Topic: Islamism

[Haemoglobin]

^ This is pretty much my take on it as well.

I think it's harsh to expect a peace-loving muslim to explain why Islamic states are so... mediaeval (or just mental). The central issue seems to be that all religions are full of shit to some significant degree, so an Old Testament state for example would be equally ugly. I think religious people need to accept that while their faith clearly holds a lot of positive messages for them, and a moral framework for their lives, they are still packed with dodgy outdated nonsense, and always need to change with the times.

The Catholic Church (or any branch of christianity) is not a scarily powerful and oppressive entity in our parts of the world anymore because we've pretty much neutered it. It wasn't always thus; in the past you'd proper shit yourself if someone accused you of blasphemy, because you'd be in quite a bit of bother, very likely resulting in your rather painful flamey demise. But no one gives a toss now, because we've outgrown such silly stuff. Christianity now provides a warm comforting lovey-dovey famlial feeling for plenty of people, without being a big bully. It seems Islam is still in the big bully stage, at least when implemented at all in the running of a country. The reason there are few if any 'free' Islamic states kicking about is because they go about it in a full-blooded manner, rather than just cutting the religion's balls clean off like we have.


You can tell it's a very broad and complex issue when you understand that not all muslim women are hiding away dressed up from head-to-toe in a black curtain. They still identify themselves as Muslim, but they look lovely in their colourful hijabs, they wear a bit of makeup, they display their gorgeousness while getting an education and working in environments full of men. Why haven't their dads killed them already? Why haven't their grandparents from the old country written to the Ayatollah to arrange a fatwa on all their pretty heads? Because for them and their families, that old-time-religion shit isn't the Islam of today, it isn't their faith. There are muslim voices trying to catalyse its evolution into something a bit more soft and relevant, I suppose it just isn't as widespread as it should be nowadays.

Chances are, all of the muslims trying to defend their faith on here are similarly open-minded, non-authoritarian and peace-loving. They're nice people, who would never condone acts of terrorism and torture/mutilation/execution for minor transgressions. I doubt they're gona stab their sister to death tonight for daring to go to college with their ankles on display. In other parts of the world, they're either too shit-scared not to be seen to go against the oppressive status quo, or they're just very narrow-minded and hard-heartedly old-timey people, like the Bible Belt in the US or whatever. For some, tradition is absolutely everything, no matter how ugly and ill-fitting to the modern world; for a great many others, their religion is something that adapts with the times.


I don't have any of the answers, and as an atheist I'm biased enough as it is! But, for instance, asking an easy-going lovely young christian with close gay friends and aquaintances (it's an odd situation considering they won't be able to save them burning in hell for all eternity, granted, but it's a fairly common thing today) to account for a Ugandan minister's calls for homosexuals to all be rounded up and jailed/executed because it is against God's word, is a bit much. This kind of shit happens within religions because religions are mostly nonsense. The more educated, liberal and freedom-loving the populace, law-makers, and rulers, the more of a non-threatening nonsense it becomes.

[Corkboy]

But, for instance, asking an easy-going lovely young christian with close gay friends and acquaintances (it's an odd situation considering they won't be able to save them burning in hell for all eternity, granted, but it's a fairly common thing today) to account for a Ugandan minister's calls for homosexuals to all be rounded up and jailed/executed because it is against God's word, is a bit much.

Agree with yours and Jooney's posts except for this bit, and even then I see your point. But as I said earlier...

The moderate religious enable the extremists by giving their lunacy an acceptable footing.

They're in the same tent, much like Doc Red and the lunatic wing of his religion, therefore the obligation to sort them out rests with everyone in the tent. Even if they refuse and say it's not their concern, they can't escape the fact that some people are using roughly the same set of beliefs they hold for really horrible purposes. It's up to them to live with that.

[Haemoglobin]

^ It is fair to say that moderate muslims can't just completely wash their hands of the extremist problems and say they're all just insincere psychos with nothing to do with Islam, yeah.


It's like if a so-called lifelong Liverpool supporter gives out proper vile racist abuse, we'll all distance ourselves from them, we say they are not truly one of us, they do not understand our core values and are evidently not fit to support the club... but if it was an increasing occurance, then it's still our problem to all have the biggest hand in dealing with, nipping in the bud.

Muslims shouldn't feel that they're being put in the same boat, or that they're answerable for all that shite. But they need to fully recognise many of the internal 'community' issues at hand (how easily it seems some of their disaffected youth can be radicalised), and acknowledge that these nutjobs genuinely believe they are practising Islam as Allah demands. It's not about placing responsibility for these crimes on the shoulders of innocent muslims, fuck that - if anything I feel sorry for all you poor sods right now, the shit you may have to be dealing with just going about your daily lives encountering ignorant people who've caught some of the news between soaps. It's just that, in all likelihood, the only people who can sort this chaos out at some brighter future point are moderate muslims themselves.

[Corkboy]

This is a case which illustrates some of the difficulties modern Muslims face.

Expat faces death by stoning after admitting in court to cheating on husband

A maid has been sentenced to death by stoning after becoming pregnant outside of marriage.

Abu Dhabi Criminal Court gave the Indonesian woman the death penalty after she was found guilty of adultery. Chief Justice Sayed Abdul Baseer, head of the criminal court, said he handed down capital punishment to the Muslim woman as she had confessed to committing the crime, adding that the sentence was in line with Islamic law.

He added the pregnancy was enough proof of sex out of wedlock and that the woman, who is married, had to be convicted of adultery. The maid, whose husband does not live in the UAE, worked for an Arab family in the capital.

Official records show she was taken to hospital after suffering abdominal pains. A medical examination confirmed that the woman was pregnant. The maid confessed in court that she committed adultery. However, she claimed that she did not know the whereabouts of the man who had made her pregnant.

Under Sharia law, adultery can be substantiated through a confession or if four people witnessed the offence and testified before the court. A judicial official said the housemaid can appeal the sentence if she chooses. He added that Abu Dhabi Criminal Court has previously sentenced defendants in similar cases to death by stoning, but the sentences were never carried out.

A judicial expert said that although UAE laws are based on Sharia law, the courts exercise leniency as much as possible on people charged with such offences.

Last month, 7DAYS reported that a judge at the court advised a married man that he could avoid a death sentence if he changed his guilty plea in an adultery case, despite having admitted in court 10 times that he cheated on his wife.

source

Couple of things.

Firstly, somebody in a hospital obviously decided this woman deserved to be reported. That's troubling in itself.

Secondly, the Court has no option but to impose a death sentence, because "the sentence was in line with Islamic law". However, they seem to be at pains to try to not kill the poor woman, even going so far as to intimate that if she simply changed her story, she might get leniency, like the man who admitted adultery ten times. When you're advising people to lie so you don't have to execute them, your religion is really in trouble.

[Corkboy]

Incidentally, Doc Red hasn't been seen on this thread since I asked him if he thought killing people for leaving Islam was wrong. Maybe he's still mulling it over.

[Narwin Dunez]

Secondly, the Court has no option but to impose a death sentence, because "the sentence was in line with Islamic law". However, they seem to be at pains to try to not kill the poor woman, even going so far as to intimate that if she simply changed her story, she might get leniency, like the man who admitted adultery ten times. When you're advising people to lie so you don't have to execute them, your religion is really in trouble.

Another example that humanity isn't the problem, religion is.

[BoRed]

Incidentally, Doc Red hasn't been seen on this thread since I asked him if he thought killing people for leaving Islam was wrong. Maybe he's still mulling it over.

And that was less than 24 hours ago. Maybe he has a life.

[Sir Harvest Fields]

I must admit this is a most interesting debate. Helped me see both sides of the debate.

[Runehammer]

I must admit this is a most interesting debate. Helped me see both sides of the debate.

Seconded. I am getting the feeling that the poor moderate muslims are forever being "check-mated" by their dogma however and tend to agree with Le Jake's point.

[Corkboy]

Shameless cross thread plug. If you're bored, irritated or generally sick of us fighting on this thread, pop in here and let everyone know who your favourite LFC centre half is!

[Doc Red]

Incidentally, Doc Red hasn't been seen on this thread since I asked him if he thought killing people for leaving Islam was wrong. Maybe he's still mulling it over.

I have responsibilities that I have adhere to, in the outside world. The time I spend posting here, tends to be during my free time. I'll start to write a response, leave it on hold to do something for work (or my family), and come back to it when I can. I was actually in the midst of a completing a longish post concerning what I believe is the correlation between extreme intolerance, extreme devotion to an ideology, instability in a region, and the desire to rule and/or control.

But I don't think I'm interested anymore. The approach the likes of you and Yorky have taken to discuss an important subject, especially when you've placed it under "Islamism", leads down a road that doesn't interest me.

The mods may feel that what's been posted over the past 20 pages can be classified as debate. They've decided to stay out of it. I'm assuming they'd rather not get involved with a delicate subject, don't want to be seen as favouring one side over another, and probably might not feel they're knowledgeable enough on the subject to step in and control things. But I disagree. An inaction is an action in itself. It also has it's implications.

I've posted, a lot, over the past few days. I've explained my view on terrorism in the Middle East, on the way Religion has been used to further their aims. I've looked at previous incidents where atrocities and wars have occured, and used that as a basis of comparison. I've stated that I believe that the Middle East crisis is a combination of extreme intolerance, instability in a region, and a power void. That the extreme manipulation of a religion is used to gather forces, attract disillusioned youths into the ranks, and to form a distinction between various warring factions.

I've made all those statements in an attempt to "add" to the debate. And what do I get.

Well Doc, here's a misquoted verse from your religion, can explain why Islam oppresses women? Here's a link to a vague research that I'm going to cherry pick and post to show that an Atheist can die in Muslim countries. By the way, it's conducted by the IHEU, a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, and even though they've "researched" 13 cases of these deaths over a period of 2 years, out of a sample of 60 countries, just ignore the details. Explain why Islamic countries kill atheists.
Doc, there's more. What about this research I conveniently found that "conducted a survey" on Muslims, a research I'm presenting with no context or understanding of the parameters used to conduct the research. Just look at how many of those Muslims think killing Muslims that leave the religion is agreeable. Just look, they're Muslims too, clearly speaking for the majority of Muslims in that region. Using correlation, I can deduce that these are normal people that are following their religion, it certainly seems Islam is the root of extremism.

"Debating" Islam, in a thread labelled "Islamism" ,that aims to discuss extremism and terrorism in the Middle East, and being asked to do so under the context of responding to posts and links that themselves are heavily slanted and arranged so as to present Islam in the worst possible way, is not only a discussion in the wrong thread, it's not even a fair discussion. It's what we call a "loaded debate". It's like getting asked to come on a talk show to discuss how religion has influenced the way you live your life with your family, and the first question you're asked is "why do you beat your wife and kids". It's a loaded question. Even if you convince everyone that you haven't ever beaten your family, you've still ended up spending most of your time explaining what you're not, as opposed to what you are. And a lot of people believe that there's no smoke without fire. And God forbid, if you're unable to clear yourself from those accusations, even if you're innocent, you've already tarnished your image and that of your relgion.

I could try to counter every single link, research, article, that Cork, Yorky et al, present. But when does it end. It's not as if I can counter one claim and we'll all accept that Islam at it's core isn't violent or intolerant. The goal posts haven't been defined. There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet, 50+ countries that have a majority Muslim population, a history of 1400+ years, numerous dictators and regimes ruling over Muslim populations, and a period of 30 years where war has been waged on Muslim soil (with a very heavy influence from the West). If I'm going to have to explain Islam by defending it, and defending it against every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Ahmed, Hassan, Ilyas) that have decided to wage war, kill, oppress, beat, stone, etc, and claimed they did so because Islam tells them to do so, than it's never, ever going to end. And even if I somehow manage to maintain this "debate" of Islam, we still haven't touched on the main subject of this forum, extremism and Islamic exremism in the Middle East.

And let's say I do decide to counter everyone of their links and posts. Maybe the 14th time, or the 20th time, or the 5th time, I'm just not able to explain it. I'm not knowledgeable enough (I'm not a scholar), or articulate enough to explain a query. Then it'll be a case of "see, I told you Islam preaches intolerance, oppression and hate". It's a lose, lose debate, that shouldn't even be on this thread.It's not a bunch of peaceful religious people sitting around their homes, that decided to wage war because Islam told them to, or even because their interpretation of Islam guided them.  If an extreme interpretation of Islam is the straw that broke the camel's back, I want to know what other things formed a major contribution. What does everyone else think?. What do you think of my opinions on that subject? etc.

If there was a thread titled, say, "Is Islam a Purpose of Life", I'd have no problem with discussing the merits of Islam. Posters might ask "what does Islam say about woman", or "the rights of minorities", or "the rights of non believers, or atheists", or "what does Islam say about Jihad, what is Jihad?, or "how does Islam characterise the atrocities going on in the Middle East". Ask away, and I'll try explain as best I can. You can end up agreeing with some things, in which case you might walk away thinking "I get what they're saying, it makes sense, but it's not for me". Or, you'll walkaway thinking "I didn't agree with the stand Islam has on this issue, or that issue. So I don't think Islam is a purpose of life". Fair enough, but either way, the grounds for debate are clear, and the outcomes acceptable for everyone.

If you really are interested about Islam, or learning more about Islam, there are numerous authors that have written some great books on the subject, many of which are not Muslim. It's not hard to get information in this era, but it's how you go about gathering information on philosophies and ideologies that you disagree with, that tend to show your true inclination. If I want to learn about atheism, I'm not going to open up a thread about Atheism, start discussing the atrocities committed in all the wars that had nothing to do with religion, use that as a platform to take pot shots at Atheism, and present distorted information in an attempt to proof that Atheist lack morality. That wouldn't be classified as a debate. That would be attacking an ideology under the guise of debating specific wars.

And Corky, you keep repeating that "tent" metaphor to get your point across. I'm glad you've done that. That's exactly how I see the difference between you and I. You've placed me in the same tent as Islamic extremists, under the label "Islam", and placed yourself in another tent. The assumption being, I have more in common with the extremists, than I do with you. That we're all just a group of Muslims, and some of us choose to interpret the religion in a positive manner, and others choose to interpret it as it is, or in a worse manner. Regardless, we're all in it together, with you being on the other side.

I grew up in Europe, side be side with my classmates, most of which were Christian. I learnt with them, I shared with them, and grew with them. This is my home. Europe is my home. I consider myself as a European Muslim. The only difference is I worship X, when others worship Y. I share my religion with 1.6 billion Muslims, and in that sense I have a religious connection with them. But we can be Muslim, and eat, drink, dress, act, feel, behave, differently. When I've gone to the Middle East, or North-East-West Africa, they consider me "European", even though I'm Muslim.

I don't see the world in terms of tents that are defined by religion (or race). For me, there are only two tents. On the right side is a tent titled "Peace" where the vast majority of people reside. They all walk around , each with multiple tags such as "Muslim, "Christian", "Athiest", "German", "Chinese" etc.
On the other side, is a much smaller tent, marked "Extremists". They also walk around, each with multiple tags such as "Muslim, "Christian", "Athiest", "German", "Chinese" etc. but with the word "extreme" in front of each one. These are the racists, extreme nationalists, extremist tribalists, exterme religionists, that spend their time trying to attract all of us over on the other tent, to come to their side, whilst also launches missiles at as whenever they get the chance. Every once in a while, a group of people from our side drifts over to their side and joins their pack. This procedure has been continuous since the start of mankind.

No we can sit around and pretend that because today, the people crossing over the divide have the label Muslim on their tag, that they crossed over because they were Muslim.  That the week before that, when a bunch of people from country X, with religion Y, crossed over and joined that tent labelled "extremists", it was simply because of their tags. That the month before that, when a bunch of people from country V, from tribe E, went across that divide, that it was simply because of who they were.

I think there is always a trigger, some hunger for conquest, some need to control, some desire to feel superior, that leads people into become competely intolerant with others, and obsessively compulsive with their ideologies. And I don't think it's because they happen to be Muslim, or Christian, or Atheist, or White, or anything along those lines. I don't buy that, it doesn't make sense to me.
But the way we've described our metaphoric "tents", sheds light on the way we're approaching this subject.

I've debated with Muslims, Christians, Athiests and Agnostics. Thoroughly enjoyed the process. But I've learnt to avoid extreme religionists. I don't care what religion they are (or if they're athiests), discussion is a useless use of time, and I'd advice people to skip any discussion that tilts towards extremism.

I've written a lot during the past few days, and even though I've had to deal with people that have presented facts about Islam when they themselves admit of having limited knowledge, and I've had to deal with reading the same old distortions of Islam that are the staple of any Islamaphobic site (I've unfortunately ended up debating with Islamaphobic people before. I failed to see the agenda before I went to the debate, and it was an all round horrible session), I've still tried to maintain dignity, and a respect, not just towards you personally, but to your chosen ideology of life. I have never once stated, or implied, that Islam is any better than other religions, or ridiculed your decision not to believe in a God. And here's the truth, I gave you that respect because Islam dictates that I owe you rights, whether I agree with you or not. Because Surah 109 in the Quran (one of the shortest, and the most known Surahs), that specifically highlights the approach to dealing with those that don't believe in your religion, ends with the sentence ""To you your religion and to me mine."

I stand by my opinions, and all I've stated previously, but they're not etched in stone. I have to believe that somewhere out there is someone with a better argument, a stronger hypothesis, and a deeper analysis that sheds more light that what I've done. The day that happens, I'll be happy to jump on board and use their analysis as the foundation of my future discussions. But it has to be a discussion, and a clear argument. I don't do random links, two lined posts, or ignorant statements.

Finally, I want the likes of Yorky and Cork to understand something. Just because you think that believing in religious books (be it Quran, Torah, Bible, Holy Texts etc) and believing in a Supreme Being, is akin to believing that fairytales are true and Santa is real, that it doesn't make it any less real for all of us that do believe in them. We believe in it.  In a lot of your posts,  you've taken a lot of digs, and generally attempted to ever-so-slowly-and-carefully portray religion in the worst possible light. Quite frankly, within the 20+ posts in this thread, a lot of things have been written that are inconsiderate, insensitive, and could be classified as hurtful towards a lot of people. You don't have to be Muslim, or religious, to have found the generally atmosphere and "debate" in this thread to be out of bounds.  Spending time trying to denigrate a religion (or religion) under the guise of debating extremism, simply because your ideologies on the purpose of life differ, is precisely what I classify as intolerant. And before you jump on that phrasing, I haven't labelled you extremist, just plain ol intolerant.

Having said all the above, if my home was sandwiched between Cork and Yorky, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. If we all had kids, I'd be comfortable letting them play together down in the park. And we can do that, not because I have positive interpretation of Islam (and they're morally outstanding atheists), but because the relatively peaceful and safe environments we were raised up in deeply affect the way we interact with those around us. Even if we're intolerant and a generally pain in the ass, in all probability, the furtherest we'll go is verbally hurting someone. We're certainly not going to start clensing our cities from anyone that disagrees with our ideologies. Not because we're such top class individuals, but because we've been molded in our environment. That doesn't mean we can't get psychopaths in peaceful regions, and neither does it mean that living in a war torn region guarantees that you'll become extremist. But a lot of things tend to play a part, together, to get the outcomes we see whenever war is conducted.

[Doc Red]

Incidentally, Doc Red hasn't been seen on this thread since I asked him if he thought killing people for leaving Islam was wrong. Maybe he's still mulling it over.

Quite frankly, these sorts of statements that attempt to shed a malicious light on my character, is exactly why I've lost interest in this thread.

I could rise to the bait and ask you to go screw yourself, but I'm in the midst of my fasting and I'd rather focus on more positive issues.
So kindly jog on

[gamble]

A fine post by Doc Red, probably one you could end the thread with.

I'll try to post later in the week but a bit busy due to work. I just wanted this isn't really a debate if you already have made your mind up and what to force your opinion onto others. Plus if you're going to be intolerant of others you disagree with you probably have more in common with the ones you hate more than you might think.

[Conocinico]

Fine post Doc.

[Corkboy]

Doc, you seem like a moral person. I can't believe that you think the penalty for leaving Islam should be death, or that I should be killed for being atheist, or that adultery is a capital offence. I refuse to accept that a regular, ordinary, decent Muslim holds these views, and yet some do, many do. These are extreme positions but they are common in many Muslim nations. The news piece from Abu Dhabi above proves that. It isn't second hand, it isn't an opinion poll and it isn't some do-gooder UN Report. It happened and it happens and many Muslims, even the judges, have obvious qualms about these strictures, to the extent of trying to find tortuous ways to elude them. You can divert and whinge all you want about not being treated respectfully but I'm still trying to get you to answer the same question. Do you agree with these barbaric practices? If you don't, how do you explain why so many Muslims do?

You might think that I'm trying to catch you out but I'm not. This is one of the biggest problems your religion faces in the eyes of the rest of the world. Many of the rules/laws/customs of Islam seem primitive and cruel to other people. That's how the Daily Mail can write appalling one eyed sharia demonising articles about British Muslims. You can complain about being treated badly or you can say, yes, these laws exist, they are/are not Islamic and I agree/disagree because...

You came into this thread to give us all some guidance and education about your religion. I've learned more about what ordinary Muslims think from the comments section of that Abu Dhabi news story than from you. Please educate me.

Also, please let us know who your favourite LFC centre half is.

[Narwin Dunez]

Fantastic post from the heart Doc Red.

[24/7]

Doc, that was an excellent post in itself, although I would take exception to the inaction remark.

Much moderation takes place out of the public view and you should remember two important things in that regard:

1) we encourage active, lively, reasonable and respectful debate - disagreements are neither censored nor discouraged, just as long as they are handled maturely, appropriately and with respect. This happens a lot on a site as diverse and as lively as this one. Just because you don't see us wading in here kicking arse or preaching superior wisdom doesn't mean we don't give a damn or we are being apathetic or even that we lack knowledge on the subject. We moderate selectively on the basis of the material in front of us and there has been some healthy debate in this thread, as well as some judicious pruning and the occasional quiet word in the ear offline so to speak..........so please do not be presumptuous in the belief that we are inactive.

2) this is predominately a football site, first and foremost to celebrate, discuss and debate all things related to LFC. That we have allowed the site to branch out into a veritable plethora of subject matters is testimony to a collective willingness to educate, inform and debate - or sometimes to simply laugh, joke, cry, support each other through hardships - and also testament to the huge variety of personalities, views, opinions and areas of expertise that 40k+ people bring to the table.

It's good to see so many threads focussing on topics that are as sensitive as anything can be - a lot of them end up locked, binned or both, with the occasional punitive action taken against the more extremist or least relevant posters and posts.

This is one of those where you can be assured we keep an eye on things and we act ONLY when it's deemed necessary. We're not a fascist dictatorship (honestly!).

If something disturbs somebody sufficiently seriously, we have a report function and all mods can see what is reported - and we often discuss the report amongst ourselves before taking any appropriate action - but we don't see everything all the time - and sometimes we decide that no obvious action is required.....or sometimes we take 'invisible' action, or we act so quickly that no-one else sees it.........

..........but we do act.

Please, continue

[electricghost]

Doc Red, one objection to a comment I made previously was that a quote had been "loosely translated".

Could you please recommend a site that in your mind as accurately as possible translates the scriptures into English ?

[Yorkykopite]

And before you jump on that phrasing, I haven't labelled you extremist, just plain ol intolerant.

Intolerant? Get off your high horse Doc. Islam's fine by me. If anyone tried to ban it or outlaw its followers you could count on my vigorous and outraged opposition. 

I hope that's clear from everything I've said about your religion. It should be. I may think Islam is a fairy tale, just as I think Christianity a fairy tale, but not in a million years does that mean I'm intolerant or that I somehow want to shut down mosques or stop Muslims from believing. People ought to be able to believe anything they like, and they should be afforded every protection the State can offer to do so. That's what living in a free society means.

I stop short at wanting 'religion on the rates' (which is why I'd disestablish the Church of England) and I do not support any blasphemy law (which, notoriously ONLY protects Christianity, and not Islam, in this country). If you think that is "intolerance" then you're simply not thinking clearly enough. 

Now this thread. Show me where I've posted something that's "intolerant".

I'll freely admit that I've posted stuff you don't agree with and it's even possible you've felt offended by some of my opinions. But that's often the way when politics and religion are debated. (You should see some of the things that are written about the Tory Party - including by me. They're disgusting!) But "intolerant"? Come on, that's a serious charge and it needs backing up.

I think, on the contrary, I've done my best throughout the thread to distinguish between Islam the religion and Islamism the political ideology. In one sense that's the very purpose of the thread. I've tried to explain and publicise the fact that most of the victims of Islamism are Muslims and that it's a shocking state of affairs that most people in the West are ignorant of this fact or simply don't bother about it. I've linked to Muslim groups (like the Quilliam Foundation) or individuals (like Malala) or videos ('Happy British Muslims') to show how Muslims are fighting back against Islamism. And all power to those brothers and sisters! We should show our solidarity with them.

Do you really think if I was "intolerant" of all Muslims (which is you're implication) I'd have done these things?

Of course we have a profound disagreement. We disagree on whether there is such a thing as 'Islamism'. You insist that it's the wrong term, that there's nothing religious about the Islamists, that they're psychopaths who've fastened on to religion for reasons of expediency and that we are facing a generic problem of "extremism" and nothing more. I - and a few others - say that's not true and argue that, on the contrary, the Islamists are motivated by religion and that they are - according to their own lights - deeply religious people.

But here again, I refer to the difference between Islam and Islamism. For to say these things is not to condemn the entire Koran, let alone want to censor it or ban it - as an intolerant person would wish to do It is merely to point out the very important difference between those Muslims who read the Koran for spiritual sustenance or to find out how to lead the 'good life' and those who believe that the Koran contains the last word of wisdom on everything and wish to impose it on everyone else. Yes, it's a version of the Koran they wish to impose. And most certainly it is not your version, as you've clearly stated. But in my opinion it is a version, just as Torquemada's was a version of Christianity. Personally I don't see how the fight back against Islamism can begin to be effective until this elementary point is understood. The best answer to anyone wishing to create a society in the image of scripture is not to say "you're reading scripture wrongly" (even if they are). It's to say "Don't do it. The enterprise is fundamentally flawed. You will end with a reactionary, cruel and despotic state).

Why did I quote that verse of the Koran? Because it seems to be the type of verse that might inspire some of the ludicrous fantasies of the Islamists. There are more such passages, such as the ones which might be said to give sustenance to extreme Jew hatred. I'm not going to quote them and I'm certainly not interested in your defence of them. It's not fair to ask you and I wouldn't expect a defence of such passages anyway, just as I wouldn't expect a Christian to defend the genocidal madness that crops up, here and there, in the Holy Bible. These books belong to a previous age of mankind and therefore it's understandable that they contain passages which are racist, misogynistic, homophobic and an incitement to violence. They contain generous and beautiful passages too, which I have alluded to before. They are indeed hugely contradictory books - both of them.

My argument therefore is against those religious followers - of whatever religion - who think the WHOLE book is sufficient on its own to build society. That it contains ALL the answers. That violence and intimidation are valid tools to bring people into line with that vision. In short my argument, in this thread, is with Islamism not Islam.



 

[Sir Harvest Fields]

Doc, that was an excellent post in itself, although I would take exception to the inaction remark.

Much moderation takes place out of the public view and you should remember two important things in that regard:

1) we encourage active, lively, reasonable and respectful debate - disagreements are neither censored nor discouraged, just as long as they are handled maturely, appropriately and with respect. This happens a lot on a site as diverse and as lively as this one. Just because you don't see us wading in here kicking arse or preaching superior wisdom doesn't mean we don't give a damn or we are being apathetic or even that we lack knowledge on the subject. We moderate selectively on the basis of the material in front of us and there has been some healthy debate in this thread, as well as some judicious pruning and the occasional quiet word in the ear offline so to speak..........so please do not be presumptuous in the belief that we are inactive.

2) this is predominately a football site, first and foremost to celebrate, discuss and debate all things related to LFC. That we have allowed the site to branch out into a veritable plethora of subject matters is testimony to a collective willingness to educate, inform and debate - or sometimes to simply laugh, joke, cry, support each other through hardships - and also testament to the huge variety of personalities, views, opinions and areas of expertise that 40k+ people bring to the table.

It's good to see so many threads focussing on topics that are as sensitive as anything can be - a lot of them end up locked, binned or both, with the occasional punitive action taken against the more extremist or least relevant posters and posts.

This is one of those where you can be assured we keep an eye on things and we act ONLY when it's deemed necessary. We're not a fascist dictatorship (honestly!).

If something disturbs somebody sufficiently seriously, we have a report function and all mods can see what is reported - and we often discuss the report amongst ourselves before taking any appropriate action - but we don't see everything all the time - and sometimes we decide that no obvious action is required.....or sometimes we take 'invisible' action, or we act so quickly that no-one else sees it.........

..........but we do act.

Please, continue

I can attest to this

In all seriousness this is a fascinating debate. Ive learnt loads about religion and politics from RAWK. I dont know enough to contribute but its a brilliant discussion.

[Doc Red]

Intolerant? Get off your high horse Doc. Islam's fine by me. If anyone tried to ban it or outlaw its followers you could count on my vigorous and outraged opposition. 

I hope that's clear from everything I've said about your religion. It should be. I may think Islam is a fairy tale, just as I think Christianity a fairy tale, but not in a million years does that mean I'm intolerant or that I somehow want to shut down mosques or stop Muslims from believing. People ought to be able to believe anything they like, and they should be afforded every protection the State can offer to do so. That's what living in a free society means.

I don't know you, Yorky. I have now idea what you do, where you do it, and with whom.
I came to the conclusion that you strike me as an intolerant person, by taking into account the posts you've made on this thread, the insensitive remarks you've made (based on your own ideologies) throughout, and the general "digs" against Religion. Might that have been a bit harsh, possibly, but you clearly have a problem with Islam, and religions in general.

Both you and Corky have highlighted your status as atheists, but I don't see how that plays any role on the subject under discussion. What difference does it make to the discussion, if you're Atheist or not, or if you believe Islam or Christianity are fairytales or not. What difference does it make to the discussion if you keep highlighting your disbelief on the generally concept of Religions. There's a certain sensitivity and respect that's required when one might be approaching a subject they may not neccessarily agree with, and the way you've managed it, is what I would consider as an example how not to do it.

You can have a phobia against a religion, but it doesn't neccessarily mean that you compaign all out against the the expulsion of a religion (I consider that as an extremist form of intolerance, akin to what is happening in the Middle East). And occasionally posting links to clips such as (Happy birthday Muslims?!) or things along   those lines, doesn't you confirm that you don't have an issue against Islam. It's like saying I can't be anti semitic because I have a Jewish friend. If I'm writing posts that are insensitive, and present information in a biased setting in an attempt to show the Jewish faith in a negative light, than it doesn't matter how many Hanukkah's I go to, I'm being anti semitic.

Of course we have a profound disagreement. We disagree on whether there is such a thing as 'Islamism'. You insist that it's the wrong term, that there's nothing religious about the Islamists, that they're psychopaths who've fastened on to religion for reasons of expediency and that we are facing a generic problem of "extremism" and nothing more. I - and a few others - say that's not true and argue that, on the contrary, the Islamists are motivated by religion and that they are - according to their own lights - deeply religious people.

You feel that the "Islamists" are motivated by religion. Fine Here's a question I'd like you to answer. If these "Islamists" truly are motivated by Islam, would you feel that, hypothetically speaking, if they were all atheists, that there wouldn't be any conflict in that region. That everything would go back in harmony and things would be settled peacefully. That instead of death, and violence, and war, we'd get a bunch of people holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"? I don't believe so. I think as long as they're facing the strife that they are, and are oppressed the way that are (and have been), facing the power void that is currently in place in one of the most important regions in the Arab world, that they'd still be extremist fervour leading them, and disillusioned youth following them. They'd just find something else to latch onto their purpose, and people would still be dying.

Personally I don't see how the fight back against Islamism can begin to be effective until this elementary point is understood. The best answer to anyone wishing to create a society in the image of scripture is not to say "you're reading scripture wrongly" (even if they are). It's to say "Don't do it. The enterprise is fundamentally flawed. You will end with a reactionary, cruel and despotic state).

It's not about reading the scripture wrong, it's about not reading the scripture.

Consider a law in a constitution that has a line that states "citizens can defend themselves with arms", and this line was preceded by the sentence "under specific conditions of protecting your home", and the criteria of  "protecting your home" in the latter sentence was further expanded on and explicitly explained in additional texts adhering to the constitution, and similarly, the criteria of the statement "defend themselves" was also expanded on and explicitly explained in additional texts adhering to the constitution. Now imagine an individual kills an innocent person and justifies the killing as "following the constitution of my country". Would you consider that as a case of someone "interpreting the constitution incorrectly", or  might it be more accurate to assume that they're simply "cherry picking" the lines of the constitution that serves their aim, and swiftly ignorning the parts that don't. You wouldn't be saying the problem is in the constitution, would you? You wouldn't be stating, or otherwise implying, that the rest of the 99.999% of the citizens that were peacefully abiding by the constitution, were doing so simply because they got the "correct interpretation". You wouldn't because it would be silly. The fella didn't kill someone because he was an constitutionalist, he killed someone because he chose to, nothing in the constitution enabled him to do it.

Now take the above paragraph and flip "constitution" with "Quran and Hadeeth", and keep everything else the same. Explain to me why this same person can now be identified as an extremist in Islam, or an "Islamist".

The very concept of having a constitution is to have clear laws that govern the people. If you cherry pick sentences to suit your purpose, than your agenda is already determined. To cope with these issues, and to prevent them from expanding, we have to educate people. Just telling them to "stop" doesn't prevent an ideology growing. You counter ignorance with knowledge, it's the only way.

Right now, we live in a society where vasts amounts of information are available at our fingers. We may not be as intelligent, or intellectual, as the likes of Einstein, Socrates, or Isaac Newton, but we have more information available than they ever did, and we probably know more about things in their field than they ever did. But for some reason, we're far too lazy to benefit from this amazing opportunity to increase our knowledge, and we're too lazy educate ourselves on issues we know very little about. Instead of spending time reading about books that can give us the vital information to subject we know nothing about (but consider as interesting, or important) , all we seem to want to do is read the "Cliff notes". Instead of trying to learn about a religion by studying the religion (in the way it prescribes), we'll look for an article on the New York Times website, that can sum up everything in 4 paragraphs. Even people that believe in a religion, might not neccessary know a great deal about it themselves.

When you have a situation where very few people have a depth understanding of a subject, and it doesn't stop them from acting as if they're experts, it can lead to a lot of misinformation. If I can ride a little bit longer on my metaphor from earlier. Consider what might happen if the fella from above (aka the constitutionalist) lived in a war torn region, where a large number of people were oppressed, or faced depressing conditions. Where there was a large number of youths that were disillusioned, with little hope in sight for peace, and a lot of pent up anger and frustrations at the plight they're in. Imagine he started gathering these youths, and presenting them with his flawed view of the constitution. Imagine he started telling them that the reason why they never knew this before was because the other people were not "strong enough" to fulfil the constitution. That their leaders were oppressers and the only way was to fight. That fight was encouraged, nay, demanded by their constitution. Maybe, some of them might start thinking "I have the power to make change?","I can get myself rid of these pitiful conditions?" " Killing to achieve my goals is considered courageous within the Constitution?

The only way to counter misinformation is via education. I don't think you can ever tell the psychopathic leaders that guide these youths to "stop". But with education, you can stop the flow of young angry youths, from joining the ranks of the psychopaths. Education would also allow those outside of the region to have a more accurate understanding of the situation. It may not be the responsibility of the Governments and civilians of the West to become well versed in the ideologies of that region, but considering Western Governments can't seem to keep their mittons off that region, than their priority should also be to understand, and be aware of, the main issues those people face.

My argument therefore is against those religious followers - of whatever religion - who think the WHOLE book is sufficient on its own to build society. That it contains ALL the answers. That violence and intimidation are valid tools to bring people into line with that vision. In short my argument, in this thread, is with Islamism not Islam.

Everyone that believes in, or adheres to, an ideology, probably feels that following their ideology will make them far more accomplished (or happier?) than possibly another ideology. It's what makes it an ideology. A blueprint into how you believe you should live your life, and cope with things around you, that helps guide you on a safer/happier/more logical/ path than if you were to follow another ideology. For instance, you might feel that being Atheist helps you achieve your aims in life (whatever they are), or answers questions you've deemed as important to you,  far more than Islam, or Hinduism, or Christianity can. I feel that Islam helps me achieve my goals more so than Atheism, or Religion X.

It doesn't mean the other paths can't lead to happiness, it only means the paths we've chosen are the ones we feel suit us best. Everybody believes that their ideologies provide the best answers to whatever it is they value most. If I look at my life, yes, I consider that Islam contains all the answers I need for the questions I deem important. Other ideologies provide their answers, but I'm fine with mine. So I don't agree with the former part of your post. Why would I have a problem with someone that believes the ideology they follow, answers ALL the questions they deem important, and answers them in a better way than my ideology does for him? I can tolerate someone with that opinion. Nothing wrong with it. You have your religion, and I have mine.

I start having problems when people become extremist with their ideologies, and intolerant to those that don't agree with them. When they start determining that because I'm not following the ideology that they've considered is the bestfor them, that I'm somehow living in LuLu Land, and therefore incapable of rational thinking. I start having problems when I feel my family isn't safe, because we follow an ideology that the "norm" don't.

All else being equal, I really couldn't care less if my neighbour believed that a big, gigantic rock was plummeting towards Earth and death was inevitably in 5 years. If that's their philosophy, go for it. I'm quite dandy with mine.

[Doc Red]

You came into this thread to give us all some guidance and education about your religion. I've learned more about what ordinary Muslims think from the comments section of that Abu Dhabi news story than from you. Please educate me.

I got little time, and plenty to respond to (I haven't replied to electric ghost yet, but I'll try manage tommorw), so I'm going to "cherry pick" this line from Cork.
I didn't initially come on this thread with the sole aim of educating about my religion. This wasn't a thread titled "What is Islam" in which posters were asking questions. It's a thread titled "Islamism" that discusses extremism and extremist wars in the Middle East. A region where the people on both sides (all however many sides there are) are Muslim. I came to discuss Extremism and the like, and ended up "defending" the religion Islam, so to speak.

What it's become is a discussion about Islam. And because the discussion is about Islam, within a topic that highlights extremism, war, death, and horrible atrocities, I'm loathe to spend my time discussing the merits, explanations, and guidelines of Islam, whilst the shadow of "Islam is an oppressive religion that promotes violence" is looming over me. I've explained my general reluctance to abide by your "questioning" a couple of posts up. It's the stance I have for the time being.

And with all due respect, I'm not too concerned with whether you've learnt more from the discussion forum on the Daily Fail, than you have from me. If you really were interested in learning more about Islam, you probably wouldn't be  scrolling through those sections to get the information you need. And considering it's a daily fail discussion forum, I wouldn't hold high hopes for a reasoned debate. The vast majroity of people posting there, especially in any religious related subject, are there just trying to throw some gasoline on the flames.

[Haemoglobin]

Someone far better qualified than I should perhaps start a thread dedicated to the beauty of the Islamic world, as a sort of positive counterpoint to all this horrible stuff we seem to see and discuss all the time. Not necessarily confined to Islam maybe, but inclusive of all the wonders of its traditional heartland. I'd certainly like to see something like that; I adore so much of the architecture, the poetry of Hafiz and Rumi, Sufi music, and so forth. What d'you reckon?


As an atheist, I tend not to mince my words when talking about the impact religions can have on people's lives (both good and bad), but I really don't mean to hurt anyone who has a deep relationship with their God and faith. I think if I didn't say it as I saw it, it'd be dishonest of me, which is why I don't bother too much with sensitivity, and try not to euphemise and sanitise my language. Maybe it's not the most tactful of approaches, but then I'm not a diplomat, just an observer.

I do cringe a bit though when I see atheists gang up and aggressively confront calm, composed, lucid christians and such. I cringe at the idea of feckless, talentless, pointless dicks (not talking about anyone in here!) basically calling qualified doctors and scholars morons on video comments and messageboards, simply because they're religious and believe in a conscious creative deity of some description. I'd like to think I'm very careful not to fall into that sort of crap, while also making absolutely transparent my own beliefs. But also I'm a silly cunt, so I can kinda do what I like. 

[Corkboy]

Still no answer. I said, somewhat lightheartedly, that you hadn't posted for a while since I asked you about the death sentence for apostasy and that maybe you were mulling it over. I deduce from the high dudgeon with which you reacted that you are not, in fact, in favour of the death penalty for apostasy. That's somewhat reassuring.

And with all due respect, I'm not too concerned with whether you've learnt more from the discussion forum on the Daily Fail, than you have from me. If you really were interested in learning more about Islam, you probably wouldn't be  scrolling through those sections to get the information you need.

I'm not interested in learning about Islam. At all. I was raised a Catholic, one set of barmy superstitions and bastardised ancient scribblings is quite enough for me. I know the basics, that's about it. I am, however, very interested in the effects it and other religions have on people and society.

The overall gist of your earlier exchanges with Yorky was that Islam did not condone "Islamist" terrorism and that therefore Islamists were not correctly Muslim. I don't see much difference between blowing someone up in a market because they happen to be there, and stoning a woman to death for being in love with the wrong man, or taking a gun and shooting a fellow human in the head because he doesn't think the same way you do. These all seem to me to be equally disgusting, inhuman acts. You're right, the atheist crimes aren't often prosecuted, probably because you really have to be asking for it but the others are prosecuted with alarming frequency, in UAE and Saudi and Sudan and other places that are proudly, demonstrably Muslim. You can't pass these things off the same way as terrorism, calling them extremist. You can't have an extremist law.

I am interested in how you can be against the death penalty for apostasy and atheism and adultery when large swathes of the Muslim world are quite clearly for. Don't bother trying to dispute that. You know it, so does everyone on this thread. I can't see how that squares with your religion. Either your version of your religion is right or theirs is. There is no middle ground with death wishes.

And considering it's a daily fail discussion forum, I wouldn't hold high hopes for a reasoned debate. The vast majroity of people posting there, especially in any religious related subject, are there just trying to throw some gasoline on the flames.

Again with the slurs. I don't agree with many things you say and I have no respect whatsoever for your beliefs but I defend your right to hold them and my right to criticise them. The way you act, me and Yorky are trolls just out to fuck with you. Grow up. I take these kind of discussions seriously, you don't get anything less than considered honesty from me. If that offends you, I don't care but don't tell me I'm taking the piss.

[pepecat]

My two penn'orth: I lurk these days because as a casual fan, I am out of my depth discussing football. But I enjoy the site and I delve into the non-football threads from time-to-time because I find the quality of the debate often better than in the mainstream media.

Colours to the mast: I agree with yorky. The bombers and beheaders swim in a pool. It is not a sufficient response to say they are psychopaths, any more than it was to say that about the IRA. The latter was informed by and got sympathy from a half-baked notion of bloody revolution going back to 1916 that was sustained through myths and songs. That sent the protest from a civil rights campaign that may have had earlier and better success into a violent protest that caused unnecessary suffering and loss of life.

Against that background, I feel uncomfortable about the invocation of Islam by people who carry out these atrocities. As an outsider, I see a public display of that religion that is not inconsistent with the justifications these people use. I don't remember in the 1970s, for example, women wearing full covering, or Ramadan being publicly, as opposed to privately, observed. Both of these look to outsiders to be public acts of difference, of non-participation, of wanting to be separate. As I type these words, I can see how they could be taken as offensive. They are not meant as such.

But there does not appear to be widespread outrage with and disassociation from terrorism. There does not seem to be any philosophical objection to the use of terrorism as a means of influencing foreign policy nor to the ultimate aim of Islam being not a matter of private belief but the basis of public policy.

Now this is all perception. But it is how a lot of people like me who place themselves on the liberal-left feel. I make these comments in a spirit of openness and friendship. I acknowledge that I may be missing a lot and I am open to persuasion. It is the view of a casual observer but fellow citizen.

[Narwin Dunez]

I don't remember in the 1970s, for example, women wearing full covering, or Ramadan being publicly, as opposed to privately, observed.

I agree making women cover up is backward, but Ramadan being publicly observed as a problem? Noone ever asked you at work "So what are you giving up for lent?"?

Enjoying both sides of the debate here but there is a difference between hating on Religion as a noun and hating on allowing others to believe.

[Corkboy]

It is not a sufficient response to say they are psychopaths, any more than it was to say that about the IRA. The latter was informed by and got sympathy from a half-baked notion of bloody revolution going back to 1916 that was sustained through myths and songs.

Now, that's a world I knew well. Even in southern Cork, we had two backdrops growing up. One was the official news, where politicians condemned all around them, and then there was the corner talk, where the Rah were defending our Cause and it was death to the English and all that nonsense. You're right about the songs, too. And everyone knew that if the Rah needed money, all they had to do was send a few fellas into the Boston bars with the bucket and they'd have all they could need. By the time I got older, we realised that the IRA were more akin to The Sopranos.

[pepecat]

Yes, which is why I qualified it. It was an observation and throwing open to debate. I certainly don't take any issue with fasting as a religious act. I suppose my point is that, like Lent, it is a private matter. There was an article in the Guardian last Saturday that slightly grinded my gears, to the effect that Ramadan was a more spiritual version of the 5:2 diet. I'll try to find it.

[pepecat]

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/jul/11/ramadan-spiritual-fast-faithful-community-take-stock

This was it. Unremarkable in itself but in context of this debate, perhaps relevant.

[Narwin Dunez]

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/jul/11/ramadan-spiritual-fast-faithful-community-take-stock

This was it. Unremarkable in itself but in context of this debate, perhaps relevant.

I'll give it a read

[pepecat]

Ah, County Cork. Irrelevant to this debate but my mate from work has just returned from his holiday there. He went under duress from his wife. He wanted to go to France as usual. You've never heard moaning like it: I'm packing my Kagool and Welles 'cos the weather will be shit; the beer will be expensive and I'll be treated frostily because of my English accent. Anyway, he's come back with a great suntan, the beer was cheap because of the exchange rate and his offer to pay for car parking overnight at his local bar was declined. "because, after all, sir, we wouldn't want you driving home, would we. Have that on us and see you tomorrow." Smart marketing, because he had his breakfast there and he is now proselytising all things Irish in general and Cork in particular.

[Yorkykopite]

I came to the conclusion that you strike me as an intolerant person, by taking into account the posts you've made on this thread, the insensitive remarks you've made (based on your own ideologies) throughout, and the general "digs" against Religion. Might that have been a bit harsh, possibly, but you clearly have a problem with Islam, and religions in general.

I don't quite know what you mean by "insensitive remarks" and can only imagine that you mean remarks which challenge your own world view. If you were able to point out specific cases where I’ve offended you it might help to clarify things. It would certainly help me, since you seem bent on leaving the general impression that I'm being rude to you and deliberately winding you up. Any fair-minded person who has read my posts on this subject knows that cannot be true.

Do I have a "problem" with religion? It's an odd phrase, since it suggests some kind of phobia or psychosis where there is none. For sure I'm an atheist (nothing unusual in that this day and age) and I think there's no rational basis to any belief in god or gods but I'm not sure that means I have a "problem". Unless of course you think anyone who is atheistic has a problem by definition, in which case we can’t really discuss anything at all.

For what it’s worth my atheism is background noise only in my life. I think about it very little. I didn't 'convert' to atheism and I don't particularly see it as a "cause" (though have no problem with people who do). As a matter of fact I was born into an atheistic home so it's not even as if I had the chance to be groped by a priest or bawled at by a mullah. In other words there was no traumatic personal reaction to organised religion in my life because it was never there in the first place. Atheism was - and still is - just part of the air I breathe. It's as straightforward as that.

Most religious folk I know seem like decent, civic-minded and balanced people, although I confess most folk I know aren't religious at all. And like I've said many times I have no problem with folks praying and worshipping. I'd certainly have a problem with any political party or ideology that tried to stop them.

Any road, on to the substance of the thread.....

You feel that the "Islamists" are motivated by religion. Fine Here's a question I'd like you to answer. If these "Islamists" truly are motivated by Islam, would you feel that, hypothetically speaking, if they were all atheists, that there wouldn't be any conflict in that region. That everything would go back in harmony and things would be settled peacefully. That instead of death, and violence, and war, we'd get a bunch of people holding hands and singing "Kumbaya"?

Certainly not. What gave you that remarkable idea?

But I do think that if the region was freed from the Islamist threat and the terrible prospect of Sharia Law being imposed by the gun and the incendiary device then the real issues afflicting the Middle East might at least be addressed more fruitfully. I'm talking about the emancipation of women, the assault on poverty, illiteracy and inequality, the removal of military dictatorship, the establishment of the rule of law and the growth of representative institutions. All these are combustible issues. We know that in Britain because we still argue about many of them. They are bound to generate political argument and ideological conflict anywhere because they are about power. But there's no earthly reason why that conflict needs to be violent or murderous or why the winner of the argument has to take all and the loser loses everything.

These issues certainly won't be solved singing "Kumbaya", which is a ridiculous idea.

I ought to add that I wouldn’t want a society of perfect harmony where everyone sits around singing "Kumbaya" even if it were possible. It would be boring. Too much like the deadly dull 'Heaven' that some Christians naively believe to be attractive. But more than that it smacks of a final solution and 'final solutions' stink because they are always imposed by violence.

But I'm intrigued by your gospel of despair for the Middle East.....

I think as long as they're facing the strife that they are, and are oppressed the way that are (and have been), facing the power void that is currently in place in one of the most important regions in the Arab world, that they'd still be extremist fervour leading them, and disillusioned youth following them. They'd just find something else to latch onto their purpose, and people would still be dying.

It is 'despair', isn't it? Or nihilism at any rate. In fact if a rich white American wrote what you’ve just written I’d be tempted to dismiss him as a racist crank.

I take a more hopeful view because, essentially, I think citizens of the Arab world are not fundamentally different from citizens of Europe or North America. They basically want the same things. They are, in other words, no more susceptible to political violence than anyone else. There is in fact a struggle already taking place for representative institutions and the rule of law in North Africa and the Middle East. In 2011 we called it 'the Arab Spring' - which, originally at least, was a powerful vision of society free from both Islamism and military dictatorship. The task is daunting for sure, but it's not hopeless. One despairs when one watches a tv programme like Panorama last night and sees how supporters of the Free Syrian Army in Aleppo, after surviving the onslaught of President Assad and his troops, were eventually executed in the public square by the bloody Islamists and jihadists.  But their cause will not be extinguished - in Syria or for that matter in Egypt and elsewhere in the region. The mass movement for democracy there certainly shows that there are millions of Arabs who believe that violence is not inevitable or desirable. That's why if Islamism were defeated I wouldn't expect, like you, that people would "just find something else to latch onto their purpose, and people would still be dying."

Everyone that believes in, or adheres to, an ideology, probably feels that following their ideology will make them far more accomplished (or happier?) than possibly another ideology. It's what makes it an ideology. A blueprint into how you believe you should live your life, and cope with things around you, that helps guide you on a safer/happier/more logical/ path than if you were to follow another ideology. For instance, you might feel that being Atheist helps you achieve your aims in life (whatever they are), or answers questions you've deemed as important to you,  far more than Islam, or Hinduism, or Christianity can. I feel that Islam helps me achieve my goals more so than Atheism, or Religion X.

I’m guided by certain principles, for sure, but I try not to believe in any ideology since I think it forces you into a straitjacket. I try to be as ecumenical as I can as well since you can learn stuff from all over the place – and just as importantly your most cherished assumptions can be challenged and if needs be overturned. That stops dogmatic thinking which is the bane of civilised life. Consequently, though an atheist I’m willing to accept that I’ve learned from religious ideas. Though a socialist, I’ve learned from conservative thinkers like Burke and Michael Oakeshott. Even bloody Hayek! But I’m not saying what’s right for me, is right for everyone. I’d recommend thinking outside your area of expertise, but I admit you can survive without doing so - at the cost of being a little monkish. Above all don't fetishise one text, or one idea. Understand that every idea is originally devised by a human being and therefore fallible.

All else being equal, I really couldn't care less if my neighbour believed that a big, gigantic rock was plummeting towards Earth and death was inevitably in 5 years. If that's their philosophy, go for it. I'm quite dandy with mine.

Me too. We’re like peas in a pod on that one.

But of course I have a problem with the person who makes a religion out of the falling stone and wants to force others to believe it too. More so if he also wants to build a political system based on the compulsory worship of the falling stone. I imagine you would too.

But by the same logic I have a problem with the devout believer in Islam who believes everyone else should believe in Islam too and who thinks it desirable to construct a society based on the Koran. The Islamists I mean. You too?

Having said that I do think that there’s more chance of a massive asteroid hitting earth in the future (hopefully not the next 5 years) and ending life as we know it than JC or Mo coming back and announcing the ‘end of days’ or whatever prophets do. But that’s just me being cheeky (and remembering a bit of 'O Level' science).

[jooneyisdagod]

Well Doc, here's a misquoted verse from your religion, can explain why Islam oppresses women? Here's a link to a vague research that I'm going to cherry pick and post to show that an Atheist can die in Muslim countries. By the way, it's conducted by the IHEU, a global body uniting atheists, agnostics and other religious skeptics, and even though they've "researched" 13 cases of these deaths over a period of 2 years, out of a sample of 60 countries, just ignore the details. Explain why Islamic countries kill atheists.

So you've branded the research as vague but do you have any objections to the actual research ? Because I think we'll both agree that its the content that matters. You are also alleging bias in the way the survey was conducted based on the fact that it was conducted by a non-religious think tank. Again, religious or non-religious, isn't the actual law that's at the centre of the matter ?

Doc, there's more. What about this research I conveniently found that "conducted a survey" on Muslims, a research I'm presenting with no context or understanding of the parameters used to conduct the research. Just look at how many of those Muslims think killing Muslims that leave the religion is agreeable. Just look, they're Muslims too, clearly speaking for the majority of Muslims in that region. Using correlation, I can deduce that these are normal people that are following their religion, it certainly seems Islam is the root of extremism.

Again, smacks of not accepting research by claiming that it was biased or that the design of the research was not correct without going into the details of what was incorrect with the design of the research. I'm happy for you to provide us with the context and explain to us how that research is in fact not evidence of what the researchers have shown.


Again, I'm really not trying to be aggressive at all. I'm just saying that if you say that the research was conducted improperly, we need a fuller point-by-point critique of the research rather than a claim of bias or simply saying that there was no context to the research.

"Debating" Islam, in a thread labelled "Islamism" ,that aims to discuss extremism and terrorism in the Middle East, and being asked to do so under the context of responding to posts and links that themselves are heavily slanted and arranged so as to present Islam in the worst possible way, is not only a discussion in the wrong thread, it's not even a fair discussion. It's what we call a "loaded debate". It's like getting asked to come on a talk show to discuss how religion has influenced the way you live your life with your family, and the first question you're asked is "why do you beat your wife and kids". It's a loaded question. Even if you convince everyone that you haven't ever beaten your family, you've still ended up spending most of your time explaining what you're not, as opposed to what you are. And a lot of people believe that there's no smoke without fire. And God forbid, if you're unable to clear yourself from those accusations, even if you're innocent, you've already tarnished your image and that of your religion.

To be fair though Doc, there was not much talk about Islam in this thread. Much of this thread has dealt with 'Islamism' itself as a separate issue. It did until you claimed that 'Islamists' were not religious people and were using Islam to further their particular aims.

I could try to counter every single link, research, article, that Cork, Yorky et al, present. But when does it end. It's not as if I can counter one claim and we'll all accept that Islam at it's core isn't violent or intolerant. The goal posts haven't been defined. There are 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet, 50+ countries that have a majority Muslim population, a history of 1400+ years, numerous dictators and regimes ruling over Muslim populations, and a period of 30 years where war has been waged on Muslim soil (with a very heavy influence from the West). If I'm going to have to explain Islam by defending it, and defending it against every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or Ahmed, Hassan, Ilyas) that have decided to wage war, kill, oppress, beat, stone, etc, and claimed they did so because Islam tells them to do so, than it's never, ever going to end. And even if I somehow manage to maintain this "debate" of Islam, we still haven't touched on the main subject of this forum, extremism and Islamic exremism in the Middle East.

And let's say I do decide to counter everyone of their links and posts. Maybe the 14th time, or the 20th time, or the 5th time, I'm just not able to explain it. I'm not knowledgeable enough (I'm not a scholar), or articulate enough to explain a query. Then it'll be a case of "see, I told you Islam preaches intolerance, oppression and hate". It's a lose, lose debate, that shouldn't even be on this thread.

All of it would still require interpretation of the source material. I think everyone here accepts that most people interpret it through a certain prism that makes them honest, loving people that want nothing more than a peaceful life. Equally, others CAN interpret it in a manner that causes terrible pain to a number of muslims let alone the others.

It's not a bunch of peaceful religious people sitting around their homes, that decided to wage war because Islam told them to, or even because their interpretation of Islam guided them.  If an extreme interpretation of Islam is the straw that broke the camel's back, I want to know what other things formed a major contribution. What does everyone else think?. What do you think of my opinions on that subject? etc.

The first part of your statement, you've stated as a fact but that is exactly the bone of contention here. Children are not born as violent lunatics and terrorists. That's a fact. They are groomed. That's a fact. Recently, there has been a spate of kids growing up in well to do countries like the U.K. and Australia that were described as being otherwise peaceful kids flying over to Syria to fight for their brothers. What has happened there ? These aren't poor kids growing up in a camp in Afghanistan due to the war waged by the West but kids growing up sometimes even in affluent or middle class homes in countries that have really high standards of living. What led them to decide to fly halfway across the world to take part in the establishment of the 'Caliphate' ? 


And I have a question from complete ignorance that I would love if you could clarify for me. In Islam, is an extreme interpretation the same as a literal interpretation ? Christianity certainly has that problem with Genesis for example but I'm not sure if that's how it works in Islam. Can you kindly clarify that for me please ?

If there was a thread titled, say, "Is Islam a Purpose of Life", I'd have no problem with discussing the merits of Islam. Posters might ask "what does Islam say about woman", or "the rights of minorities", or "the rights of non believers, or atheists", or "what does Islam say about Jihad, what is Jihad?, or "how does Islam characterise the atrocities going on in the Middle East". Ask away, and I'll try explain as best I can. You can end up agreeing with some things, in which case you might walk away thinking "I get what they're saying, it makes sense, but it's not for me". Or, you'll walkaway thinking "I didn't agree with the stand Islam has on this issue, or that issue. So I don't think Islam is a purpose of life". Fair enough, but either way, the grounds for debate are clear, and the outcomes acceptable for everyone.

I don't disagree at all about that but the answer always seems to lie in the interpretation. There seems to be enough room for even a small minority to be able to interpret it in a deleterious manner. That is a problem to the rest of us.

Can't really respond to the other bits since they seemed to be more specifically addressed to York and Cork though your own tent analogy was interesting. The two tent theory i.e. the good and bad people classification is quite simplistic but even leaving that to one side, its a total deflection of the point that Corky was making. Corky was classifying people based on their particular religious beliefs in various tents but your classification while valid runs parallel to the point Corky was making. Couldn't help by notice I'm afraid. 

[jooneyisdagod]

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/jul/11/ramadan-spiritual-fast-faithful-community-take-stock

This was it. Unremarkable in itself but in context of this debate, perhaps relevant.

The Guardian publishes some utter crap sometimes and this is one example.

[Corkboy]

Can't really respond to the other bits since they seemed to be more specifically addressed to York and Cork though your own tent analogy was interesting. The two tent theory i.e. the good and bad people classification is quite simplistic but even leaving that to one side, its a total deflection of the point that Corky was making. Corky was classifying people based on their particular religious beliefs in various tents but your classification while valid runs parallel to the point Corky was making. Couldn't help by notice I'm afraid. 

My tent analogy is based on the expression "big tent", as in politics where a big tent is one that captures many varieties of one overall movement. Each religion is a tent. Contrary to what Doc said, I'm not in any tent. I'm outside, looking at the stars.

[Yorkykopite]

I mentioned the BBC Panorama programme on the ISIS Islamists in my previous post. Here's a link to it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b049fgfw?intc_type=promo&intc_location=news&intc_campaign=panoramaisis_promo&intc_linkname=news_index_preview

Also, it's worth bearing in mind that Hamas are not the only Islamist group deliberately aiming rockets at civilians in the Middle East at the moment.  An Al Qaeda affiliate has killed seven Egyptian civilians and one soldier in the last two days with rocket attacks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28290795

[RojoLeón]

http://pando.com/2014/07/14/i-s-i-s-and-the-western-media-groping-each-other-in-public-like-a-kardashian-thanksgiving/

The war in Iraq is going pretty much like I predicted it would. The three factions—Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs—are holding their own, consolidating their turf, not trying very hard to occupy the other groups’ territories. The Sunni militias, led by I.S.I.S., the Caliphate of Loud-Talking, has been making ridiculous noises about “liberating” not just all of Iraq but Rome and Spain.

Both those claims are laughable, but at least Spain makes sense in a lame way. Spain is the one big chunk of the world Islam lost, after conquering and holding it for centuries, and that still annoys some people in the Ummah, mostly the ones who don’t have anything going on in their own lives—pretty much the way, when you meet somebody who spends a lot of time brooding over why America gave the Panama Canal back to those ungrateful Latin Americans, you’re dealing with somebody who’s behind in his alimony and spends a lot of time trolling lib’ruls online.

As for Rome, it’s much odder and more interesting that Al Baghdadi chose that city as a token of world domination. After all, it’s been a couple of millennia since Rome ruled the world. But that’s the thing about jihadis: These are very, very conservative guys—and I do mean guys—and for guys like that, Rome is still the standard-setter in world domination, so they’re stickin’ with it even if they’ve heard about the torch being passed to other megacities like Shanghai or Los Angeles. Or maybe the idea that the black flag of jihad will soon fly over either L.A. or Shanghai is just so ridiculous that even the dormant—very dormant—jihadi sense of humor started to twitch at the idea, so Al Baghdadi settled for the old standbys, Spain and Rome.

You can’t really blame the I.S.I.S. leadership or publicity apparatus for pushing this stuff. They have funding to get and recruits to attract, like any major college football program, and that means hyping their chances next season. I.S.I.S. draws its funding from fat old rich guys in Saudi and the Gulf who want to believe that their hick dreams of a world caliphate will come true any day.

Convince them of that, and they grab their bank cards and head down to NBK to hand over more cash for your militia. Hyping your victories is also a group like I.S.I.S.’s best way to pull in more recruits. Victory lures recruits with the promise of glory, loot, salvation and the rest of the traditional conquistador menu—above all the chance to stomp around heavily armed and untouchable among scared civilians. To draw guys who want that dream—and let’s not lie, it’s a big seller, whether with Blackwater applicants or Saudis—a group like I.S.I.S. has to look like it’s winning, unstoppable, the team you want to join.

You can’t blame the P.R. team at I.S.I.S. for pushing that line. What’s much less easy to understand or forgive is the way Western media have been broadcasting all this woofing as if it should be taken seriously.

ABC News headlined “See the Terrifying I.S.I.S. Map Showing Its Five-Year Expansion Plan,” with the black flag of the Caliphate spreading like spilled crude across Africa, Central Asia, the Balkans, and, of course, Spain. Not Rome, however—Italy’s not included, demonstrating that these poor schmo’s can’t even get their bragging straight.

You’ll notice the similarity to earlier scare-maps that showed the spread of Soviet Communism, or Nazi fascism, or “Red Chinese” domination over a terrified world. But for God’s sake, those groups were more or less formidable—maybe not as formidable as the defense contractors and Birchers made them out to be, but all possessed of serious military and industrial power.

I.S.I.S., compared to any of the groups on that list, is about as scary as your neighbor’s yappy Shih Tzu: all noise and no teeth. Let’s just sober up, for Christ’s sake, and remember we’re talking about a half-assed Sunni militia that couldn’t face up to Assad’s mediocre Syrian Arab Army and still hasn’t found a way to occupy Sunni Iraqi towns that were outright abandoned by the Army, left totally undefended.

People have to make a living, I guess, and click-baiting is the only way to do it for some folks, but jeez, can’t the people at ABC News find some new food scare? “Ten Veggies That Would Like to Cut Your Throat” is more plausible than worrying that I.S.I.S. is going to take over Rome, or reconquer Spain—or, for that matter, take Baghdad. I.S.I.S.’s war cry, if there was any truth in its advertising, would be “First we take Dhuluiya, then we take Berlin—except we can’t seem to manage to take Dhuluiya, gosh durn it!”

I picked “Dhuluiya” there for a couple of reasons—first, it’s three syllables, like “Manhattan” in the Leonard Cohen song. Gotta keep that rhythm. More importantly, Dhuluiya is the focus of a typical scare story from the New York Times, a “paper of record” that ought to know better. The NYT’s headline on this July 13, 2014 story on Iraq is “Deadlock Blocks Iraqi Leadership Vote as I.S.I.S. Makes Gains Toward Baghdad.” Scary stuff—Iraq’s legitimate government paralyzed, with the black-flag jihadi juggernaut rolling toward the capital. Yeah, scary stuff… until you read carefully, checking your Iraqi maps, at which point you realize that both parts of the headline mean a lot less than they seem to.

First, that “Deadlock”—Iraq’s government is deadlocked all right, but that’s because it’s a ridiculous sectarian puppet regime shoved into place on an American bayonet, or rather 25mm chain gun turret. Of course it’s deadlocked; it was deadlocked when it began and it’ll be just as jammed up as a Calvinist virgin until the day of its inevitable and unmourned extinction. That deadlock is about as surprising and newsworthy as a traffic jam in Kuala Lumpur or a dust storm in Kuwait.

But what about the other part of the headline, the alleged I.S.I.S. juggernaut allegedly bearing down on Baghdad? Well, that turns out to be even more absurdly over-hyped. Here’s what you get when you try to find details about the jihadi gains promised in the headline:

As lawmakers took stock, militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria were already moving into Dhuluiya, a Sunni town 46 miles northeast of Baghdad.

Oh, so I.S.I.S. is threatening to overrun Dhuluiya? It would hardly be surprising if they did, since Dhuluiya is [voice rises to Sam Kinison screech] FAMOUS AS ONE OF THE MOST HARDCORE SUNNI TOWNS IN THE WHOLE FRIGGIN’ TRIANGLE. Here’s an excellent description of what it was like years ago, by a really good NYT staffer named Sa’ad Al Izzi.

Keep in mind, Al Izzi is describing Dhuluiya as it was in 2009, long before I.S.I.S. even existed:

One of the first things I saw then on the way to [Dhuluiya] was a charred Russian armored vehicle abandoned on the side of the road by the Iraqi Army. Someone had painted on it: “Saddam’s hell is better than the Americans’ paradise.”

…At the town’s central mosque, [I was] welcomed by a cleric…His eyes were narrow, traced with eyeliner in the manner of hard-line Sunni fundamentalists…

As we talked, I noticed that many of the cars lined up in front of his mosque for Friday Prayer were 2002 Hyundai Accents with Baghdad license plates. It wasn’t a coincidence. The cars, it was well known, were distributed exclusively to members of the Mukhabarat, Saddam’s intelligence service, and other security officials of his government. Many in Dhuluiya worked for Saddam; others perhaps gravitated there when Baghdad fell.

In other words, Dhuluiya was a stronghold of Sunni diehards years ago, a place where Saddam’s hardcore security goons fled after the fall of the capital. If I.S.I.S. is even a fraction as scary as the media’s making it out to be, it should have strolled into a town like that to the proverbial cakewalk and showering rose petals that Richard Perle promised America’s troops would experience when they entered Baghdad — as easily as the Mississippi flowed into New Orleans during Katrina.

Well, it turns out that I.S.I.S. couldn’t even manage to hold Dhuluiya for more than a few hours, according to the NYT’s story from July 13 2014

The local tribes [in Dhuluiya] are divided over ISIS, but a majority oppose the group and called for help from the army. Some troops were sent from the two nearest bases in Samarra and Balad, but the soldiers from Balad, who were closest, could not get across the river quickly because ISIS militants had bombed the most convenient bridge.

The militants attacked Dhuluiya around 4 a.m. and took over the police station, killing six police officers….“They brought a big pickup truck and loaded it with explosives and then blew apart the west side of the bridge so no support will come from Balad,”…Later, the ISIS militants appeared to withdraw from the town’s center and are now holding only about 20 percent of Dhuluiya…

Police officials suggested that the militants withdrew from the town’s center because they knew that sooner or later the army forces would arrive and they would not be able to fight them off.

This is a story of weakness, really stunning weakness. I.S.I.S. zips into this town full of its natural allies in the middle of the night, and is so afraid of the possible appearance of the pitiful Iraqi Army that it uses its only really effective weapon, the pickup truck, as a VBIED on a bridge in the hope of delaying Army troops.

Then they “withdraw from [Dhuluiya’s] center out of sheer terror—“because they knew that sooner or later the army forces would arrive.” Some friggin’ martyrs! Running from the “sooner or later” show-up of the worthless Shia Army, which would’ve been a lot later than sooner, going by that mob’s track record. God, I get tired of being right. I’ve been saying for weeks that I.S.I.S. was over-hyped but I have to be honest here: This is a level of weakness I never expected to see from them. This is downright pathetic.

I should’ve known though. I.S.I.S. has been talking big and doing little since it started, declaring a new caliphate, or at least emirate, every time it captured a hick town in the dry Sunni eastern zone of Syria. My favorite is the “Emirate of Jarabulus,” a little town on the Syria-Turkey border. In June 2013, I.S.I.S. grabbed the border post there, hoping to make some cash on the smuggling trade, and in its own inimitable style, as Daffy would say, immediately announced that this nowheresvilleburg, population 11,500, was now an emirate.

Syrians, who are mostly urban, cosmopolitan people and wouldn’t visit Jarabulus to collect an inheritance, couldn’t help laughing; it was as if Cliven Bundy were to declare his ranch the Emirate of Don’t-Tread-on-Me, NV.

I.S.I.S., like the Western media, is in the public-relations business, making a dull, stodgy world sound a lot more volatile than it really is. That’s why ABC News, HuffPo, Fox and I.S.I.S. have been groping each other in public like a Kardashian Thanksgiving for years now.

And it just seems to go on and on, this feast of hype, no matter how many times I.S.I.S. shows its almost comic feebleness. It demonstrates that I.S.I.S. really is good at one form of conquest, anyway: seducing the media. They may not be able to take Dhuluiya, the pitiful wimps, but if you’re talking media penetration, they’ve already taken Manhattan.

[bigbonedrawky]

What's the Christian equivalent of a Islamist ?

In a similar environment would these Christianist behave in the same way as the Islamist ?

Are Agnostics moderate Atheist ?

When you see ist at the end of a word does it add intolerance ?   










Why do bad things happen to good people ? 

[Yorkykopite]

http://pando.com/2014/07/14/i-s-i-s-and-the-western-media-groping-each-other-in-public-like-a-kardashian-thanksgiving/
.S.I.S., compared to any of the groups on that list, is about as scary as your neighbor’s yappy Shih Tzu: all noise and no teeth. Let’s just sober up, for Christ’s sake, and remember we’re talking about a half-assed Sunni militia that couldn’t face up to Assad’s mediocre Syrian Arab Army and still hasn’t found a way to occupy Sunni Iraqi towns that were outright abandoned by the Army, left totally undefended.

I know that's not meant to be a serious analysis but the mind boggles at how they can make a joke out of the butchery happening in Iraq and the fact that 175,000 people have been killed in Syria.

Is it possible they joke about such things because the dead are Arabs and therefore don't really count?

[Doc Red]

And I have a question from complete ignorance that I would love if you could clarify for me. In Islam, is an extreme interpretation the same as a literal interpretation ? Christianity certainly has that problem with Genesis for example but I'm not sure if that's how it works in Islam. Can you kindly clarify that for me please ?

That is a great question.
There's a lot of discussion going on concerning the interpretation vs misinterpration vs cherry picking to suit your agenda, of Islam, and I don't think I've explained why I've made a distinction between them.

Here's why I don't consider what the extremists are doing, is an alternative "interpretation" of the Quran.
The Quran is made up of verses, written in Arabic. These verses have remained unchanged for 1400+ years. If we consider the Quran is a manual of "how to live your life", than within this manual (Quran) are specific instructions that state the specific procedure one must undergo if they're attempting to analyse or learn lessons from the handbook. If you were solely trying to read the Quran simply to recite the verses than you can do so without any need for protocol. Everday, Muslims all around the world are reciting from the Quran to attain spiritual comfort, or to raise their Iman, so to speak.

But if I was trying to learn from the Quran, or trying to solve a particular issue in my life, by myself, via the use of the Quran, I have to follow protocol. I have to follow the set procedure highlighted in the Quran. It's important to understand that, firstly, verses can be further expanded upon and explained within other sections of the Quran. Secondly, the Hadeeths can shedmore light on a verse.  Finally, the Arabic of today is different from the Arabic of the Quran. They're both the same language, but the Arabic today is a far more diluted version than that which is in the Quran. You can read a page and get a general understanding of what the subject is about, but words can have different meanings in different context, and so you're best cross referencing what you read.

Sometimes you can start of with a verse or verses that discuss a specific issue, follow the correct procedure to it's final point (read corresponding verses in the Quran, study the Hadeeths that further explain the subject) and end up with two conclusions. You can't fully confirm if it's conclusion A, or conclusion B. That is how we get "different interpretations" within Islam. But because of the protocol of analysis and study, is so specific, the difference between the interpretations is very small. For instance, some pray with their hands on their chest, others pray with their hands on their naval. The issue of "how to pray" resulted in the above mentioned process which highlighted those two outcomes. In some regions of the World, they'll follow the "hands on chest" interpretation, and others will use the "hands on naval" interpretation. I have my personal opinion, but that doesn't mean I consider their interpretation as wrong.

Occasionally, it's not about reaching two conclusions, but one conclusion that in itself can leave the subject open for you to interpret. Say, for instance, we're on the subject of marriage and are trying to determine how to conduct a marriage within Islam. We follow the protocol and procedure of analysis and find out that ; a) two witnesses are needed, and b) both parties (man and the woman) have to have given their consent. However, whether you conduct the marraige indoors our outdoors, whether it's followed by an immediate celebration or a celebration that lasts 3 days, whether the clothes you wear are colour X or colour Y, are left for us to interpret.And so, in those moments it's our culture, or personal choices, that come into play.

Now consider if a person was to take several verses in the Quran and decide to determine it's meaning ,without context, without following the correct procedure as per the rules within the Quran, and came out with a Conclusion "X".  I would argue that Conclusion X doesn't fall under the category "different interpretation" of the Quran. I would state it was the misuse of the Quran, and more akin to cherry picking to suit one's agenda (as per the metaphor I wrote earlier about the misuse of the constitution). I'd consider it far more of a "misinterpration" of the Quran as opposed to "an interpretation of the Quran". Additionally, if this person decided to deeply revolve their life around Conclusion "X", I wouldn't consider them "deeply religious" as much as "deeply fanatical people that follow a misrepresentation of Islam".

Similarly, I make a distinction between extremism and deeply religous. I'll continue the example of the wedding I mentioned above to try and explain. We've now determined that a wedding needs two witnesses and the consent of both parties, but the type of festivities that follow are open for us to determine. Consider a person (or group of people) take that open ended interpretation as an excuse to ban women from joining the celebration, or they make a "fixed" period for the wedding to last and without any flexibility, and they impose that on their people. I wouldn't classify them as deeply religous. I'd consider them deeply extremist because the Quran highlights that "there is not compulsion in Islam". And because they've imposed limits on their people that were not specified within the accepted interpretations.

Let's take a look at the "Boko Haram" terrorists. I don't consider them as interpreting the Religion in a different way, and neither do I consider them to be "deeply religious". In Islam, within the Quran and Hadeeth, it is categorically stated and explained that we are not the ones that guide as it's not within our power to convert people, and neither is it within our jurisdiction or responsibilities. Whether a person becomes a Muslim or not, is between them and God. What we're supposed to do is "dawah". "Dawah" consists of spreading the knowledge or understanding of the religion. This can be done through dialogue and discussion (my posts on this thread can be considered as Dawah) or  with our actions (the way we act, dress, treat people provides an image of Islam). The conditions of attempting to spread Dawah via discussions and debate, are that you require strong knowledge of the subject of Islam, and that you start off with the fundamentals of Islam (the "Oneness of Allah") and not minor issues outside of the foundations of the Religion.

Now have another look at Boko Harem. Have they followed the above criteria? We can't even begin to have a discussion on whether they're having a different interpretation or not, because they don't even have a specific verse or hadeeth that could prove to be a starting point for them in their explanation as to why they forcefully "converted" 16 innocent girls. The issue isn't a case of them using Verse X and ignoring the correct procedure to follow it. They don't even have a Verse X. Nothing in the Quran is available to twist that implies (even vaguely) that you can "convert" people through violence. It's not even a discussion. But they call themselves Muslim, and religious.