Topic: Islamism

[Corkboy]

The Maldives isn't a conflict zone. Nor is Saudi.

[bigbonedrawky]

You have an unending capacity for feeling persecuted. Yet, you chuck about insults to other posters, like the freshly severed heads of Syrian soldiers. Your passive-aggressive stance hinders debating anything with you. So, let's leave it there and get the thread back on track.

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

Besides if God created everything he created Evolution.

[SadRed]

The Maldives isn't a conflict zone. Nor is Saudi.

Last time I heard no one is beheading innocent tourists in Maldives. Dont try to purposefully mix governments which are socially conservative and right wing with terrorism.

[Corkboy]

Last time I heard no one is beheading innocent tourists in Maldives. Dont try to purposefully mix governments which are socially conservative and right wing with terrorism.

I'm not. Terrorism is Yorky's department on this thread. I'm on the human rights side of things. Plenty of relatively stable Muslim countries have cruel and unconscionable laws and customs. You can't blame that on conflict zones, the way you did with terrorism.

[SadRed]

I'm not. Terrorism is Yorky's department on this thread. I'm on the human rights side of things. Plenty of relatively stable Muslim countries have cruel and unconscionable laws and customs. You can't blame that on conflict zones, the way you did with terrorism.

I didnt 'blame' terrorism on conflict zones, I believe that is the cause of it. Blame and cause are two different things. Somehow you seem to insinuate I am looking to blame things, which is not the case.

I agree with Humans rights issue. They are absolutely abysmal. They are decades behind many western countries. The funny thing is though, in these 'Muslim Countries' (by these I presume countries with Muslim Majorities),  the worst human rights abuses are not committed by Islamist governments but by secular governments suppressing Islamist group such as Uzbekistan (where Karimov is famous for boiling his dissidents but has now shifted to freezing them - dissidents incidentally happen to be Islamists, SEE Andijan Massacre), Kazakhastan , Egypt (which HRW recently compared the Raba'a massacre to Tiananmen square premeditated murder for 800 people, again Islamists), Algeria, Azerbaijan, Saudi and the list is endless.

Despite this, your stand is utterly silly because there are a large number of countries where human rights records are just as bad - Myanmmar, Congo, North Korea, Belarus, Laos, China, Russia even thailand and sri lanka. And the worst of All - Israel.

In anycase, this should be disucssed in a human rights thread, not a thread about political islam.

[SadRed]

I'm not. Terrorism is Yorky's department on this thread. I'm on the human rights side of things. Plenty of relatively stable Muslim countries have cruel and unconscionable laws and customs. You can't blame that on conflict zones, the way you did with terrorism.

Hah! Now I am shocked. I just read that again. So you dont like muslim customs. You find it unconscionable. Hah! I am sorry but that smacks of xenophobia, bigotry and islamophobia.

Any of the following views are equated with Islamophobia, think how many apply to what you have been saying in this thread (and many others to be fair)

1.Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2.It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
4.It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5.It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6.Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
7.Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal

[Doc Red]

cheers, I think that actually adds to the debate.

I agree that 99% of people interpret it peacefully! but that's because they are good people.

I don't agree with you in that we're "good people" and they're "bad people". I don't think things are that black and white. Push comes to shove, people can act in ways that will surprise you. A "good" person that was fortunate enough to grow up in a stable environment (with all the trappings of a healthy society),may not neccessarily act the same way, and hold the same moral values, if he had instead grown up in a region ruled by an oppressive regime, with limited freedoms, where family members and friends might occasionally "disappear"-never to return again, and tommorow held as little promise for change as yesterday did.

Nonetheless, people still make a choice to commit evil, regardless of the environment, and they should still be held fully accountable. But it's far harder making the right choice in distressful situations than it is in comfortable situations.

I agree that 99% of people interpret it peacefully! but that's because they are good people.
People interpret religious texts in the way that makes sense to them.

If 99.9% of Muslims interpret Islam in a peaceful manner, could we not consider that the reason why they've interpreted it in a peaceful manner is because Islam is peaceful in it's true intepretation? Surely if Islam was split 50-50 between being peaceful and evil, far more of us would have interpreted the religion in an evil way? It's far too simple to just claim that we've ALL interpreted Islam in a peaceful manner simply because we're ALL good people. 1.6 billion people, spread across the world and made up of various cultures, habits, languages, and backgrounds, and we've all interpreted it the right way because we're all "good" people?

It makes far more sense to claim that the 0.0001% that have interpreted the religion to be solely about violence might have had their own agendas in interpreting it that way. And it's more a case of them, than it is the religion.

However, I think that more could be done by the Islamic community to promote the peaceful message above the violent interpretation of these passages.

I agree with you on that, and that's a challenge we're facing. One of the first things we have to do, is understand why the 0.0001% interpret religion the way they do. Is there something they have in common? Have they faced similar challenges? etc

As Muslims, we can't simply be going on and on repeating the same mantra that "Islam does not justify the actions of terrorists", and expect these sort of crisis to stop. Are there verses that discuss going to war, historical battles etc? Absolutely. But the fact that there are Muslim extremists/terrorists picking verses (and ignoring any form of context, or deeper explanation of that verse) and quite comfortably using them to justify atrocities means we haven't done our job well enough.

It's one thing for people to present verses from the Quran in the most negative light possible and claim that is what Islam preaches, it's quite another issue when it's Muslims doing that on Muslim soil (or majority Muslim soil) whilst committing atrocities. I don't neccessarily expect the former group of people to have a strong understanding of Islam, but surely in the latter situation the failure to understand the religion shouldn't be an issue?

So why is it that seemingly Muslims outside of the Middle East are not misinterpreting and twisting verses to commit various forms of ethnic clensing, as is currently the case in the Middle East(the very cradle of Islam) ? I have my own theories, which I've already posted before, but regardless, we still need to continue educating.

And on a side note, the current rulers of Saudi are failing their own people, and Muslims in general. If the heart of Islam (Mecca) is in a country where there are very, very limited debates on Islam, where they only follow an ultra conservative interpretation of Islam and impose that on their people, a country where Imams can be expelled if they offer an alternate (less conservative) stance, it sends the wrong message to neighbouring countries, and can help fuel another generation of Muslim youths that follow their religion as per "Saudi culture", instead of as per the guidlines of the religion.

There is a strong debate among Muslims in Europe (especially the scholars within Europe) if it would be far better to make their own central Islamic institutions of education within Europe that offer the same value and prestige as the Islamic education in Mecca and Medina. When I was younger, I used to favour maintaining the status quo, that you could get educated in Islamic institutions in Europe but you wouldn't have the same prestige as someone graduating from Saudi. In time I have changed my stance, and I think a lot of other people have also switched stances. And as long as the ultra conservatives in Saudi are laying the law as far as religion is concerned, we'll be facing an uphill battle to present the core interpretation of Islam. Both to Muslims and nonMuslims alike.

[Corkboy]

Hah! Now I am shocked. I just read that again. So you dont like muslim customs. You find it unconscionable. Hah! I am sorry but that smacks of xenophobia, bigotry and islamophobia.

Yeah, you and Doc Red keep going there and yet when asked to substantiate your charges, you are suddenly struck dumb. Just because I think certain customs which proliferate in Muslim countries are cruel and unconscionable doesn't mean I'm xenophobic or bigoted or Islamophobic.

Let's take Female Genital Mutilation. It is most common in Muslim countries, with places like Egypt reporting levels of up to 97%. Yet FGM is illegal in Egypt. So I referred to "customs and laws". FGM is against the law in Egypt, but is still widely practised so that makes it a....? That's right, it's a fucking custom prevalent in a Muslim country which is exactly what I said and nothing more.

So unless my disgust with and opposition to FGM counts as bigotry or Islamophobia, I will thank you to engage your brain the next time you decide to throw some insults around.

[Alan_X]

Now, I am not an expert in Islam, I dont think anyone here is. If you are geuninely curious, the best thing will be to visit a local islamic center who will be able to explain to you properly.

The only thing I will say is it only makes logical sense to go with what 99.999999% of people say is the right thing. Just to say that it will be impossible to explain such things on a forum here honestly. There are 100's of such verses. If you wish to engage in a proper study, PM me and I will send you some unbiased resources.

I've started reading the Koran to get up to speed and I understand what you are saying about verses being taken out of context or referring to historical events but that itself is a massive problem. A book that is intended to provide rules for living should not require interpretation. I referred in another post to the UN a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It contains 30 clauses, none of which require interpretation and none of which contain references to smiting.

I confess I was surprised at the tone of the Koran. There is an obsessive focus on disbelievers and God's attitude to them that I found quite disturbing. As a non-Muslim I was in no doubt that I am a second class being and that your God despises me. I am going to eternal damnation and in his eyes I am no better than a beast. 

It also makes it clear that there are those who profess to be Muslims but who are concealing their deceit. It's not difficult to see how that allows a free pass for Muslim fundamentalists to persecute other Muslims.

99.99% of people who are born into Islam follow it sensibly because they behave in accordance with normal human values.  The same way that most Christians don't live according to Leviticus and the other irrelevant parts of the Bible. And the same way that atheists behave morally without the need for some Sky-pilot to tell us what to do.

I think you and Doc red are missing the point. You don't have to defend the billions of people who are born into Islam or those who chose to follow the moderate interpretation of it. But you are in a hiding to nothing if you want to portray the book as irrelevant to the atrocities that are justified by its contents.

[SadRed]

Yeah, you and Doc Red keep going there and yet when asked to substantiate your charges, you are suddenly struck dumb. Just because I think certain customs which proliferate in Muslim countries are cruel and unconscionable doesn't mean I'm xenophobic or bigoted or Islamophobic.

Let's take Female Genital Mutilation. It is most common in Muslim countries, with places like Egypt reporting levels of up to 97%. Yet FGM is illegal in Egypt. So I referred to "customs and laws". FGM is against the law in Egypt, but is still widely practised so that makes it a....? That's right, it's a fucking custom prevalent in a Muslim country which is exactly what I said and nothing more.

So unless my disgust with and opposition to FGM counts as bigotry or Islamophobia, I will thank you to engage your brain the next time you decide to throw some insults around.

I knew it. I dont hear a word of sympathy for people being boiled in Uzbekistan or Raba'a massacre, but you sure care about victims of FGM. Nothing wrong in that, but again, you are interested in it because you can link islam to it, not because of human rights.

Unsubstantiated claims of Islamophobia - let me prove it for you.

Lets see in which countries is female genital mutilation a problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation#mediaviewer/File:2013_Female_Genital_Mutilation_Cutting_Circumcision_FGM_World_Map_UNICEF.SVG

This includes countries across central africa. A large number of them have a muslim majority, but a number of them do not. But more significantly, there are a large number of Islamic countries where there is no FGM. Infact a majority of them have no FGM. Its prevalent mainly in Africa.

Now to the views which may qualify as Islamophobia:

Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc

Because it happens in Egypt, which is a muslim majority country (not to mention the 15% Christians there), it is a muslim problem. What about the Muslims in Malaysia, or India, or Uighurs in China or Tartars in Crimea.

Also so that you know about FGM:
"The practice is not restricted to Muslims, as has often been claimed, but also carried out by Christians, who make up 10% of Egypt's population."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9696353.stm

Is this evidence enough for you??

[Alan_X]

And on a side note, the current rulers of Saudi are failing their own people, and Muslims in general. If the heart of Islam (Mecca) is in a country where there are very, very limited debates on Islam, where they only follow an ultra conservative interpretation of Islam and impose that on their people, a country where Imams can be expelled if they offer an alternate (less conservative) stance, it sends the wrong message to neighbouring countries, and can help fuel another generation of Muslim youths that follow their religion as per "Saudi culture", instead of as per the guidlines of the religion.

I thought the Koran was quite explicit that it is the word of God and not open to interpretation. How can there be an 'ultra-conservative' interpretation of the Koran? That simply means they are reading it as written.

Aren't they are doing it properly and it's all you washy-washy liberal interpreters who are going to be damned?

[SadRed]

I've started reading the Koran to get up to speed and I understand what you are saying about verses being taken out of context or referring to historical events but that itself is a massive problem. A book that is intended to provide rules for living should not require interpretation. I referred in another post to the UN a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It contains 30 clauses, none of which require interpretation and none of which contain references to smiting.

I appreciate the sincerity in your effort, and whilst there is no harm in reading it as is, it is a very complex book. You will find it impossible to get the context because events and surahs are not in a chronological order. What you really need is either an exegesis or some guidance to tell you what each statement means, what the background is and what the context is. It may be too much for you, but that the right way to do it. In any case you are honest in your intentions and I respect that.

99.99% of people who are born into Islam follow it sensibly because they behave in accordance with normal human values.  The same way that most Christians don't live according to Leviticus and the other irrelevant parts of the Bible. And the same way that atheists behave morally without the need for some Sky-pilot to tell us what to do.

I think you and Doc red are missing the point. You don't have to defend the billions of people who are born into Islam or those who chose to follow the moderate interpretation of it. But you are in a hiding to nothing if you want to portray the book as irrelevant to the atrocities that are justified by its contents.

It is without question that these people draw their source from the Quran. The question is whether they are correct in doing so. As you say, people dont follow leviticus or deutronomy which are violent, but the source exists if someone wanted to. So why are muslims the only ones doing it? Can you completely ignore the geopolitical conflict in the region?

As per aethism and human rights, I am not going into that here as its a completely different debate. This should be for political islam, the challenges and solutions.

[SadRed]

I thought the Koran was quite explicit that it is the word of God and not open to interpretation. How can there be an 'ultra-conservative' interpretation of the Koran? That simply means they are reading it as written.

Aren't they are doing it properly and it's all you washy-washy liberal interpreters who are going to be damned?

Islam has a history and tradition of Quranic interpretation. Quran is supposed to be interpreted and understood, with the help of scholars. There are thousands of books, if not hundereds of thousands of books on Quranic intrpretation. You really need to get your hands on some basic reading about Islamic religion mate, honestly. Not in a bad way because what you are saying makes no sense.

[Corkboy]

Now to the views which may qualify as Islamophobia:

Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc

If I had said "all Muslims", I might be guilty of that. Since I never have, I'm not. In fact, I go to pains to qualify what I post.

I am also aware that FGM predates Islam and that other religions practice it. I never said otherwise and I never said it was exclusively a Muslim phenomenon or indeed a solely religious problem, rather than a cultural one (or both, as it seems to be). Unfortunately, there is some confusion in Islam about whether it is properly Muslim or not.

Muslim proponents of FGM also stress the religious necessity. Midwifes and mothers insist that it is “sunnah” – an opinion shared by most Islamic clerics. Yet, sunnah can either mean that a practice is religiously recommended or simply that it was done that way in the times of the prophet Mohammed.

While there is no mention of FGM in the Quran, a Hadith (saying about the life of the prophet) recounts a debate between Muhammed and Um Habibah (or Um ‘Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Muhammed. Having seen her, Muhammad asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively, adding: “unless it is forbidden, and you order me to stop doing it.” Muhammed replied: “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband.”[2]

While some clerics use this hadith to say circumcision is obligatory for women, others say it is not. “Islam condones the sunna circumcision … What is forbidden in Islam is the pharaonic circumcision,” one religious leader explained. Others, such as the late rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Gad al-Haq, said that since the Prophet did not ban female circumcision, it was permissible and, at the very least, could not be banned.

Four law schools differ

The data from Iraq and preliminary reports from other parts of the Middle East and Asia point to a relationship between the practice and specific law schools within Sunni Islam. The four main law schools – Shafai’i, Hanbali, Maliki and Hanafi – have been dominant in different areas of the Middle East. They differ in their interpretations of the teachings and provisions of Islamic law and guidance. Whereas the Hanafis do not regard female circumcision as “sunnah”, the practice is recommended on religious grounds by the Maliki and Hanbali law schools and is considered obligatory by the Shafai’i school. Though not without internal dissent, the Shafai’i position is clearly expressed: “Circumcision is obligatory upon men and women according to us.” In Indonesia for example – where information about the presence of practice has long been available but by and large ignored or dismissed – this is the dominant law school. Shafai’i is also the dominant school in the Hejaz region of Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, Syria, the Palestinian territories, Jordan and Kurdistan. While surveys on Yemen and Iraqi Kurdistan showed that FGM is widely practiced, no studies have been conducted in other Shafai’i regions.

Shia teaching

The picture is even more obscure concerning FGM in the world of Shia’a Islam. No one really knows or has seriously studied the issue. The late Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah of Lebanon opposed FGM. He reasoned: “Circumcision of women is not an Islamic rule or permission; rather it was an Arab ritual before Islam. There are many Hadiths that connote the negative attitude of Islam as to this ritual. However, Islam did not forbid it at that time because it was not possible to suddenly forbid a ritual with strong roots in Arabic culture; rather it preferred to gradually express its negative opinions. This is how Islam treated slavery as well.”

Fadlallah, once a close associate of the Lebanese islamist group Hisbollah, became more and more liberal towards the end of his life. Thus it remains a question how much his advice is followed by more conservative communities of Shia Islam.

It is known that FGM is practised by Zaydis in Yemen, Ibhadis in Oman and at least by parts of the Ismailis (the Daudi Bohras) in India, all three being branches of the Shia (the Ibhadis less directly connected). A survey by WADI found that in the region of Kirkuk in Iraq 23 percent of Shia girls and women had undergone FGM.

Fatwas not enough

To be sure, the dominance of a law school alone does not account for the existence or rates of FGM. It is not a single and encompassing predictor, only a tool for preliminary assessment. There are cultural habits, traditions, social backgrounds. Yet, religious teachings do play a role – whether they come from High Councils or from a local sheikh.

Therefore, official statements from prominent religious leaders – e.g. fatwas condemning FGM and declaring it “unislamic“ – are an essential part of the struggle against the practice. But it is not enough and it will not work alone.

The cultural aspect can’t be neglected. As interviews show, FGM is considered essential for proper marriage and family honor. Where it is practiced, it is inflicted on nearly all girls within the group. Mothers find themselves in the dilemma of either having to harm their daughters or not being able to get them married later on. Religious considerations aside, “an individual in an intramarrying group that practices FGM can’t give it up unless enough other people do too”, writes political science professor Gerry Mackie. Only if a relevant proportion of this group decides to stop mutilating girls, it can be done. They have to take this decision at the same time and follow it through. Mackie draws a comparison with the antifootbindung societies in China. Besides education campaigns the antifootbinding reformers initiated natural-foot societies, “whose members publicly pledged not to bind their daughters’ feet nor to let their sons marry women with bound feet.”

The same approach is taken today in the struggle against FGM by FGM-free village programmes in Africa and Iraq. After discussing questions of health and religion with the women of the village, they are asked if they are willing to stop the practice as a community. The pledge must be signed like a contract and the decision is celebrated.

Culture and Religion are both contributing to the prevalence of FGM. Thus, they must be addressed both at the same time.

source

[Alan_X]

Islam has a history and tradition of Quranic interpretation. Quran is supposed to be interpreted and understood, with the help of scholars. There are thousands of books, if not hundereds of thousands of books on Quranic intrpretation. You really need to get your hands on some basic reading about Islamic religion mate, honestly. Not in a bad way because what you are saying makes no sense.

We won't agree but I think you are wrong if you think that's acceptable. From your point of view it clearly makes sense but to an outsider what you are saying is that the word of God is unintelligible without expert guidance.

And that is exactly my problem with it. A book that is meant to be a guide for billions of people and that is used to justify all sorts of actions should not be so complicated and ambiguous.

The fact that you say I can't understand it just by reading it doesn't make you right. It makes you wrong and makes the Koran a potentially dangerous book. Because as I said elsewhere, it puts people who are told that they cannot understand the book themselves, into the hands of people who may promote a moderate version of it or an extreme version of it. If they are not able to comprehend the original text themselves they have no option but to follow like sheep.

[Corkboy]

I appreciate the sincerity in your effort, and whilst there is no harm in reading it as is, it is a very complex book. You will find it impossible to get the context because events and surahs are not in a chronological order. What you really need is either an exegesis or some guidance to tell you what each statement means

Brilliant! And tell us, does the "guidance" then become scripture, too?

[SadRed]

We won't agree but I think you are wrong if you think that's acceptable. From your point of view it clearly makes sense but to an outsider what you are saying is that the word of God is unintelligible without expert guidance.

And that is exactly my problem with it. A book that is meant to be a guide for billions of people and that is used to justify all sorts of actions should not be so complicated and ambiguous.

The fact that you say I can't understand it just by reading it doesn't make you right. It makes you wrong and makes the Koran a potentially dangerous book. Because as I said elsewhere, it puts people who are told that they cannot understand the book themselves, into the hands of people who may promote a moderate version of it or an extreme version of it. If they are not able to comprehend the original text themselves they have no option but to follow like sheep.

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.

[nick_8589]

Islam has a history and tradition of Quranic interpretation. Quran is supposed to be interpreted and understood, with the help of scholars. There are thousands of books, if not hundereds of thousands of books on Quranic intrpretation. You really need to get your hands on some basic reading about Islamic religion mate, honestly. Not in a bad way because what you are saying makes no sense.

That's where the problems begin though isn't it, your too dependant on the scholar who is guiding you or the politics and morals of a third party author who could well have died centuries ago.

[SadRed]

Brilliant! And tell us, does the "guidance" then become scripture, too?

No its not. Its an opinion. There are 1000s of them. You can pick what you feel is right. Much like anything else in the world.

If I had said "all Muslims", I might be guilty of that. Since I never have, I'm not. In fact, I go to pains to qualify what I post.

I am also aware that FGM predates Islam and that other religions practice it. I never said otherwise and I never said it was exclusively a Muslim phenomenon or indeed a solely religious problem, rather than a cultural one (or both, as it seems to be). Unfortunately, there is some confusion in Islam about whether it is properly Muslim or not.

So lets get this straight - I respond about terrorism and ISIS having a political dimension, to which you throw in maldives, apparently because it has bad human rights. Then I said there are many countries with bad human rights, to which you said muslim countries have unconscionable and cruel customs. And now you are saying you dont know if these customs are even Islamic, but infact also practiced in other cultures.

Yet you repeatedly link everything to Islam and Muslims. It is an irrational fear of Islam, or Islamophobia.
   

[SadRed]

That's where the problems begin though isn't it, your too dependant on the scholar who is guiding you or the politics and morals of a third party author who could well have died centuries ago.

It does. Without a doubt there are people who will misguide people. But that is why the narrative must be that majority muslims, 99.99999% of what people subscribe to, must be seen as the mainstream view, while on this site, its repeatedly the narrative of the terrorists which is seen to be the correct Islam. Its despicable.

But I agree in general, poeple can be misguided by their teachers. Its not just Islam though, its all religions.

[Corkboy]

Yet you repeatedly link everything to Islam and Muslims. It is an irrational fear of Islam, or Islamophobia.

You are very reactive. Perhaps you should think about what you post before you post it.

I repeatedly link things to Islam and Muslims because that's the subject of the thread. If it were a thread about vegetables, for example, I doubt I would be mentioning anything negative about Islam. If, indeed, it were a thread about Islam, I doubt I would be here, because as I have said before, I'm not interested in Islam. But it's an Islamism thread and that regrettably attracts many examples of negative Islam references.

If you think I'm always just picking on Islam, I suggest you do a search on here through my posts (not hard, just put my username in the "by user" window) for "Catholic" or "Christian". Go wild. And stop being such a little baby.

[Alan_X]

What about Bible? Is that a dangerous book too?

Absolutely.

[SadRed]

Absolutely.

What about the rest of it? I had many questions in there.

[Corkboy]

No its not. Its an opinion. There are 1000s of them. You can pick what you feel is right. Much like anything else in the world.

So if I'm following you correctly, there is a book called the Koran which Islam says is the actual and literal word of God, but you can't just read the words, as if it were that easy to just "read" words and work out their "meaning". No, these are words which for no good reason mean something else than what they literally mean. And you need someone to guide you in what the words really mean but it can be any of thousands of different versions of the "word of God" and you just "pick what you feel is right". Islam says the literal word of God is "what you feel is right"?

You're just taking the piss now.

[SadRed]

So if I'm following you correctly, there is a book called the Koran which Islam says is the actual and literal word of God, but you can't just read the words, as if it were that easy to just "read" words and work out their "meaning". No, these are words which for no good reason mean something else than what they literally mean. And you need someone to guide you in what the words really mean but it can be any of thousands of different versions of the "word of God" and you just "pick what you feel is right". Islam says the literal word of God is "what you feel is right"?

You're just taking the piss now.

Quran is the word of God.  You can read it as much as you like. You can recite it too.

If you just read it casually, you may not understand it fully because it is not chronologically arranged. There is a large volume of hadiths and historical events which are linked to every surah. To understand the full background, you need to read a Tafsir or an exegesis.

There are many Tafsirs by many scholars, who give their opinion on what each surah means. Is it that hard to understand?

[Corkboy]

Is it that hard to understand?

Oh, I understand. The literal word of God in Islam depends entirely on who is reading it. And yet many, many Muslims want Islam to be the law of their country.

[SadRed]

You are very reactive. Perhaps you should think about what you post before you post it.

I repeatedly link things to Islam and Muslims because that's the subject of the thread. If it were a thread about vegetables, for example, I doubt I would be mentioning anything negative about Islam. If, indeed, it were a thread about Islam, I doubt I would be here, because as I have said before, I'm not interested in Islam. But it's an Islamism thread and that regrettably attracts many examples of negative Islam references.

If you think I'm always just picking on Islam, I suggest you do a search on here through my posts (not hard, just put my username in the "by user" window) for "Catholic" or "Christian". Go wild. And stop being such a little baby.

If your views are prejudiced against Catholisism, doesnt mean they are not prejudiced against Islam. The fact that you criticize christian does not mean that your criticism of Islam is fair. Infact anyone who reads the last few posts will see how fair your criticism has been.

In anycase, if you wish to stick to the topic, lets do that. Lets talk about ISLAMISM. Syed Qutb and all the rest of it.

[SadRed]

Oh, I understand. The literal word of God in Islam depends entirely on who is reading it. And yet many, many Muslims want Islam to be the law of their country.

Not entirely. But to an extent. I dont agree with muslims wanting Islam to be law of their land for precisely this reason. We are in agreement. That doesnt mean they dont have the right to do so, if they so wished.

[Alan_X]

It does. Without a doubt there are people who will misguide people. But that is why the narrative must be that majority muslims, 99.99999% of what people subscribe to, must be seen as the mainstream view, while on this site, its repeatedly the narrative of the terrorists which is seen to be the correct Islam. Its despicable.

But I agree in general, poeple can be misguided by their teachers. Its not just Islam though, its all religions.

0.00001 % of 1.6 billion is just 160 people.

A study in 2007 showed that around 102,000,000 Muslims thought suicide bombing and terrorism was justified. That was a big reduction from the 2002 figure so that's positive I suppose and the latest figures show a continued decline

It's still in the tens or hundreds if millions though, not 160.

[Corkboy]

If your views are prejudiced against Catholisism, doesnt mean they are not prejudiced against Islam. The fact that you criticize christian does not mean that your criticism of Islam is fair. Infact anyone who reads the last few posts will see how fair your criticism has been.

In anycase, if you wish to stick to the topic, lets do that. Lets talk about ISLAMISM. Syed Qutb and all the rest of it.

The thread is about Islamism, which I take to mean that fundamentalist portion of the religion which does horrible things in the name of Islam. That isn't confined to terrorism, it can also encompass laws and rules of conduct, such as those in Islam pertaining to apostasy or adultery, which have widespread acceptance in the Muslim world. So no, it isn't just Syed Qutb and all the rest of it.

[Corkboy]

Not entirely. But to an extent. I dont agree with muslims wanting Islam to be law of their land for precisely this reason. We are in agreement. That doesnt mean they dont have the right to do so, if they so wished.

[Alan_X]

What about the rest of it? I had many questions in there.

I could respond but unfortunately, without expert training and someone to guide you through them you would probably not understand.

[Corkboy]

I could respond but unfortunately, without expert training and someone to guide you through them you would probably not understand.

Ha!

[SadRed]

0.00001 % of 1.6 billion is just 160 people.

A study in 2007 showed that around 102,000,000 Muslims thought suicide bombing and terrorism was justified. That was a big reduction from the 2002 figure so that's positive I suppose and the latest figures show a continued decline

It's still in the tens or hundreds if millions though, not 160.

Okay 99.99% is that the best you have got?

Where was the study done? People in Iraq and Afghanistan where hundereds of thousands of civilians have lost their lives because of illegal wars, are more likely to justify it. Wouldnt you agree?

Again whats the broader point here? Are you intersted in a serious debate or trying to 'win' as you once accused me of? I have amply and clearly written all that is to be said. Just read my posts on this thread. There is enough fodder for a genuine debate on Islamism. But seems no one cares about the real issue.

[SadRed]

I could respond but unfortunately, without expert training and someone to guide you through them you would probably not understand.

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.

[SadRed]

Point being?

[Corkboy]

Point being?

One's religion being the official law of a nation is a pretty big deal, in terms of religion. Yet you disagree with what looks like a majority of the world's Muslims on the topic. Doesn't that concern you? You seemed pretty secure in your view. Are they wrong? And why is it not simply spelled out in your Holy Book?

[SadRed]

The thread is about Islamism, which I take to mean that fundamentalist portion of the religion which does horrible things in the name of Islam. That isn't confined to terrorism, it can also encompass laws and rules of conduct, such as those in Islam pertaining to apostasy or adultery, which have widespread acceptance in the Muslim world. So no, it isn't just Syed Qutb and all the rest of it.

Islamism is political islam. Not what you think it is.

[Corkboy]

Islamism is political islam. Not what you think it is.

No, I'm happy with my definition, thanks.

[SadRed]

One's religion being the official law of a nation is a pretty big deal, in terms of religion. Yet you disagree with what looks like a majority of the world's Muslims on the topic. Doesn't that concern you? You seemed pretty secure in your view. Are they wrong? And why is not simply spelled out in your Holy Book?

 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?