islam before 9/11? What were your opinions before 9/11? How many of you actually asked muslms what they thought? Or did you simply go to Spencer or other anti-islamic websites? I really wonder how people have so many strong views about a whole religion without talking to the followers, both first world and third world.

[AAAhmed46]

I thought the main idea for the Quran was that the new passages corrected the old ones. Problem is the stuff got less peaceful and more pro conquer as time went on.

As for the Quran being the uncorrupted word of God, well, har har. Like any ancient text there were competing editions and copies, and in the official companion text (name escapes me at present) most of what was gathered as sayings of Muhammed had to be discarded as junk. Anyone who displays a, well, religious devotion to the product has a bit too much confidence in the wheat from chaff process, IMHO.

Im not a complete believer in how badass hadith are, however this is a pretty good argument here.

Part 1
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... X6Dg&hl=en#

Part 2
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... X6Dg&hl=en#
Part 3
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... rown&hl=en#



That posted, hadith causes ALOT of confusion.

Hell look at this video on hadith causing problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFkExszSCLo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN8_CQXE ... re=related

[AAAhmed46]

PS: I think the issue with burkas and driving is that they're barely able to see anything. To me, they're also basically foot binding, but that's another matter. Many Americans have a difficult time separating the religion of Islam (which the peaceful followers say has been distorted by the violent ones) from culture that accompanies it (the actual cause of the messes we hear about, according to apologists). This isn't because we're stupid, it's because the people who do those horrible things attribute them to their religion, for one, and two, because their religion is linked to the culture, by such customs as Sharia law. Whether Islam is inherently trouble causing or whether it is merely an onlooker and merely the overwhelmingly dominant religion in areas that happen to have terrible culture, ultimately, is thus not a major concern for most people who worry about Islam / the company it keeps, at least as far as I can tell.

It's not the only culture that doesn't "play well with others" in the eyes of the world. China has more of a hive mindset than most Americans are comfortable with and is poised to take a dominant role in the world. And of course America is always comfortable throwing her weight around, and moving its language and aspects of culture (including guns) where they annoy people. What bothers me most is that the noble features of American culture (freedom, individualism, democracy etc) are not seen as the key features of the culture, even among many Americans. We seem to think if another country adopts junk food and jeans they're Americanized--and what can that say to other cultures about how we view ourselves??

You got to understand, thats mostly just saudi arabia. Kingship is actually pretty haram. Saudi arabia has done some shitty things to muslims and islam. We all talk about the taliban taking down old buddhist temples, but we don't talk about the taliban distroying classic mosques and shrines of islam, SAUDI darn arabia cut down a tree the prophet was said to have slept under out of fear people would start worshiping it and thus worshipping the prophet. Wow really? So what? Don't like it? Either tell them it's stupid or even go so far as not letting them. But cutting the damn thing down? Whaaaat? That and many other relics and shrines and pieces of religious history.

Besides, they hold the total population under strict religious rules, but those same men go to dubai to gamble and have cheap sex. Hypocritical.


Democracy first started in Britain remember?

[AAAhmed46]

Ian, you were asking for a book recommendation. I haven't read it yet, but this one looks mildly interesting: The Case for God

Karen armstrong is greatly hated by robert spencer, but she he has a pretty good biography of mohammed as well and books on islam.

She used to be a nun i believe, now considers herself a universal monotheist? An agnostic who believes in god?