Islam [Archive] - JREF Forum

Jedi Knight

26th February 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by DrBenway
Can Islam be reformed? Can this religion find a home in the modern era? Can Muslims peacefully coexist with other religionists and secularists?

There are two Islamic doctrines which are most concerning:
1. Apostasy is a capital crime under Islamic law
2. Bid'ah or "innovation" is also a capital crime

Thus, any Muslim involved in a revisionist movement within Islam faces some very serious consequences.

Politically, it may be a mistake for the West to directly challenge basic Islamic teachings at this time. It may be smarter to say things like, "Islam is a religion of peace." But I think that people of conscience who value secularist and humanist ideas ought to be awake to the basic problems of this religion.

No one wants to fight a war against Islam. But a system of belief which demands the death penalty for skepticism really has to go.

The troubling part of Islamic doctrine that is taught at all Islamic educational institutions is that while Jesus Christ is admitted by Islam to be a valid prophet, like you mentioned there will be no more prophets after Muhammed. So that gave Islam the opportunity to survive through the centuries without threat of retaliation by Christian organizers, and declare any future religious prophets by any religion false and acts of Satan.

Anyone who claims to be a prophet (after Muhammed) has a contract put out on them lol. Islam is a self-regulating dangerous religion and this is the most important question you ask when dealing with the future implications of Islam.

JK

Mike B.

26th February 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by JAR
Like members of most religions, Muslims can live normally in the modern world as long as they don't follow all the rules of their religion. :D

Questioninggeller

26th February 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by JAR
Like members of most religions, Muslims can live normally in the modern world as long as they don't follow all the rules of their religion.

Well, let us remember it's only the extreme people causing the problems, like the "good protestants" who are KKK members.

If Christains followed the OLD TESTAMENT, we'd have people being stoned to death still.

DrBenway

26th February 2003, 09:01 PM

A friend of mine, a practicing Muslim for many years, recently endured a crisis of faith which ultimately resulted in his exit from Islam.

Shortly after 9/11, I wrote to him asking about the moderates in the Islamic world. Where were their voices? Most of the apologists in the news at the time (e.g., Karen Armstrong), happened to be non-Muslims. Statements about Islam being a religion of peace –coming from non-Muslims—failed to reassure me. Below, between the asterisks, is my friend's response:

********
As Islam is constituted at present, it's pretty well encased in concrete.

The Qur'an may not be questioned. Every word has the force of law. Some liberals are saying that the receivings after the entry into Mecca represent a prophet less harassed by opposition and thus milder, and we ought to pay more attention to those. However, all the verses have the force of law, and their divine origin may not be disputed, so there's nothing to stop the fundies from preferring the pre-Meccan verses. Indeed, it's very difficult even to discuss these matters openly. The fact that Islam has no central authority and no legitimate clergy makes things even more mixed up. In Indonesia the Islamic law is virtually disregarded by most of the community; in Saudi Arabia it is taken very seriously. (For example, in Saudi Arabia graves may not be raised, or marked except with a pebble, while in Indonesia they build houses for dead bodies, sometimes marble palaces.)

The law of Islam derives from three sources: the Qur'an, the Traditions of the Prophet, Analogy, and the Consensus of the Scholars.

The Traditions are vast in number. Only the ones collected in certain books have the force of Law, but the validity of even some of those is doubted by many. Even so, any deed of the Prophet and the Rightly Guided Caliphs is an example for all mankind which it is obligatory to follow, and many of their actions would conflict with our laws and would offend our modern sense of right and wrong. Muslims in many countries try to ignore many of the traditions, but when you get serious enforcers like the Taliban you have to throw your razor away, or keep it for the tender bits only. ("There are a thousand devils under each body hair.")

The Scholars are local. The Indonesian Scholars have approved beer, while to other Muslims all alcohol is an abomination. Depends on the demographics.

The Muslims are great exploiters of the Internet, and Islamic law is there in abundance for anyone to check out. Regarding death to the apostate, there's no shortage of material.

http://www.light-of-life.com/eng/ilaw/l5721et1.htm

A Muslim is not free to believe or do what he wishes. He is under Islamic law, which was derived and assimilated from the Qur´an, the example of Muhammad (sunna), the final analogy (qijas) and consensus (idjmaa).

He who falls away from Islam must, according to the Sharia, be prosecuted, taken into custody by force, and called on to repent. If necessary, his return is to be "helped" along with torture. He who does not embrace Islam again has, according to the Sharia, forfeited his life and is to be put to death by the state (http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm).

"Some commentators have drawn the conclusion that ...the punishment for the mere renunciation of faith is death." An adult apostate would typically be given three days to reconsider their decision before being executed. Some believe that this sentence is to be carried out "whether or not the apostasy occurred in an Islamic State or not."

I'm glad this subject came up, because this second page contains a very welcome possible way out:

"The penalty prescribed by Shari'a (Islamic) law is execution for men and life imprisonment for women. Drunkards and mentally ill persons are excluded from this punishment because they are considered to be not responsible for their statements."

I haven't been drunk for 55 years, but -- I wouldn't want to arouse any resentments -- I think I could successfully defend a case of insanity, if you catch my meaning. Cough, cough.
******************

I found my friend's little joke at the end of his letter disturbing. We then had this exchange:

Me: Halim, are you serious? Are you saying that if you shrugged off Islam, you might be righteously murdered by one of your Muslim brothers?

He: I'd say definitely. I know two who'd be perfectly capable. They'd do it to their own children or mothers.

Me: So, is my fantasy of a mainstream Islam analogous to mainstream Christianity just that: a fantasy?

He: Not a fantasy, but the demographics are not encouraging. Mainstream is the crowds rioting. The libs are relatively few.

Me: If indeed Islam teaches that it is right to kill those who become skeptical or doubting of its validity, then it is an abomination that should be wiped off the earth, as National Socialism was a couple of generations ago.

He: That's why a few courageous people are speaking out of the muzzles of their burkhas, as in this article the other day (http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/22/mooney-c.html):

"When I next saw him, again in Amherst, last November, he was convening a meeting of anti-Muslim dissidents from Iran, Bangladesh, and other Islamic countries. Many of the attendees came across as starkly angry ("My target is to get rid of Islam," huffed the Iranian-born activist Parvin Darabi) and more than a little paranoid (the group held a long discussion on how to prevent Muslims from secretly infiltrating their ranks). "

Q-Source

27th February 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Islam is a self-regulating dangerous religion and this is the most important question you ask when dealing with the future implications of Islam.

I wonder why Islam has been so successful to remain intact during all these years?

Why there are so many people who convert into Islam?

I have had the opportunity to talk to some muslims and they are so dogmatic, they follow the rules without questioning any thing that the religion or their prophet say.

Islam promotes violence and odium, this is a fact.

Q-S

The Fool

27th February 2003, 03:58 AM

Q-Source

27th February 2003, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

oh the Irony.....

What ?!?? :eek:

BTW, why you didn't answer my questions? you found them difficult to answer?

What I mentioned about Muslims is true. I am speaking from my own personal experience with this people.

I am not insulting them by saying something they recognise as true: they believe that their prophet was utterly right. They cannot question anything said by him...

Besides, you can find in their holy book direct and clear references where hate and violance towards non-believers in Islam is promoted. I don't have the time to make a search now, but I'll do it if I have the time.

Q-S

The Fool

27th February 2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

What ?!?? :eek:

BTW, why you didn't answer my questions? you found them difficult to answer?

No, I may do it for the same reasons you do it? How about you explain why you do it and I'll tell you if my reasons are the same....

What I mentioned about Muslims is true. I am speaking from my own personal experience with this people.

what percentage of the muslim population do you personally know?

I am not insulting them by saying something they recognise as true: they believe that their prophet was utterly right. They cannot question anything said by him...

I don't know any religion that has prophets where the words of the prophet are not considered utterly right. do you imagine that a muslim would consider you saying " your religion promotes violence and odium" as an insult?....or would they agree with you that this statement is true .... do you need to think about that one?

Besides, you can find in their holy book direct and clear references where hate and violance towards non-believers in Islam is promoted. I don't have the time to make a search now, but I'll do it if I have the time.
Q-S
you would be better off spending the time thinking about how you differ from what you condemn.

27th February 2003, 05:38 AM

As far as I am concerned Q-Source is correct.

Islam cannot be reformed. Islam is by its very nature resistant to reform and has not significantly changed since it originated. This is quite deliberate - Islam was created like this precisely because Christianity, which was by then 600 years old, had been subject to massive reformation and re-writing until it became almost the reverse of what it was originally supposed to be. This history of Christianity was not lost on Mohammed. That is why Mohammed refused to be buried in a marked grave - he did not want Islam to become obsessed with worshipping him as God. All that matters is SURRENDER to Allah.

You DO NOT reform Islam.
You DO NOT question the Qu'ran.

No one wants to fight a war against Islam. But a system of belief which demands the death penalty for skepticism really has to go.

Then it's Armageddon here we come. If you want Islam 'to go' you'd better buckle yourself in for the longest and bloodiest war in the history of humanity. And you'd better make sure that you know what you are doing - attempting a genocidal destruction of a religion. Only once in human history has this been achieved (and until Hitler tried it again in 1944, this was arguably the most grotesque atrocity in human history) :

Albigensian Crusade 1209-1255 (http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/albigens.htm)

Béziers

On 21 July, the crusaders reached Béziers and demanded that the Cathars in the popularion be handed over. This was refused even by the Roman Catholics of the town. The tradition of Cathar strength in this town went back to 1167, when they murdered their vicomte, Raymond-Roger I de Trencavel, in revenge for one of his knights having killed a Cathar. In return the vicomte's son, Raymond-Roger II, had the town ransacked in 1169. Domingo de Guzmán and Pierre de Castelnau had attempted to confront the popularion in 1206.
On the afternoon of 22 July, the town launched a sortie which, when forced back into the town, was closely persued by a band of the crusaders. Once inside the walls of the town, the crusaders seized Béziers within an hour. Immediately there began a mass slaughter of Catholics and Cathars, alike. When asked by one of the crusader warriors about the possible killing of Catholics along with the heretic Cathars, Arnaud-Amaury is supposed to have delivered his nefarious statement "Kill them all! God will recognize His own!" Accounts vary as to the numbered slaughtered (10,000 to 20,000, with just over 200 estimated to have been Cathars) in this, the bloodiest and first, battle of the crusade. The massacre frightened many other towns to surrender without resistance.
Present among the crusaders was a Cistercian monk, Pierre des Vaux-de-Cernay, who ten years later would write his chronical Historia Albigensis of the campaign.

Q-Source

27th February 2003, 06:25 AM

Fool,

I found an excellent site to support my claim that Islam promotes violence and hate towards non-believers in their religion.

Quran tells Muslims to kill the disbelievers wherever they find them (Q; 2:191), murder them and treat them harshly (Q; 9:123), slay them (Q; 9:5), fight with them, (Q; 8:65 ). It tells its followes to humiliate the Christians and the Jews and impose on them a penalty tax (Q; 9:29). Quran takes away the freedom of belief from all humanity and tells clearly that no other religion except Islam is accepted (Q;3:85). It relegates those who disbelieve in it it to hell (Q;5:10), calls them najis (filthy, untouchable, impure) (Q;9:28) and orders the Muslims to fight the unbelievers until no other religion except Islam is left (Q;2:193). Quran states that the non-believers will go to hell and will drink boiling water (Q;14:17); it asks the Muslims to slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, and expel them from the land with disgrace and that “they shall have a great punishment in world hereafter” (Q;5:34). It says that for the disbelievers "garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods” (Q;22:19). Quran prohibits Muslims to befriend their own brothers and fathers if they are non-believers (Q;9:23), (Q;3:28). It asks the Muslims to “strive against the unbelievers with great endeavor (Q;25:52) and be stern with them because they belong to hell (Q;66:9). The holy Prophet demanded his followers to “strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; then after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives” for ransom (Q;47:4).

If you want to check the original quotes go and read here (http://main.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/prologue2.htm).

I don't know any religion that has prophets where the words of the prophet are not considered utterly right.

Then, you agree with me. Muslims cannot question their prophet's words, even though he may be wrong.

No, I may do it for the same reasons you do it? How about you explain why you do it and I'll tell you if my reasons are the same....

I don't understand your point. Nevermind, if it is too embarrasing for you to answer three simple questions, I understand.

do you imagine that a muslim would consider you saying " your religion promotes violence and odium" as an insult?....or would they agree with you that this statement is true .... do you need to think about that one?

The quotes above are clear and direct, (using the same definitions of words), if the Quran says [about non-believers] "And kill them wherever you find them" (Q; 2:191), then it means exaclty the same to everybody, no matter how much you want to avoid it. Kill is Kill.

Are you a Muslim, Fool? :rolleyes:

Q-S

headscratcher4

27th February 2003, 06:51 AM

Many interesting points have been brought up...I do not know if Islam can be reformed. However, I would like to make this observation. At a time when Christianity was being used as a club to strike at Jews, Moslems and non-conforming Christians in Europe, at the times of the Crusades, and during the many Christian Inquisitions, Islamic countries not only tolerated differing religions, but in many instances welcomed populations -- like Jews -- being persecuted in Europe.

In addition, when Christian Europe was the back-water of modernity, when the number of "Educated" people in any Christian European country could be counted in the dozens, when today's great cities -- Paris, London, Rome -- were swamps or nearly abandoned -- when today's great European Universities were but small, insular and strictly controlled religious institutions, Islamic culture flourished. Islamic cultured saved western culture by preserving and enhancing both its sciences and its philosophies. It created great institutions of learning and provided what (for the time) was a great deal of equality of access (at least for men) when Christian Europe was bogged down in feudalism and hereditary wealth.

When Christian Spain, for example, expelled the Jews, Ottoman-Islamic Turkey took them in. During the Crusades, when Catholic nights conquered Eastern Christian communities in the Middle East and attempted to force those Christians to convert to the Roman form of Catholicism, Islamic states took them in.

Now, none of this is to say that "taking them in" was very accommodating...proselytism was banned, building houses of worship strictly regulated -- in other words, not unlike evry European country up until the first quarter of the last Century (Indeed, it is difficult to see that Islamic residents -- had there been any -- could have say, built a mosque in Alabama until the last 25 years without some local group burning it down...). All over Europe, Jews had to live in Ghettos. All over Europe, churches other than the officially sanctioned church were limited and often persecuted (that is why groups like Mennanites, and Baptists, and Quakers, and Protestants, and Catholics, and Jews came to the US).

My point is not to excuse fundamentalist Islam or to answer the question about whether it can be reformed. Rather it is to suggest that context is necessary, and often these discussions have little context.

For example, in Israel (and I am a staunch supporter of Israel and its right to exist), there are many who would and have imposed strict interpretations of Jewish law on the state. Sex segregation, strict observance of the Sabbath, desire to expel all who do not believe the torah they way they do, interest in denying rights to Jews who do not hold the Torah as they do). Why is there no one asking whether secular, modern Israel can be reformed and saved, or whether it will become just another state controlled by religious fanatics (the people who not only want to expell Arabs, but who might also tear down many a Christian shrine/institution as well)?

Islam has a passel of problems, but they are the problems of modernity, and they are the problems that many Western nations have faced and sometimes failed -- Nazism, for example. So, I guess before painting with too broad a brush, I would urge people to learn a little more about history, because while we in the West can pat our selves on the backs today for being modern, diverse, multi-cultural, open minded, etc. Our history isn't so sterling, nor our track-record so long and successful.

Jedi Knight

27th February 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

I wonder why Islam has been so successful to remain intact during all these years?

Why there are so many people who convert into Islam?

I have had the opportunity to talk to some muslims and they are so dogmatic, they follow the rules without questioning any thing that the religion or their prophet say.

Islam promotes violence and odium, this is a fact.

Q-S

Why has Islam remained so intact? Well, when western intellectuals preach that the "west" is to blame for all the world's problems, and it is the "west" that is to blame for not respecting diversity, everything the west does is "evil", while everything anyone else does around the world is "enlightenment" needing to be "celebrated" for its "diversity".

That includes "respecting" the "diversity" of, and "celebrating" of "radical Islam".

If radical Islam was a western institution, you would see a transnational Waco operation against it, complete with live footage at 11, flamethrowers, tanks and western screams. Since it is not, it is something to be "respected" and "celebrated" for its "enlightened diversity".

JK

Richard G

27th February 2003, 07:40 AM

The nations, and people of Islam are at war with everyone, all over the world. When they aren't at war with foreigners, and outside nations, they resort to tribal warfare, killing themselves. To be a true Islamist, is to be a fantic jihad screaming nut. The Koran mandates the spread of Islam by the sword, killing all who refuse to convert. Only those who submit willingly to Islam are to be spared. Their actions through out the world today clearly reflect this ideology.

Islam is a plague to mankind.

DrBenway

27th February 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
"At a time when Christianity was being used as a club to strike at Jews, Moslems and non-conforming Christians in Europe, at the times of the Crusades, and during the many Christian Inquisitions, Islamic countries not only tolerated differing religions, but in many instances welcomed populations -- like Jews -- being persecuted in Europe."

As I understand, Islamic law allows for Christians and Jews to live and practice their religion, so long as these "people of the Book" make no efforts to proselytize the Muslims around them. Christians and Jews also must pay a higher tax and have significantly fewer civil rights under Islamic law.

Although Muslims are instructed to tolerate Christians and Jews living beside them, they are *not* instructed to tolerate Christians and Jews in authority over them. If a Muslim finds himself subject to Jewish or Christian rulership (and also secular or socialist rulership), he has a duty to work to change his government.

In the case of Hindus, a Muslim must not be so tolerate. Hindus are polytheists, and are thus subject to execution if they do not convert to Islam when offered the opportunity to do so.

"My point is not to excuse fundamentalist Islam or to answer the question about whether it can be reformed. Rather it is to suggest that context is necessary, and often these discussions have little context."

Understood. I don't mean to pick on Islam. I'm also quite critical of many other religions. The problem of Islam just seems more pressing currently.

Headscratcher again:
"For example, in Israel (and I am a staunch supporter of Israel and its right to exist), there are many who would and have imposed strict interpretations of Jewish law on the state."

But Israelis are largely secularists, not theocrats. A great many Jews are actually deists or agnostics. I strongly doubt that we'll see a theocratic Israel.

I also strongly doubt that we'll see a theocratic America, but sometimes I wonder.

Headscratcher again:
"Islam has a passel of problems, but they are the problems of modernity, and they are the problems that many Western nations have faced and sometimes failed -- Nazism, for example. So, I guess before painting with too broad a brush, I would urge people to learn a little more about history, because while we in the West can pat our selves on the backs today for being modern, diverse, multi-cultural, open minded, etc. Our history isn't so sterling, nor our track-record so long and successful."

Two doctrines codified in Islamic law are significant and central to the problems of Islam in the modern world:
1. the rule of death for apostates
2. the rule of death for those guilty of proposing "innovation"

Academics in Turkey and Pakistan, for example, have to be *very* careful of their language when commenting upon Islam. If the threat of death were removed, it would be much easier for a reformation process to happen within the Muslim world.

headscratcher4

27th February 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway
Originally posted by headscratcher4
"At a time when Christianity was being used as a club to strike at Jews, Moslems and non-conforming Christians in Europe, at the times of the Crusades, and during the many Christian Inquisitions, Islamic countries not only tolerated differing religions, but in many instances welcomed populations -- like Jews -- being persecuted in Europe."

As I understand, Islamic law allows for Christians and Jews to live and practice their religion, so long as these "people of the Book" make no efforts to proselytize the Muslims around them. Christians and Jews also must pay a higher tax and have significantly fewer civil rights under Islamic law.
___
This is correct. I only pointed it out because during the middle ages, many Christians (non-Catholics) and Jews actively choose to pay the penalty of living under an Islamic state than pay the penalty of living under a Christian/Catholic/Crusader state. My point wasn't that Islam was somehow more lienient or forgiving, merely that its harshness fluxuates in context and that historically, many a christian state has been equally inflexible (Recall, at one time or another, Spain, England, France, Germany, the Papal States, etc. have all expelled the Jews, harshly taxed them, etc. England, for many years prevented Catholics from participation in public life -- still can't be King and a Catholic, etc.). Anyway, all I am really arguing is that little that is done in the name of Islam hasn't been done (and until fairly recently) in the "Christian" west.
_____

Although Muslims are instructed to tolerate Christians and Jews living beside them, they are *not* instructed to tolerate Christians and Jews in authority over them. If a Muslim finds himself subject to Jewish or Christian rulership (and also secular or socialist rulership), he has a duty to work to change his government.

Again, I believe this to be correct. I also would suggest that Pat Robertson and others have openly spoken of the US as not only a "Christian" nation, but of returning America to its holy and exalted status as a Christian nation. We are, aspire to be, a secular society. THere are, however, many -- like fundumentalist Christians who would not have it so (The laws of God -- like the Right to Life Extremist -- trump the laws of men), etc. It isn't as pervasive, but it exists. Indeed, Mormon history, for example, is a history of establishing a state/nation that would not have to live under the bondage of the secular state (an effort of only 150 years or so ago -- and many would argue that in Utah it continues). My point is that there are tendencies in all societies, especially religious societies to try to push out other religions or control other religions and it heresey/pollution. I note the article in today's New York Times on the growth of radical, nationalist Hinduism and its effort to suppres Islam in India. Again, not to excuse Islam, it just isn't so unique...IMO.

____
"My point is not to excuse fundamentalist Islam or to answer the question about whether it can be reformed. Rather it is to suggest that context is necessary, and often these discussions have little context."

Understood. I don't mean to pick on Islam. I'm also quite critical of many other religions. The problem of Islam just seems more pressing currently.

Agreed, but we aren't moslems living in India...

Further, I would only suggest that -- and again not to excuse extrmemism, only to understand it -- radical Islam did not appear in a vacume. One could argue that if we (in the West) had not spent the last 50 years supporting corrupt secular Middle-Eastern Dictators, or corrupt royal families -- states that not only repressed Islamic fundumentalism but all liberal voices as well, states that murdered and tortured its people, states that were little more than Mafia operations, than we (in the west) might not be facing so radicalized an Islam. In short, it seems to me it is easy for Osama et. al. to point their fingers at the west and say they are evil because while we are not responsible for all of the corruption and horror in the middle east, we (the West) have done little to encourage any real, liberal, secular alternatives. Heck, the US "liberated" Kuwait 10 years ago and women still can't vote or drive...and Islamic fundumentalism is growing.

_____
Headscratcher again:
"For example, in Israel (and I am a staunch supporter of Israel and its right to exist), there are many who would and have imposed strict interpretations of Jewish law on the state."

But Israelis are largely secularists, not theocrats. A great many Jews are actually deists or agnostics. I strongly doubt that we'll see a theocratic Israel.

And yet, there is ever increasing pressures in that direction. Indeed, one of the religious parties now part of the new government explicitly calls for the expulsion of all arabs and the anexation of the entire West Bank. No, it is a theocratic Irael, it remains a reasonably secular state, but the pressure is on and growing. My point is that there are trends in many countries toward a fundumentalist attitude that precludes toleration and condemns secularization -- it is true here, the Christian Coalition and their rants about the horror of the secular society.

Again, I don't excuse fundumentalism of any stripe, it is more of an issue in Islam today, but it is also an issue in many societies...

_____

Headscratcher again:
"Islam has a passel of problems, but they are the problems of modernity, and they are the problems that many Western nations have faced and sometimes failed -- Nazism, for example. So, I guess before painting with too broad a brush, I would urge people to learn a little more about history, because while we in the West can pat our selves on the backs today for being modern, diverse, multi-cultural, open minded, etc. Our history isn't so sterling, nor our track-record so long and successful."

Two doctrins codified in Islamic law are significant and central to the problems of Islam in the modern world:
1. the rule of death for apostates
2. the rule of death for those guilty of proposing "innovation"

This is not unique...Christian history-- especially during the reformation -- is repleat with burnings and torture directed at apostates. My point is that while it is an issue today, Islam isn't unique in this regard...

___
Academics in Turkey and Pakistan, for example, have to be *very* careful of their language when commenting upon Islam. If the threat of death were removed, it would be much easier for a reformation process to happen within the Muslim world.

True, sadly, as dp academics who challenge the state or state systems in many parts of the world...academic freedom and discourse are too often aspirational rather than sacrad.

The Fool

27th February 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Are you a Muslim, Fool? :rolleyes:

Q-S
why? would it matter to you?
Remember Q-Source....you believe I am intollerant, You believe I insult people's religious beliefs and you believe I don't respect believers......LOL, I could learn a lot about improving my techniques in this area by reading your posts on this thread....

While you, and a number of other posters to this thread are using the worst extremes of Muslim fundamentalists to characterise the entire religion, I wonder if you apply the same principle to your own religion. Is Christianity a religion of "violence and odium" because its fundamentalist extremists are like that?

Thanks for all the quotes of hellfire and brimstone from the Muslim holy book. Shall we now compare it to the same things in the bible?

Jon_in_london

27th February 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by JAR
Like members of most religions, Muslims can live normally in the modern world as long as they don't follow all the rules of their religion.

very well put.

The Fool

27th February 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

very well put.
Absolutely true..... It is rediculous sometimes how chest thumping Islamic fundamentalists are filmed for television foaming at the mouth chanting in the streets and demanding the death of all infidels are portrayed as spokespersons for islam....Then we cut to a studios looking cleric who is portrayed as a spokesperson for Christianity....

Why not the other way around? lets see a debate between a moderate Imam and either the grand dragon of the KKK...... or somedrunken redneck on the streets.....

Holy ***** folks..... how about a bit of balance. Bin laden is as representative of islam as the KKK is of Christianity....

Frank Newgent

27th February 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
Islam is a plague to mankind.

Seven million adherents to Islam also happen to be US citizens. Why don't you go tell them?

The Fool

27th February 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Richard G
The nations, and people of Islam are at war with everyone, all over the world.

Hmmmm, doesn't seem to match reality, I can't think if an islamic nation that is currently at war, Pakistan is probably pretty close to war with India most of the time. Interestingly India also has a large muslim population ... Palestine is not a nation but I would accept they are at war. Off hand I can't think of any others, someone may be able to help me with more? The facts don't seem to match your rhetoric.

When they aren't at war with foreigners, and outside nations, they resort to tribal warfare, killing themselves.

Damn I never realised that non muslim nations never do this... The American civil war must be a myth?

To be a true Islamist, is to be a fantic jihad screaming nut.

Lol...nice creative use of the word "true".

The Koran mandates the spread of Islam by the sword, killing all who refuse to convert. Only those who submit willingly to Islam are to be spared. Their actions through out the world today clearly reflect this ideology.

oops, how do you explain all the non muslims living in what you describe as "muslim" countries? should they not be dead by now?

Islam is a plague to mankind.

will not dignify bigotry with a reply

Sadly Richard has just displayed that he is most definitely part of the problem rather than part of the solution....

Hypocolius

27th February 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

If radical Islam was a western institution, you would see a transnational Waco operation against it, complete with live footage at 11, flamethrowers, tanks and western screams. Since it is not, it is something to be "respected" and "celebrated" for its "enlightened diversity".

JK

Hey JK, I agree with you on something!:)

DrBenway

28th February 2003, 12:52 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Holy ***** folks..... how about a bit of balance. Bin laden is as representative of islam as the KKK is of Christianity....

The prescribed death penalty for apostasy has nothing to do with OBL. It's a mainstream Islamic teaching. Apostates are killed in Muslim countries today. Muslims don't usually kill apostates in non-Muslim countries, for obvious reasons. They also don't go out of their way to discuss this matter with non-Muslims, for obvious reasons.

Here's an essay regarding modernism from a fairly mainstream Muslim voice: http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=119

quote:
1) The modernists movement as a whole (what it is based on) is from Bida' (innovation). They have their own principles and ways, which contradicts that of Ahl-Sunna. They say we want ijtihaad in the basic principles of the deen (religion) which are constant.

2) They are very willing to reject and contradict the ijmaa of the sahaaba on clear points (such as stoning of the adulterer and the apostate is to be killed) and hadith are dealt with as if they are not important (women ruler hadith is common).
****end of quote*********

If I could change one thing about Islam, it would be this: remove the death threat over apostates. With that one change, I imagine a natural process of reform might happen within the Muslim community.

Q-Source

28th February 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

why? would it matter to you?

It would explain many things.

Remember Q-Source....you believe I am intollerant, You believe I insult people's religious beliefs and you believe I don't respect believers......LOL, I could learn a lot about improving my techniques in this area by reading your posts on this thread....

My beliefs are based on evidence.

While you, and a number of other posters to this thread are using the worst extremes of Muslim fundamentalists to characterise the entire religion,

I think you have not noticed that those quotes come directly from the Quran.
Now, you are going to defend Islam?
What do you think of terrorists who die in the name of Mohammed and their God?, what about jihads?
Entire nations support jihads.

I wonder if you apply the same principle to your own religion. Is Christianity a religion of "violence and odium" because its fundamentalist extremists are like that?

You just have insulted me in the worst possible way :mad: :D

I am not a christian, I am an atheist. I thought that you knew that.

Thanks for all the quotes of hellfire and brimstone from the Muslim holy book. Shall we now compare it to the same things in the bible?

Yeah, any time you want. The bible is just another extremist book but this one promotes subjugation.

Listen, this is not what we are really discussing. My point is that we don't know whether or not you agree with people because of their beliefs, the reason is that you never discuss any religious issue. What I have seen so far is that you just make fun of their beliefs because you think that your atheism gives you the right to do so.

You don't attack arguments, you just attack believers. This is my whole point. I know you don't give a d*mn about my comments, but sometimes is good to know what people think about you.
In my opinion, you are just a fundamentalist atheist as such, you are no much different from any other fundamentalist religious person.

Now if you want to give me your opinion about me, then I will resist :p

Q-S

CWL

28th February 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway
Can Islam be reformed? Can this religion find a home in the modern era? Can Muslims peacefully coexist with other religionists and secularists?

"Muslim" is a label which incorporates as many varities as the term "Christian". There are thus moderate muslims with a secular view of society, there are fanatical fundamentalists and, of course, anything in between.

The answer is therefore, yes - certain Muslims can and do peacfully coexist with other religionists and secularists.

By the way - a very interesting site on Islam (hosted by Sunni Muslims) can be found at: www.understanding-islam.com (http://www.understanding-islam.com/)

DialecticMaterialist

28th February 2003, 03:42 AM

Well the Koran probably is at odds with Enlightenment values, but you should never underestimate the human capacity for hyporcisy nor the ability to rationalize the most inconsistent of ideologies.

Basically I think as long as there is a strong basis for reigion, there will always be problems with fundamentalism, or their religious values conflicting with their secular values: which is why I'd prefer there to be no muslims. However given enough pressure the religion I believe can become more hypocritical/watered down and become compatible with a liberal democracy. And though I prefer the former, given that Islam is not going to end any time soon, I'll settle for the latter. The latter in fact brings us one step closer to the former. That's social gradualism for you.

a_unique_person

28th February 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway

The prescribed death penalty for apostasy has nothing to do with OBL. It's a mainstream Islamic teaching. Apostates are killed in Muslim countries today. Muslims don't usually kill apostates in non-Muslim countries, for obvious reasons. They also don't go out of their way to discuss this matter with non-Muslims, for obvious reasons.

the koran is just as self contradictory as the bible. For many years, jews found the most tolerant place for them was the mulsim countries. there are passages in the koran that preach tolerance of other religions.

I am not trying to defend islam, just that I can't see that much difference between islam and christianity. Christianity is acceptable only if we pick the right place and time.

the more unacceptable aspects, such as female circumcision, are just as much cultural artifacts as anything else, just like the prescription for wearing too much clothing. all the koran asks for is that the 'ornaments' be covered.

DialecticMaterialist

28th February 2003, 04:15 AM

Islam was started by a warlord and spread by conquest/coercion.

Christianity was started by a cultist, and at first spread via preaching, then coercion.

Now I'm no apologist for xianity but to just lump religions together and say they are the same is simplistic. They adhere to different texts,evolved differently and have different traditions. The Koran may be contradictory but it still has general themes which seem very anti-Enlightenment and pro-militancy. This can be somewhat found in the Xian traditions(though by no means in NT scripture). But it's a bit more watered down, most likely due to its less militant origins.

DrBenway

28th February 2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I am not trying to defend islam, just that I can't see that much difference between islam and christianity. Christianity is acceptable only if we pick the right place and time.

Awful things have been done in the name of Christ, certainly. From a distant vantage point, Islam and Christianity seem to contain the same seeds of violence and intolerance.

However, there is at least one difference between Islam and Christianity that I feel is significant to the problem of peace in the modern era: Islam recommends death for apostasy; Christianity doesn't demand death for apostasy. In some fundamentalist sects, doubting or questioning Christians may be ostracized, formally kicked out of their congregations, and/or given the silent treatment by believers. But I don't know of any recognized Christian sects in the world today which urge the killing of apostates.

I grew up in a Christian home. As an older adolescent, I began to worry about the contradictions in the Bible, the problem of hell, the impossibility of living a truly Christ-like life, etc. It took about three years for me to divorce myself from my faith. It was a very painful and anxious process. I can't imagine how much more intense the process would have been if I'd had to worry about some nutter or two in my church who might try to do me a spiritual favor by slitting my throat.

I do believe that many Muslims want nothing to do with killing people over matters of conscience and faith. But I think the death threat for apostasy or innovation inhibits these Muslims from speaking out.

CWL

28th February 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by DrBenway

Awful things have been done in the name of Christ, certainly. From a distant vantage point, Islam and Christianity seem to contain the same seeds of violence and intolerance.

However, there is at least one difference between Islam and Christianity that I feel is significant to the problem of peace in the modern era: Islam recommends death for apostasy;
You are (in principle) right of course. Yet, it is not as simple as that (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=286). For instance, according to other Islamic teachings other religions (namely Judaism and Christianity) are declared as being valid stances: example (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1504). Which other religion can be said to contain such ecumenical thoughts? This very doctrine has allowed Islam to be the carrier of much of the culture we today recognize as "western thinking" in times when such thinking was considered heresy in Europe (I am thinking of much of our current knowledge of classical Greek philosophy for instance).

DrBenway

28th February 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by CWL

"Muslim" is a label which incorporates as many varities as the term "Christian".
This was once my own view of the Muslim world. However, from my conversations with Muslims in the Boston area and my readings about Islam, I now see things differently. About 85% of Muslims are Sunni. There isn't a comparable Christian sect encompassing so much of Christendom.

There are thus moderate muslims with a secular view of society, there are fanatical fundamentalists and, of course, anything in between.

Because Islam is both a religion and a system of law and governance, it is antithetical to secularism. Nonetheless, secular values, including some degree of separation between mosque and state, are visible in Islamic states. Reconciling the contradiction between a theocratic religion with specific laws about marriage, sex, clothing, education, crime and punishment, commerce, taxes, and so forth, with the needs of the modern world, is the challenge facing Muslims today.

The answer is therefore, yes - certain Muslims can and do peacfully coexist with other religionists and secularists.

Agreed. But do the moderates tolerate non-believers because of Islam, or in spite of Islam?

By the way - a very interesting site on Islam (hosted by Sunni Muslims) can be found at: www.understanding-islam.com (http://www.understanding-islam.com/)
Thank you for this link. It is an encouraging site. I typed in "apostate" to the search feature, and read an article by the site's author arguing against the death penalty for apostasy. It's here:
http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=286

It's a good example of some clever post-hoc reasoning that might pave the way for some reformation of the Islamic faith. Basically, the author argues that the hadiths in support of death for apostasy are particular to the situations described and ought not form the basis for a general rule of execution for apostates.

Some in this thread have accused me of using an extremist or fundamentalist Islamic doctrine as an example of Islam in general. To support my position that the rule of death for apostasy is a mainstream Islamic notion, I'll quote the author from the site you reference:

"I must also point out here that there is, more or less, a consensus among the scholars that an apostate should be killed."

It has seemed very strange to me, that so many secular humanists in the West apologize for Islam. What if Scientology explicitly demanded that ex-members ought to be executed? Wouldn't we call the Scientologists on that one?

My sense is, Westerners aren't fully aware of specific Islamic teachings. Or if they are aware, they assume the teachings are rejected by the Mulsim mainstream as anachronisms, in the same way that Christians and Jews reject much of the Old Testament laws. It's just too difficult to believe otherwise.

CWL

28th February 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by DrBenway
It has seemed very strange to me, that so many secular humanists in the West apologize for Islam. What if Scientology explicitly demanded that ex-members ought to be executed? Wouldn't we call the Scientologists on that one?

My sense is, Westerners aren't fully aware of specific Islamic teachings. Or if they are aware, they assume the teachings are rejected by the Mulsim mainstream as anachronisms, in the same way that Christians and Jews reject much of the Old Testament laws. It's just too difficult to believe otherwise.
I gladly label myself as a secular humanist and I am personally not prepared to apologize for any religion. However as I believe firmly in freedom of religion (as long as religion is allowed to remain a private matter) I think the whole case of the Muslims must be pleaded. "Muslim" does not necessarily equal "fundamentalist terrorist" - it is distinctions like that I am looking for.

If one wants to debate with religious adherents, one should study the religions one is "up against". This is as true for Christianity as it is for Islam. The point being that there are too many uninformed voices arguing from the secular camp these days...

Be that as it may, I don't think we have a disagreement in principle. Fundamentalism (in any form) must be fought. Simple as that. I do not disagree with your basic contention that fundamentalism is over representated within Islam.

Mike B.

28th February 2003, 03:34 PM

"It has seemed very strange to me, that so many secular humanists in the West apologize for Islam. What if Scientology explicitly demanded that ex-members ought to be executed? Wouldn't we call the Scientologists on that one?"

I find myself agreeing with this very much. I have always found it a bit strange that so many skeptics on this board are willing to constantly give Islam the benefit of the doubt, something they do not do for Xianity, Scientology, or other religions.

If anyone posts something negative about Islam it is almost instantly answered with, "Well Xianity is the same or worse..." as if being critical of Islam makes one a believer of Xianity.

I mean if someone is rightfully critical of Jerry Falwell or any Xian fundamentalists, nobody on here jumps up and states well, "Islam is just as bad..." If Falwell stated for his followers to kill kafir or infidels, I think he should be absolutely condemned, but a Muslim cleric saying it gets a, "ho hum" reaction or a reminder about how "all Muslims are not like that." I do not doubt for a second that there are moderate Muslims, but the difference in behavior by skeptics is very noticeable.

It is interesting Salaman Rushdie shares your view. When he had to go into hiding for being critical of Islam and being an apostate, he was very mad at the "left" in the West for being quasi-apologists for Islam and not being forthright in condemning a death order against him.

Q-Source

1st March 2003, 03:55 AM

*sound of crickets*

The Fool

1st March 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

the reason is that you never discuss any religious issue.

Have we been discussing football?

What I have seen so far is that you just make fun of their beliefs because you think that your atheism gives you the right to do so.

I have the same right as you do Q... I make fun of people, sure. When they display ignorance or Hypocricy or they tell me I am evil or stupid for not sharing thier beliefs. You believe that because muslim fundies are wackos that it must be the religion that is fundamentally to blame. You point at "kill the unbelievers" statements that you dig out of muslim texts, the sort of "kill the unbeliever" statements that exist in most religions, you run the old "I know some muslims" line in order to try to add weight to a proposition that cannot be supported by reality. Why are all these "unbelievers" living and working in muslim countries apparently alive?

You don't attack arguments, you just attack believers.

are you sure about that? There are many "believers" i don't challenge, there are many "unbelievers" I do...such as yourself.

This is my whole point. I know you don't give a d*mn about my comments, but sometimes is good to know what people think about you.

Absolutely correct, It just makes me laugh when the person accusing me of something does the same thing.

In my opinion, you are just a fundamentalist atheist as such, you are no much different from any other fundamentalist religious person.

have you been listening to franko?

Now if you want to give me your opinion about me, then I will resist :p

good, but isn't it getting a bit boring?

Q-S [/B]

DialecticMaterialist

1st March 2003, 06:48 AM

CWL: You should note that Islamic writings contain more tolerant statements towards the beggining with less tolerant as Islam gained power. This is because the Prophet was weak at first and would have been crushed had he said anything foolish as that. However the Prophet does change his mind as time goes by for obvious reasons.

Islam is also far more worldly in its concerns, i.e. concerned with justice and punishment in the here and now. Xian scripture is not, mainly because early christians had no political power (they were a dooms-day cult-not a war like ruling religious order). Lastly, just about any killing can be justified in the Koran if it is in "defense of Islam". This can be interpreted to be justa bout anything. People who deconvert from Islam are likewise to be executed according to the Hadiths. As are people who blasphemy the prophet. As are Xians and Jews unless they convert of pay a tribute. As are pagans and atheists unless they convert.

The xian religion has not similiar scriptures mainly because the early Xians did not have the power to enforce such edicts, hence though Xianity may have developed a militant tradition of its own, such a tradition was never explicitly endorsed by Xian scripture.

Lastly, just about any text with enough stretching can be interpreted any way. However the problem is religions are not just products of their scipture but traditions as well. And Islamic tradition has been very militant,fundamentalist and oppressive. Hence to try and defend a religious viewpoint while trying to divorce the traditions inherent of such a viewpoint simply does not work.

In short, like I said before to say two religions are equal is to be simplistic. Religions come from different places, under different historical conditions. They start differently and develope differently. Now I'm not saying Xianity is the greatest thing in the world itself but to say it is as bad as Islam is a bit disingenuine.

Q-Source

1st March 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

You believe that because muslim fundies are wackos that it must be the religion that is fundamentally to blame. You point at "kill the unbelievers" statements that you dig out of muslim texts, the sort of "kill the unbeliever" statements that exist in most religions, you run the old "I know some muslims" line in order to try to add weight to a proposition that cannot be supported by reality. Why are all these "unbelievers" living and working in muslim countries apparently alive?

You see Fool, it is so easy to go from one extreme (intolerance) to the other (tolerance) if when we want to.

good, but isn't it getting a bit boring?

If you say so. It's over.

DrBenway

1st March 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by CWL

...For instance, according to other Islamic teachings other religions (namely Judaism and Christianity) are declared as being valid stances: example (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=1504).

"Valid" might be a stretch. Muslims are taught that Christians and Jews have been given part of Allah's revelation to mankind. Muslims believe that the writers of the Bible corrupted the original message.

As for the tolerance offered to Christians and Jews in Muslims countries, it's contingent upon their political subjugation to Muslims, according to Islamic law.

from http://secularislam.org/humanrights/compatible.htm

"Non - Muslims are not free to choose their work in Muslim countries, or rather certain posts are not permitted them. A recent example from Saudi Arabia makes the point. A group of Muslims working in a company owned by a Muslim were shocked when the Muslim owner appointed a new manager, who was a Christian. The Muslims demanded a religious ruling asking whether it was permissible under Islam to have a Christian in authority over them. Sheikh Mannaa K. Al Qubtan at the Islamic Law College of Riyadh declared that it was intolerable under Islam that a non - Muslim should wield authority over Muslims. He pointed to two verses from the Koran to back up his argument: Sura iv. 141: " Allah will not give the disbelievers triumph over the believers " Sura lxxiii.8: Force and power belong to God, and to His Prophet, and to believers."

I think you and I agree that moderate Muslims exist. Muslims who believe in secularism and human rights are out there.

Given this fact, the question now is, how do we in the West help them? I'm not sure we do them any favors by praising Islam as "a religion of peace," while minimizing the barbarity and brutality of Islamic law in practice around the world.

headscratcher4

1st March 2003, 11:27 AM

Perhaps an equally interesting question is can we (the West) work for a reformed, moderated, even secularized Islamic society while not making the same demand on our own "religious" communities... fundumentalism is growing in the US, for instance, toleration of "secularism" is under assault by a bible thumping attorney general, etc. My only real point is that before we become to indignent about the excesses of Muslim society, we should sometimes look in the mirror and study the history of the West....And, please, I am not suggesting that we shouldn't strive for reform and secularization of arab society, only that Islam isn't really much different than any other religions. Just for example, as pointed out above, at the time when we in the west were burning Jews and protestants at the Stake throughout "Christian" "Catholic" Europe (for apostacy, among other crimes), Islamic countries were taking Jews in and giving them refuge.

Note also, the Spanish were not particularly forgiving of native religions in the Americas as they destroyed cultures and relgions to establish their one, true church. Certainly, the church was a method of population control, but to the people murdered for their beliefs the distinction hardly matters....

Frank Newgent

1st March 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by DrBenway

But I think that people of conscience who value secularist and humanist ideas ought to...

read this (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1599/benway.htm).

DrBenway

1st March 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

read this (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/1599/benway.htm).

Are you looking for an appointment? :)

DrBenway

1st March 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Perhaps an equally interesting question is can we (the West) work for a reformed, moderated, even secularized Islamic society while not making the same demand on our own "religious" communities...

I believe we do make the same demands upon other fundamentalists. On this web side, I read far more postings concerned with the American religious right than I read about Islam. In fact, in this politics forum, my posting is the first I've read which directly discusses the problems of Islam. I'm a newbie and I may have missed some prior discussions. There may be other such threads in the religion section (I have to confess, the madness of that forum prevents my reading it closely).

Just for example, as pointed out above, at the time when we in the west were burning Jews and protestants at the Stake throughout "Christian" "Catholic" Europe (for apostacy, among other crimes), Islamic countries were taking Jews in and giving them refuge.

It isn't really fair to compare medeival Christendom to modern Islam. A more fair comparison would be modern Christendom to modern Islam.

I became personally concerned with the brutality of Islamic law at the time that my Muslim friend decided to stop going to mosque. This friend lives in Boston, not Saudi Arabia. Yet he still has to be careful not to express his apostasy publicly. "It's only the nutters who'd do anything, but nutters their are," he says.

Being a "non-revert" (Islam has no converts) and not an apostate, I have the privilege of speaking out with a little less fear than my friend has.

Oso

1st March 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by DrBenway
Because Islam is both a religion and a system of law and governance, it is antithetical to secularism. Nonetheless, secular values, including some degree of separation between mosque and state, are visible in Islamic states. Reconciling the contradiction between a theocratic religion with specific laws about marriage, sex, clothing, education, crime and punishment, commerce, taxes, and so forth, with the needs of the modern world, is the challenge facing Muslims today.
To me this is the heart of the problem. Many Muslims are comfortable living in a secular society. But if by peaceful means they could replace secular law with sharia (islamic) law I doubt you could find a single devote muslim that would oppose it (even here in the USA).

Secular christians on the other hand at least have something in the bible to grasp on to and allow them to embrace the separation of church and state if they so desire. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's.

The Fool

1st March 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

If you say so. It's over.
ok.....lets do lunch. :)

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 08:00 AM

headscratcher4: I agree with you that fundies are a problem in the US. In fact I'd say they are perhaps the biggest problem in the US.

However you can't say religions are the same. I've studies religions a great deal and there is just too much difference in their historical origins,development and writings to make such a statement. I know that Europeans were intolerant towards native peoples but who is to say the Muslims would not be more so? It seems to me they were towards the hindus when they took Pakistan and commenced with a holocaust.

headscratcher4

4th March 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
headscratcher4: I agree with you that fundies are a problem in the US. In fact I'd say they are perhaps the biggest problem in the US.

However you can't say religions are the same. I've studies religions a great deal and there is just too much difference in their historical origins,development and writings to make such a statement. I know that Europeans were intolerant towards native peoples but who is to say the Muslims would not be more so? It seems to me they were towards the hindus when they took Pakistan and commenced with a holocaust.

I would never argue, nor want to, that all religions are the same...However, to some extent you make my point. What we fear in Islamic radicalism is to a great extent something that is found in many religions. The ability to create holocausts, as it were, is not limited to one sect, cult or religion, but seems universally possible amongst believers (of any ideology, philosophy, political system).

If I had a point, it would be that in a discussion such as this we should be careful to not paint with too broad a brush. Islam, like all religions, is not monolithic. That doesn't mean that its adherents don't share some core beliefs. Rather, it is that the application of the religion is as often colored by political, historical, economic, cultural conditions as it is by strict aherence to the core text. In short, what is happening in the MiddleEast, Pakistan, Afghanastan, etc. is influenced as much by the individual history and context of those countries as it is on any single, shared understanding of all aspects of Islam.

The Poet Rumi -- who spoke passionately about tolerance and forgiveness and the joy and mysticism of god -- was a passionate believer in Islam. He wrote amazing words about love and toleration and universal human values at a time when we, in the west, were expelling our Jews and burning heritics from Catholocism at the stake. Rumi and BinLaudin both claim to subscribe to the same religion.

Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland and Bishop TuTu in S. Africa both claim christianity. They both would rely on the text of the Bible to justify their beliefs, actions, etc. However, wouldn't you say that the context of their lives -- the protestant experience in Northern Ireland, a childhood in segregated S. Africa are keys, in part, to their understanding of christianity?

I am not trying to defend radical Islam. It, in particular, manifests very dangerous, anti-humanist doctrines. It is anti-women. It is anti-freedom. It is anti-justice. It is Anti-Semetic and anti-tolerant. But, it seems to me to fight it, to change the minds of the masses who embrace radical Islam out of frustration, anger, etc. must we not also understand the context of the emergence of those sects? Is it Islam alone, or is it Islam in the face of conlialism and anti-colonialist trends and philosophies? Is it Islam or a reaction in the face of failed Arab socialism? Is it Islam, or is it also governing oligarchies interested in preserving their place at the expense of more egalitarian and democratic popular impulses? Is it Islam or marginalization? Maybe it is all those things...and more.

c0rbin

4th March 2003, 10:09 AM

I hesitate to boil down any post here, but it seems that headscratcher is claiming that we should focus more on the practitioners than the religion.

Islam might be incompatible with skepticism or western democracy, or capitolism, or whatever, but the individual might well be open to anything.

Education is a key component to liberalizing a mind. And I don't mean "libral" like libral = anti-bush or Democractic. It seems to me that the Taliban was anti-education, and that any organization that relies on suicide bombers to make their statements makes frequent and prefered use of uneducated young men.

A solution to "modernizing" Islam might be education.

headscratcher4

4th March 2003, 10:12 AM

A solution to "modernizing" Islam might be education.

Indeed, I believe that to be the case with Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc....but I would actually put it differently, it isn't education, it is opportunity.

c0rbin

4th March 2003, 10:20 AM

Opportunity:education.

Chicken:egg?

I kid. You are right. A lot of these dudes with plastique belts and white cloth sacks on their heads to disguise their identities probably never took career path testing :p

I think where a lot of non-American folk miss the bought on the US is that she provides great opportunity for anyone who can get here.

I live in Houstain, TX and there are a lot of people who live here now whose parents and grandparents crawled to get to this country. They worked hard and had children. Their children automatically became citizens. Thier children's children are likely able to take part in some higher education.

This is true for everyone, from Mexican to Muslim. Come to AMerica, whoever you are and make something of yourself.

Nikk

4th March 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by c0rbin
Opportunity:education.

This is true for everyone, from Mexican to Muslim. Come to AMerica, whoever you are and make something of yourself.

Yes indeed. One can study for a pilot's licence for example.:rolleyes:

Many terrorists seem to be educated intelligent people and this includes suicide bombers. Bin Laden's family are very wealthy and he spent time in the West but nevertheless he rejected it. Funds for Al Q seem to have come from wealthy Saudis who do not lack educational opportunities or indeed any other kind of opportunity.

So it is perhaps doubtful if education and opportunity will make much difference in the short term.

DrBenway

4th March 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Islam, like all religions, is not monolithic.

True. When people speak in general terms about Islam, they usually mean Sunni Islam, because that's the most dominant sect (about 85%). The Shi'ites make up nearly all the rest. A few percentage points of the Muslim world include the Sufis and some other minor groups.

The Sufis are pretty cool, actually. But given their numbers, they're largely irrelevant to the problem of Muslim politics. Plus they have to keep a *very* low profile. Sunnis kill them when they can, as Allah requires for their crimes of bid'ah.

In Saudi Arabia on Fridays after prayer, the men at the mosques draw lots to determine who's responsible for the floggings or executions that week.

Allahuakbar!

The Poet Rumi -- who spoke passionately about tolerance and forgiveness and the joy and mysticism of god -- was a passionate believer in Islam.

Yeah, Rumi's cool. He's a Sufi. :)

But, it seems to me to fight it, to change the minds of the masses who embrace radical Islam out of frustration, anger, etc. must we not also understand the context of the emergence of those sects?

By "radical Islam," I assume you mean the form that seeks to follow Shari'at. Shari'at's been in practice for 1400 years. Bin Ladin's behavior is entirely consistent with the words and deeds of the four "Rightly Guided Caliphs."

The violence of Islam only seems like a new phenomenon to the average Joe here in the West, 'cuz he's not been paying much attention before now.

Is it Islam alone, or is it Islam in the face of conlialism and anti-colonialist trends and philosophies? Is it Islam or a reaction in the face of failed Arab socialism? Is it Islam, or is it also governing oligarchies interested in preserving their place at the expense of more egalitarian and democratic popular impulses? Is it Islam or marginalization? Maybe it is all those things...and more.
Headscratcher, I'm guessing you've never been a religious nut. :)

You don't have to be frustrated, poor, or downtrodden, before falling under the spell of religion. Note that several of the Islamic states who most faithfully implement Shari'at, are also among the wealthiest in the world.

DialecticMaterialist

4th March 2003, 11:30 PM

Is it Islam alone, or is it Islam in the face of conlialism and anti-colonialist trends and philosophies?

I doubt it is Islam alone but I think it is primarily Islam. Other countries which faced harsh colonialism- Africa,China and most notably India did not resort to such harsh totalitarian fundamentalism. And this fundamentalist theocratic way of thinking is not necessarily a ME condition, I believe that mainly because Pakistan is not really a Middle Eastern country but likewise practices a form of totalitarian theocracy.

Now I realize not all Muslims are the same, but generally the tradition and scriptures in Islam has been very reactionary, very militant and very fundamentalist.

Christianity has been brutal in the past and present, but I do not believe to the extent of Islam. 1) Because Christian scripture though missionary, and intolerant, was never explicitly worldly or militant. Christianity was originally a cult, not an invasion force. Most early Christians believed for example that worldly gains were pointless since the end was coming anyways,and nonparticipation in politics, since rewards and punishment came after "this life". Islam did not preach this, Islam preached instead a doctrine of worldly gain and political agression.

2) Christianity was never as united as Islam, hence fundamentalism never really took hold as there never was any "one way to interpret scripture". Christianity had no Hadiths. Even at the times of early Gospel writers it was a house divided. Even the Catholic church was divided on certain issues as well. Islam is different, it had a recent well known founder, a tradition of scribes that interpreted texts "properly" and most importantly a state made to separate heresy from orthodoxy at its very beggining. This leads to a more monolithic tradition.

Now I am not defending fundametalist Christianity or Christianity in general for that matter. I am actually quite opposed to religion, especially of the Abrahamic flavor. However I really cannot see Islam as equal to or better then Xianity in terms of militancy and tolerance.

I also don't think one needs to find ulterior motives for explicitly religious behavior. I do believe ideological traditions can take on a life of their own and though they may be affected by other events, ideology will strongly determine how the people react to such events.

For example Islamic states and India. India became democratic and progressive, Islamic states became totalitarian and fundamentalist.