Topic: Islamism

[SadRed]

Okay I am done here. Spending way too much time and just end up repeating stuff.

[Alan_X]

You can read it but you have to engage in a detailed study to understand it. Much like anything really. Any scientific topic -Quantum theory. Either you accept it as told, or learn from a Professor. You can try reading it yourself but how much you understnd will be limited.

What about Bible? Is that a dangerous book too? It has similar ideas which could justify violence. What about science? Eugenics? Is science dangerous because some day humans might want to create a race that is superior and select people based on their DNA? Everything is dangerous if you want it to be. You can chop a vegetable with a knife or stab someone.

They are completely different. The difference between a religious texts and a peer-reviewed journal is that other experts will test and try to replicate an experiment and if it is wrong it is not accepted or superseded.

I may not understand quantum theory but for those who do, the rules and methodology by which it can tested are transparent and not ope to interpretation.  Darwin's theory of Evolution (the creation of species by natural selection) has the same starting point in distant history as the creation myths of the bible and the Koran. But while the bible and the Koran are the unchanging word of God and require expert explanation to square the circle of modern knowledge with the primitive world view of the sacred books, those interested in science have developed hypotheses and experimented over thousands of years, constantly questioning, to create theories that stand up to robust scrutiny.

I don't understand atomic theory but I do know that nuclear reactors work. And of course atomic theory can be used to create atomic weapons, but atomic theory says nothing about how we should behave.

For that we need the ability to formulate policies for dealing with each other that recognise the fact of atomic power. Which is why the Koran and the Bible are useless in the modern world.

Secular politics enable us to deal with eugenics, which is 'good science' in that eradicating the genetically weak would probably result in a stronger human race, but it is unacceptable morally. The Koran and the Bible have nothing to say on the matter or did I miss the verses giving guidance about genetic manipulation of human populations in amongst all the stuff about not eating swine flesh and avoiding women when they have their periods.

[Corkboy]

I disagree that a country can or should be run Islamic Laws and Islamic form of government, because people will inevitable consider different things to the correct interpretation. Hence it is impossible, especially more so in the absence of a central authority.

What are you trying to say here again?

I'm saying I would have thought religion as government would be clearly explained and either endorsed or rejected by your religion/God/Prophet. Yet you have one view and the majority of Muslims have another. How is this?

[SadRed]

They are completely different. The difference between a religious texts and a peer-reviewed journal is that other experts will test and try to replicate an experiment and if it is wrong it is not accepted or superseded.

I may not understand quantum theory but for those who do, the rules and methodology by which it can tested are transparent and not ope to interpretation.  Darwin's theory of Evolution (the creation of species by natural selection) has the same starting point in distant history as the creation myths of the bible and the Koran. But while the bible and the Koran are the unchanging word of God and require expert explanation to square the circle of modern knowledge with the primitive world view of the sacred books, those interested in science have developed hypotheses and experimented over thousands of years, constantly questioning, to create theories that stand up to robust scrutiny.

I don't understand atomic theory but I do know that nuclear reactors work. And of course atomic theory can be used to create atomic weapons, but atomic theory says nothing about how we should behave.

For that we need the ability to formulate policies for dealing with each other that recognise the fact of atomic power. Which is why the Koran and the Bible are useless in the modern world. Secular politics allows us to deal with eugenics, which is 'good science' in that eradicating the genetically weak would probably result in a stronger human race, but it is unacceptable morally. The Koran and the Bible have nothing to say on the matter or did I miss the verses giving guidance about genetic manipulation of human populations in amongst all the stuff about bit eating swine flesh and avoiding women when they have their periods.

Some bits I agree, and some dont. Religion is not useless, it certainly helps people in their personal lives. The 'morals' you talk of are not constant, and can change. So what humans are doing today may be abhorrent 100 years later.

Neither does your point about secular policies hold up. Such an easy let of for eugenics, secular policies clearly failed with the Nazis and with communism. Science has given enough ammunition to destroy the earth forever with nuclear weapons. Couple this with the ever changing 'morals', it is a more frightening prospect.

This is a different debate though, and I have spent enough time. Start a thread about aethism and we can debate it there at some point.

[SadRed]

I'm saying I would have thought religion as government would be clearly explained and either endorsed or rejected by your religion/God/Prophet. Yet you have one view and the majority of Muslims have another. How is this?

Because people have different views. And religion permits that (you may be shocked but its true).  But do read this
http://www.musawah.org/sites/default/files/Wanted-MKM-EN.pdf

"Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha

Ikhtilaf, which means disagreement, difference of opinion and diversity of views, especially among the experts of Islamic law, is widely recognised in Islamic tradition as a natural phenomenon. In its meaning of ‘diversity’, ikhtilaf is also a recurring theme in the Qur’an,
with references to the diverse phenomena of nature and diversity as a sign of God and proof of God’s existence and creation.
According to a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, diversity among the Muslim people is a blessing (ikhtilafu ummati rahma). The Islamic tradition takes pride in sciences developed for studying the differences in the recitation and interpretation of the Qur’an and the differences in the transmissions of the Hadith, reports about Prophet Muhammad’s statements, and the Sunnah, his practices. Since the beginning of the development of fiqh, ikhtilaf among the jurists not only existed, but was also respected. "


People are perhaps sick of their governments and when asked if they want sharia, they may say yes. There is no religious ruling which tells all muslims must endorse or reject a system of govrenment.

[Alan_X]

If you so insist:
http://www.altafsir.com/
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3000&Itemid=731

Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir_ibn_Kathir

Read them all, and you shall understand.

No - I'll just read the Koran thank you. Or I'll do my best to try and find anything that is relevant. I have to confess that so far it is incredibly tedious and boring so I might give up. 

It's bizarre that the justification for intelligent design/creation over evolution is that creatures and plants show this beautiful elegance and simplicity. But the books he writes are turgid, impenetrable and contradictory. An animal created by the same mind that generated the bible and the Koran would be a fucking mess with too many legs, bits hanging off and it's arse where it's mouth should be.

[Twelfth Man]

No - I'll just read the Koran thank you. Or I'll do my best to try and find anything that is relevant. I have to confess that so far it is incredibly tedious and boring so I might give up. 

I've tried about a dozen times in the last decade, and gave up after a few pages each time for the same reason.

[Corkboy]

Because people have different views. And religion permits that (you may be shocked but its true).  But do read this
http://www.musawah.org/sites/default/files/Wanted-MKM-EN.pdf

"Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha

Ikhtilaf, which means disagreement, difference of opinion and diversity of views, especially among the experts of Islamic law, is widely recognised in Islamic tradition as a natural phenomenon.

So, is there any rule or principle of Islam which cannot be the subject of Ikhtilaf?

[Twelfth Man]

So, is there any rule or principle of Islam which cannot be the subject of Ikhtilaf?

God is great!

[Alan_X]

So, is there any rule or principle of Islam which cannot be the subject of Ikhtilaf?

I probably need an expert to explain it properly but that suggests your could justify pretty much anything - like say, terrorism if you have the right expert on Islamic Law. Given it was God's third go at writing a book after the Old and New Testaments, you'd think he might have tightened it up a bit.

[SadRed]

No - I'll just read the Koran thank you. Or I'll do my best to try and find anything that is relevant. I have to confess that so far it is incredibly tedious and boring so I might give up. 

It's bizarre that the justification for intelligent design/creation over evolution is that creatures and plants show this beautiful elegance and simplicity. But the books he writes are turgid, impenetrable and contradictory. An animal created by the same mind that generated the bible and the Koran would be a fucking mess with too many legs, bits hanging off and it's arse where it's mouth should be.

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

If you actually care, Quran is a recital. You may find it turgid if you actually just read a translation, but the reason why people got attracted to Islam was nothing other than Quran recitation.

If you are too lazy to read you can listen to tafsir here
http://www.nakcollection.com/surah-baqarah.html

[SadRed]

I probably need an expert to explain it properly but that suggests your could justify pretty much anything - like say, terrorism if you have the right expert on Islamic Law. Given it was God's third go at writing a book after the Old and New Testaments, you'd think he might have tightened it up a bit.

Well when you compare with secular 'morals', its a hell of a lot tighter.

[SadRed]

So, is there any rule or principle of Islam which cannot be the subject of Ikhtilaf?

Yes

[zero zero]

Of all the comparisons to make, you choose to liken his behavior to this ?

Yes.

Besides if God created everything he created Evolution.

That's a big if. And yet strangely there's no mention of evolution.

"Chop off the heads of the infidels, because they'll never learn my message of Peace and Love otherwise and by the way, you're descended from apes, so be nice to them please"

Instead we have this:

The Quran describes how Allah created Adam: "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape..." (15:26). And, "He began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from a quintessence of fluid" (32:7-8). Thus, human beings have a fundamental attachment to the earth.

[SadRed]

I probably need an expert to explain it properly but that suggests your could justify pretty much anything - like say, terrorism if you have the right expert on Islamic Law. Given it was God's third go at writing a book after the Old and New Testaments, you'd think he might have tightened it up a bit.

Lets assume Religious laws are weak and poor and therefore leads to terrorism. Lets apply the same standards to secular law (morals) as you call them.

How many wars have they caused? What role did Quran play in World War II? Or Communism? Whats happening in Ukraine? Or the illegal war in Iraq? Sounds like I can do the same twisting and turning with these laws and justify pretty much whatever I want.

Not to forget the 20th century was the least religious and most secular in human history. It was the most scietifically advanced. And also the most bloodiest.

[J_Kopite]

Not to forget the 20th century was the least religious and most secular in human history. It was the most scietifically advanced. And also the most bloodiest.

That can't be true surely?

[Corkboy]

Yes

I see. One would hope at this stage that we were getting on so swimmingly, you would add some more information but alas, no.

So what are the rules that aren't subject to disagreement?

[Twelfth Man]

Not to forget the 20th century was the least religious and most secular in human history. It was the most scietifically advanced. And also the most bloodiest.

Largely down to the industrialization of war. If the religious tyrants of the medieval period had access to same tech, we might have seen similar numbers. 

[KUNGFUDANCER]

That can't be true surely?

Not just in 20th century, in all our history most of the deaths and wars were not caused by religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

[bigbonedrawky]

Yes.
That's a big if. And yet strangely there's no mention of evolution.

"Chop off the heads of the infidels, because they'll never learn my message of Peace and Love otherwise and by the way, you're descended from apes, so be nice to them please"

Instead we have this:

The Quran describes how Allah created Adam: "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape..." (15:26). And, "He began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from a quintessence of fluid" (32:7-8). Thus, human beings have a fundamental attachment to the earth.

You're making a basic error by mistaking the words of Man with the actions of God.

   

[zero zero]

You're making a basic error by mistaking the words of Man with the actions of God.

You're making a basic error because you're addressing an atheist. I've yet to witness any 'actions of God'. I was talking about evolution. As far as I'm concerned you're talking nonsensical gibberish.

[Alan_X]

Lets assume Religious laws are weak and poor and therefore leads to terrorism. Lets apply the same standards to secular law (morals) as you call them.

How many wars have they caused? What role did Quran play in World War II? Or Communism? Whats happening in Ukraine? Or the illegal war in Iraq? Sounds like I can do the same twisting and turning with these laws and justify pretty much whatever I want.

Not to forget the 20th century was the least religious and most secular in human history. It was the most scietifically advanced. And also the most bloodiest.

You really don't do complexity do you.

You appear to be treating it as a competition to say whether religious wars or secular wars killed more people.

The crucial difference is that while some 'secular' conflicts are unnecessary, there are some that are justifiable or at least explainable. Religious wars on the other hand, wars that are fought over which sky-pilot or version of the same sky-pilot is the true sky-pilot, are entirely unnecessary. People dying over something is awful. People dying over nothing is an avoidable tragedy.

Your argument is analogous to arguing that because lung cancer kills more people than prostate cancer, we shouldn't do anything about treating prostrate cancer despite it being 95% survivable.

Religious conflict and persecution are wholly unecessary. They are the equivalent of two bald men fighting over a comb.

I'll write a bit more later about religion being a human construct not the word of God and the human tendency to look for charismatic leaders to follow.

[Yorkykopite]

Religious conflict and persecution are wholly unecessary. They are the equivalent of two bald men fighting over a comb.

Probably no war in European history has been bloodier or taken more lives, proportionally, than the Thirty Years War. Central Europe was a wasteland for two generations and the population had been reduced by 40 per cent after they'd finished arguing about how to pray properly. 

[bevanite_shanks]

You really don't do complexity do you.

You appear to be treating it as a competition to say whether religious wars or secular wars killed more people.

The crucial difference is that while some 'secular' conflicts are unnecessary, there are some that are justifiable or at least explainable. Religious wars on the other hand, wars that are fought over which sky-pilot or version of the same sky-pilot is the true sky-pilot, are entirely unnecessary. People dying over something is awful. People dying over nothing is an avoidable tragedy.

Your argument is analogous to arguing that because lung cancer kills more people than prostate cancer, we shouldn't do anything about treating prostrate cancer despite it being 95% survivable.

Religious conflict and persecution are wholly unecessary. They are the equivalent of two bald men fighting over a comb.

I'll write a bit more later about religion being a human construct not the word of God and the human tendency to look for charismatic leaders to follow.

Just to take you up on the issue of complexity, it's probably not true to say that religious wars have as their cause simply different interpretations of dogma etc or even that they are entirely avoidable or unnecessary. Just by way of example, the French Wars of Religion of the 16th century might seem a (baffling to modern eyes) conflict between catholic orthodoxy and protestant calvinist heresy, but below the stated motivations of its key actors are some pretty complex socio-economic changes (the rise of a merchant class, the weakening of feudal ties, the widespread use of the printing press and so on). I'm sure if you'd asked your average Calvinist soldier in the 16th century why he was fighting he'd say it was because God had told him to do so, but then he didn't have the conceptual frameworks and knowledge of wider causes that we do today.

Similarly, I'm not sure the rise of Sunni extremism in the form of Isis or Al-Qaeda or whatever is merely an inevitable consequence of religion/Islam. Behind it are some pretty complicated factors that, while they might not enter the mind of your average IS jihadi, have probably a much bigger causative effect on the region's problems that some lines in a holy book.

The failure of *secular* Arab nationalism (i.e. how most Baathist regimes became horrible oppressive states - there's a geo-political cold-war context for this but still), the failure as political Islam sees it of the democratic process (witness the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), not to mention the various power vacuums caused by the Iraq War  - all these factors help explain why Islamic religious conflicts get going much better than saying it's because their participants are irrationally religious.

[zero zero]

The narrative of this thread is to prove that ISIS represents true Islam and not of the 1 Billion people who dont agree with them are misled. It is silly and absurd really.

No it's not. If it were true I'm sure you could point out a whole bunch of examples for us.

If your argment is Qu'ran is telling them to do this or Quran is their source, there is no question they use it as their source.

The 'narrative' of the thread, with regards to Islam, is exactly what you admitted here.

[vagabond]

Probably no war in European history has been bloodier or taken more lives, proportionally, than the Thirty Years War. Central Europe was a wasteland for two generations and the population had been reduced by 40 per cent after they'd finished arguing about how to pray properly. 

It was a war conducted to grab power by Northern European Princes in the wake of a weakening Holy Roman Empire. 'How to pray' was just a pretense, just like it is for most religious wars. In the end, power and money are usually the main motivators. Religion, national pride etc are just a way to get the poor soldiers to die for you.

[viteslesrouges]

Probably no war in European history has been bloodier or taken more lives, proportionally, than the Thirty Years War. Central Europe was a wasteland for two generations and the population had been reduced by 40 per cent after they'd finished arguing about how to pray properly.

Just about to post something similar and the key word you've used here is proportionally.

 

[Alan_X]

It was a war conducted to grab power by Northern European Princes in the wake of a weakening Holy Roman Empire. 'How to pray' was just a pretense, just like it is for most religious wars. In the end, power and money are usually the main motivators. Religion, national pride etc are just a way to get the poor soldiers to die for you.

Just a pretence? That's a massive claim and goes against a vast amount of documentary evidence to the contrary.

[vagabond]

Just a pretence? That's a massive claim and goes against a vast amount of documentary evidence to the contrary.

Oh, I'm sure practically everyone that fought the war did so for the glory of their own particular god. But soldiers don't fight until they're directed to by sovereigns and I think they were a lot more cynical about the whole matter. I don't think it's too far fetched to suggest that those in power will use religious motivation to conduct wars that maintain or increase their power, regardless of whichever particular war we are referring to, is it?
Even the crusades were originally conceived by the Papacy as a way of gaining control of the fertile lands of the Near East and a way of channeling Europe's feuding countries into a singular foreign purpose. 99% of the people that went on those crusades believed in their holy cause, I'm sure, but can we really say that religion, rather than political and economic expediency, caused the war?

I'm not an expert on history but I do think people in power are Machiavellian enough to use religion for their own purposes.

[zero zero]

People cannot digest this, they think there must be something in the religion itself. The answer for that is look up their own scriptures. Look at the Old Testament, Talmud, Mahabharat or another book you can find. There are hundereds of resources online which will tell you out of context, full of hate and misrepresetned paragraphs in these books. I dont want to post them.

I'd be very surprised if you could find anything in Buddhism that would back up your claim. As children we were taught to Follow the Middle Path, that is, to do nothing to extremes. If you distill down Buddhism to one word it would be: Moderation.

Buddhism isn't a faith either, btw.

[The Fletcher Memorial]

I'd be very surprised if you could find anything in Buddhism that would back up your claim. As children we were taught to Follow the Middle Path, that is, to do nothing to extremes. If you distill down Buddhism to one word it would be: Moderation.

Buddhism isn't a faith either, btw.

Well said.

[bigbonedrawky]

You're making a basic error because you're addressing an atheist. I've yet to witness any 'actions of God'. I was talking about evolution. As far as I'm concerned you're talking nonsensical gibberish.

Yet you are quoting "nonsensical gibberish" written by Man, in a effort to prove God didn't create evolution.
 

[zero zero]

Yet you are quoting "nonsensical gibberish" written by Man, in a effort to prove God didn't create evolution.

God doesn't exist. I don't have to prove anything.

Evolution is a proven scientific fact, of which Doc didn't seem to aware. The End.

[bigbonedrawky]

God doesn't exist. I don't have to prove anything.

Evolution is a proven scientific fact, of which Doc didn't seem to aware. The End.

You hold a lot of stock in what's proven but you seem to change the rules when it comes to your own beliefs.
You also speak of been brought up to take the middle road and to value the virtues of moderation and it a mantra I would fully endorse and find hard to fault, but you seem to of taken a extreme view in your own absolute belief that God doesn't exist.

BTW Your initial comparison about Tossing heads of dead Syrians was quite a extreme comparison to make and hardly the words of moderation.
 

[KUNGFUDANCER]

Probably no war in European history has been bloodier or taken more lives, proportionally, than the Thirty Years War. Central Europe was a wasteland for two generations and the population had been reduced by 40 per cent after they'd finished arguing about how to pray properly. 

Mongol Conquests killed five times as many and it was around 400 years before when world population was lower.
European immigrants wiped out what 90% of native population in America?
Fact is most of the deaths and conflicts in human history were not caused by religion.

[zero zero]

You hold a lot of stock in what's proven but you seem to change the rules when it comes to your own beliefs.

I really enjoy watching wildlife. Evolution helps me understand what I'm observing.

You also speak of been brought up to take the middle road and to value the virtues of moderation and it a mantra I would fully endorse and find hard to fault, but you seem to of taken a extreme view in your own absolute belief that God doesn't exist.

One of the things I like about Buddhism, why it can so easily fit with my broadly secular world view is because of the following saying:


“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” ~ The Buddha

This gives me licence to boot all the supernatural guff, as I have done, and keep what fits with my common sense. Belief in God when there's so little proof is an extreme view. To not believe there's a God/Allah/Jahweh when there's no proof, I consider both moderate and common sense. I hold an absolute position on the non-existence of God because there's absolutely no evidence that He exists. I was born into an atheist, but not irreligious, household, so I've never been compelled to process the world around me with a "God exist" start point.

Buddhism encourages questioning and critical thinking and when it places reason and common sense above anything else it makes for a comfortable fit with science and the modern world.

BTW Your initial comparison about Tossing heads of dead Syrians was quite a extreme comparison to make and hardly the words of moderation.

IS behead infidels regularly, which is why I used that smilie in this thread about Islamism. Were this a thread on weddings I might have used "Doc was throwing around insults like confetti". Were this a thread on baking, I might have used "insults like so many chocolate drops". That I wouldn't use "beheaded Syrian soldiers" in another thread only shows my moderation.

[Doc Red]

I really enjoy watching wildlife. Evolution helps me understand what I'm observing.
One of the things I like about Buddhism, why it can so easily fit with my broadly secular world view is because of the following saying:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” ~ The Buddha

Interesting that quote you've put up from Buddha, yet you seem to have an issue with people that choose to belief in a God because it agrees with their reason and their common sense?

This gives me licence to boot all the supernatural guff, as I have done, and keep what fits with my common sense. Belief in God when there's so little proof is an extreme view. To not believe there's a God/Allah/Jahweh when there's no proof, I consider both moderate and common sense. I hold an absolute position on the non-existence of God because there's absolutely no evidence that He exists. I was born into an atheist, but not irreligious, household, so I've never been compelled to process the world around me with a "God exist" start point.

Then you'd be going against the current stance in the philosophy of science. We've moved on from the early use of sensory proof, to the use of inductivism to prove our hypothesis, and since the Popper's theory of falsification, the concept of scientific proof has also shifted into accepting a hypothesis because it can't be proven wrong. To say that because there is no proof that God exists, that therefore God doesn't exist, isn't itself scientific evidence proving God doesn't exist. In order to over turn my hypothesis that God does exist, you'd have to come with conclusive proof that God doesn't exist. Which creates the following dilemma, by not being able to prove that God doesn't exist doesn't neccessarily mean God doesn't exist. It doesn't also mean that God therefore does exist. So pretty much which side of the fence you choose to sit on, on the subject of God, is a purely subjective point of view that can't be proven either way.

And I'll leave you with the words of Karl Popper.

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory"

[zero zero]

Interesting that quote you've put up from Buddha, yet you seem to have an issue with people that choose to belief in a God because it agrees with their reason and their common sense?

The only issue I had was when Sad Red admitted that there was a bit of "beheading of infidels" in the Koran but went onto add that hey, all religions have them. I still think it highly unlikely that there's any positive reference to Hate in Buddhism, but I'm open to the possibility. If anyone can find it, please enlighten me. The Abrahamic religions are referred to as 'Faiths' for a reason.

I then explained to yorky my personal reasons for not believing in God. I don't have an 'issue' if other people want to believe in Him. If you want to, knock yourself out. If you're still waiting on the memo about evolution, it doesn't bother me if you choose to still live in nineteenth century ignorance. You can choose to believe in whatever you want, Doc.

Then you'd be going against the current stance in the philosophy of science.

I am unperturbed.

[Corkboy]

Then you'd be going against the current stance in the philosophy of science. We've moved on from the early use of sensory proof, to the use of inductivism to prove our hypothesis, and since the Popper's theory of falsification, the concept of scientific proof has also shifted into accepting a hypothesis because it can't be proven wrong. To say that because there is no proof that Spiderman exists, that therefore Spiderman doesn't exist, isn't itself scientific evidence proving Spiderman doesn't exist. In order to over turn my hypothesis that Spiderman does exist, you'd have to come with conclusive proof that Spiderman doesn't exist. Which creates the following dilemma, by not being able to prove that Spiderman doesn't exist doesn't neccessarily mean Spiderman doesn't exist. It doesn't also mean that Spiderman therefore does exist. So pretty much which side of the fence you choose to sit on, on the subject of Spiderman, is a purely subjective point of view that can't be proven either way.

[Doc Red]

Are you saying we're unable to prove that spiderman doesn't exist?