Topic: Islamism

[Doc Red]

Now I hear you ask, so why are there so many issues with extremists using Islam, if it's clear that they're not following the correct procedure?.

Therein lies the problem.  Generally, an individual doesn't try to solve their problems  alone, by navigating through the protocol and procedure. We don't have all the references and cross referencing information at our finger tips. And so, we'll tend to head towards those that have these references and information, and ask them for an informed answer (possible Imams or those educated in Universities at higher levels of Islam). And we'll accept their advice/feedback/fatwas  almost as if it's "Gospel". Considering we may not know any better, we won't be asking for the validation or explanation of the procedure they used to reach whatever advice or ruling that they offered. And that makes it very easy to place a twisted new ideology into the minds of people.

I have debates with Muslims here in Europe. Once in a while, I end up in a debate with what we call "hard core" Muslim. We don't label them "hardcore" because we consider them particularly religious, but because their view on Islam is obsessive and with incredible compulsion. And considering a very clear verse in the Quran states "there is no compulsion in Islam" determing it's better to hold back instead of following Islam with Zeal. And even here, in countries that are not facing conflicts, these hardcore elements are there explaining to me that "we shouldn't be talking and interacting with nonMuslims", or they're proud because their neighbourhoods have become "Muslim dominated" within a non Islamic country. And I always, always, ask them to kindly provide me the verses that justified their opinions. If I'm lucky, they may even have one or two lines that formed the foundation of their philosophy (if I'm unlucky, they'll try to explain my failure to understand is due to weak Iman "faith".). I usually try to explain what I've explained above, that if you're going to follow Islam, than you'd better bloody well follow it. Don't ignore clear verses simply because they counter your argument. If you're claiming to be knowledgeable, than read. Many don't have deep knowledge, only the parts that "suit" their arguments and nothing else that provides context.

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 don't believe people are born evil, and that it just so happens that a large majority of them ended up in the Middle East. I think if we weren't seeing remnants of two wars in Iraq and a current one in Syria within the past two decades, that things would be vastly different, and ISIS would have never existed. There might still be people twisting Islam to suit their agenda, but they'd have a far smaller voice, and a far weaker attraction.

Similarly, if all else had stayed the same, but Islam excluded from the equation, we'd still be seeing warring factions trying to take control of Iraq and Syria and people would still be dying.
Just under a different ideology.

What's the Christian equivalent of a Islamist ?
In a similar environment would these Christianist behave in the same way as the Islamist ?

Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the banner they wave. People died in Norway because a fella felt the Government wasn't protecting the people from Multiculturism. He felt it was his duty to make a statement. Or as I think of it, he was extremist in his interpretation of his ideology, and extremist in his pursuit to "make things right!.
Note, Norway is a peaceful, extremely affluent country, with enough oil to deem the issue of Governmental budget cuts as a relatively minor issue. They're not facing war, civil unrest, or oppression, and the country is considered among the most tolerant in Europe. But in his mind, they were facing a threat. Thankfully, because the country is all of the above, he was alone instead of alongside a thousand other like minded followers.

If we can get stability within the Middle East, I think we'll be going a long way to ridding them of extremists, or at least, violent extremists that have a platform to use. In the meantime, I believe that educating them on the realities of their Religion would at least slow down (or limit) the conversion rate of troubled youths into extremists soldiers.

[electricghost]

Are Agnostics moderate Atheist ?

I think a lot of people who use the term agnostic to describe their position are actually atheists, often trying to be moderate perhaps, or they think it's a default position with regard to God or Gods existing. It isn't.

This is often due to a misunderstanding or misuse of language in addressing what the two terms refer to.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge, whereas atheism deals with belief. So it is perfectly fine and non contradictory to label yourself as being both.

You are an agnostic if you claim that you do not know that a God does or does not exist, in my view the honest intellectual position to take, and a gnostic if you claim that you do know a God exists or does not exist. 

Then you have to address the belief question, and this is far more important and interesting than what anyone claims they know, as belief is all that is required to invoke actions. In fact knowing something is really only like saying you really really really believe it.

So there are only 2 possibilities when it comes to addressing the belief that a God or Gods exist.

Either you accept the proposition a God or Gods exist, in which case you are a theist

Or you reject the proposition a God or Gods exist , in which case you are an atheist

Note that in rejecting the proposition you are not necessarily claiming that a God or Gods doesn't exist, and so atheism is the default position, not agnosticism.

[Doc Red]

Quick update, I'll be away for a couple of hours, but I'll be posting the currently accepted understanding of the verses from "Surah An Nisa" (specifically the verses that Yorky posted) using the English translation conducted by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (his English translation is the most generally accepted translation by Islamic scholars around the world). I'll also add the tafseer (deeper analysis) of those verses (as per the protocol of analysis) in order to explain the meaning behind the verses.

[RojoLeón]

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?

Yes, it is satire.

[Yorkykopite]

I have debates with Muslims here in Europe. Once in a while, I end up in a debate with what we call "hard core" Muslim. We don't label them "hardcore" because we consider them particularly religious, but because their view on Islam is obsessive and with incredible compulsion. And considering a very clear verse in the Quran states "there is no compulsion in Islam" determing it's better to hold back instead of following Islam with Zeal. And even here, in countries that are not facing conflicts, these hardcore elements are there explaining to me that "we shouldn't be talking and interacting with nonMuslims", or they're proud because their neighbourhoods have become "Muslim dominated" within a non Islamic country. And I always, always, ask them to kindly provide me the verses that justified their opinions.

I'm willing to bet that you've heard these "hard-cores" cite 8.12 ("I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers") or 9.29 ("Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued") or 8.40 ("make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme").

I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong, or that you're right and they're wrong. I'm sincerely not interested in who's right. But the fact remains that there appear to be massive contradictions in the Koran (as there are in the Bible) and that it's barmy to expect an answer to Islamist violence by appealing to the bits of the Koran that appear to condemn them. They'll just appeal to the bits that appear to endorse their actions.
   

[Yorkykopite]

Yes, it is satire.

A satire that shows a contemptible attitude to murdered Arabs.

[RojoLeón]

A satire that shows a contemptible attitude to murdered Arabs.

Glad you enjoyed it. He's by far the best writer on these issues today

[Weby72.]

I
So there are only 2 possibilities when it comes to addressing the belief that a God or Gods exist.

Either you accept the proposition a God or Gods exist, in which case you are a theist

Or you reject the proposition a God or Gods exist , in which case you are an atheist

Surely 'I just don't know' is a third option (the option that you yourself claim to be the most intellectually sensible option)

But even that is not so simple. There must be a scale where at one end you have people who absolutely believe in a god, whilst at the other there's people who are adamant there isn't a god.

Neither can be factually correct with the level of evidence we have. However, it is the most empirically logical position to conclude that it is highly probable there is no such thing as a god. But, given one cannot know this for certain, it is folly to claim that without doubt there is no god. Therefore, pure & absolute atheism is not a sensible position to take. My own position is pretty much what Dawkins' is (or what he claims it is in The God Delusion), and that is that I'm 99% along the scale toward the 'god doesn't exist' end.



And then, on top of all this, those that do believe in the existence of 'a god' need to then decide which of the conflicting/sometimes overlapping organised religions is the correct one.

[Doc Red]

I'm willing to bet that you've heard these "hard-cores" cite 8.12 ("I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers") or 9.29 ("Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued") or 8.40 ("make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme").
 But the fact remains that there appear to be massive contradictions in the Koran (as there are in the Bible) and that it's barmy to expect an answer to Islamist violence by appealing to the bits of the Koran that appear to condemn them. They'll just appeal to the bits that appear to endorse their actions.
 

We're playing this game again. Here you are, once again, "quoting" verses that you consider suits your argument, whilst quoting them independent of any context of the subject that verse is discussing, or the Surah it came in.

I'm going to explain all these three verses that you feel allow for violence.  I'll present the exact same verses, but this time, in the context they came in i.e the topic in question, and  the verses directly before or after, within the same Surah, that explain those lines.

But I'm only going to do this once.
I'm not going to waste my more time with someone that clearly has an agenda, which can be confirmed by his misrepresentation of  verses presented entirely out of context, simply to suit his agenda of "The Quran preaches Violence".

Let's start.

Below each of your quotes, I'll be presenting the English translation as per YUSUF ALI. Yusuf Ali's translations are the most accepted English translation within the Islamic Educational Community-both by Muslim Scholars AND experts on the Religion (including nonMuslims)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surah AL-ANFAL (The Bounties)
The verse you quoted is in the Surah titled AL-Anfal. This Surah deals with 1) the question of war booty, 2) the true virtues neccessary for fighting a just fight, 3) victory against odds,  4) clemency and consideration for one's own and for others in the hour of victory. It's a specific Surah that tackles the subject of what your rights are, as well as those you're fighting against, during time of War. The Surah additionally contains a comprehensive review of the Battle of Badr.

8.12 ("I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers")
YUSUF ALI English translation :
8:12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them".

This is a very common verse quoted to me by anti-islamists, on other message boards, and during debates. Needless to say, I'm very well aware of it.

To begin, the verse you highlighted is referring to a SPECIFIC BATTLE, that had ALREADY OCCURRED before the writing of this verse.  The battle it is referring to is the battle of Badr. The verses DIRECTLY BEFORE the verse you've presented start of with the words "Remember"
Verse 9-"Remember ye implored the assistance of your Lord...."
Verse 11-"Remember He covered you with drowsiness....
And the verse ITSELF starts of with
Verse 12. "Remember thy Lord inspired the Angels"

The verses are describing an event in the past tense. The verse IS NOT an order on Muslims, but a REVIEW of the Battle of Badr.  The Battle of Badr was a key battle in the early history of Islam and was against the tribe of Quraysh . The Quraysh  tribe was a powerful merchant tribe that controlled Mecca and the Ka'aba.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surah AL-ANFAL (The Bounties)
8.40 ("make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme")
You've quoted the wrong number. Verse 40 is:
YUSUF ALI English translation :
8.40 If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your protector-the Best to protect and the Best to help.
I think you you mean verse is verse 8.39
8.39. And fight them on until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes Allah's in its entirety, but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do"

This verse explains how DURING BATTLE that you fight until your community are no longer persecuted. That you no longer face a threat. Context; during initial years of Islam, Muslims were subducated to tremendous harrassment, hostilities and punishments because they REFUSED to worship Idols (they worshipped One God-Allah). As such, when they went to war, they were commanded to fight only UNTIL they face no more persecution. ADDITIONALLY, if the warring factions they were fighting should submit,they should face NO further hostility.

You've gotten a twisted quote that you claim implies the Muslims should fight against Idolatry. It's quite clearly nothing of the sort. The emphasis of the verse you've misquoted is: if you're persecuted as a Muslim, that you fight until you are no longer persecuted, or until they submit, whichever comes first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah At-Tauba (Repentance)

The verse you've quoted is from Surah At-Tauba (Repentance). This is a Surah that discusses the issue of making treaties, and what should be done if a treaty is broken. This Surah is dated to coming just after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. The Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah was a major event in Islamic history, and was a treaty between the two warring factions at that time. The divisions of the area had simmered down to two main rivals, this treaty attempted to lay down a peace pact between them for 10 years.

Two events occurred prior to the date of this Surah. Firstly, the treaty was broken. Secondly, the Campaign of Tabuk. The latter was an issue to do with the Roman Empire, and the former to do with the faction in the South of Arabia.

 9.29 ("Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued")
YUSUF ALI English translation :
9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

I'm not going to go into the Battle of Tabuk against the Romans (just google it), but no fighting actual took place. The end result, however, was that Christian tribes around the Tabook area broke off their alliances with the Romans and formed treaties with the Muslims.

This verse discusses that situation. The People of the Book are the Christians, Jews and Muslims. This verse refers to the Christian tribes (People of the book) that hadn't made an alliances and were a war threat,  AS WELL as what should happen if they submitted and accepted the protection of Islam.

Jizya is a tax levied from those that did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam. This "tax" varied in amount and there were exemptions for the poor, monks and hermits. Because they lived under the protection of Islam whilst not accepting Islam as their religion, they were not obliged to be part of the military. Instead, this Jizya became a form of commutation for military service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look Yorky. The Quran explains far, far more subjects, than just war, and even when describing the conditions of going to war, there are far more direct verses that specifically state "why", "when" and "how" to go to war than the quotes you've chosen to cherry pick. And the verses that you've selected describe conduct during war, or a review of a war long since past, NOT a prescription for going to war.

A person would have to be incredibly naive to ignore everything else the Quran preaches (include tolerance, acceptance), ignore everything that the Quran dictates concerning war, and cherry pick verses that focus on previous battles, and declare that as their motivation to go to war. Not only would they have specifically picked those verses to suit their agenda, they'd have to ignore the verses directly before and after , just so that they can ignore the context. They wouldn't be doing  that by accident, they'd do so because they have an agenda in mind.  If they read those verses that you've so kindly shared, and interpreted them as an all out war against Non Muslims, they wouldn't be attempting to be deeply religious either.

This isn't an alternative interpretation of the verses, it's a misrepresentation of the verses taken entirely out of context, in an attempt to fulfil their main agenda.That's what they're doing over there and it's exactly what you're doing in this thread.

I don't have the time, or the interest, to continue "correcting" your misrepresentation of Islam that you accomplish via cherry picking verses that you probably found in a "reasons why Islam is violent" google search. There's plenty of anti islamic sites of the net, all of them have the above verses, and more. There's also other sites that specifically explain these verses, as per the stance in Islam, in an attempt to counter these false allegations. It's all there, just google. Or not.

But I'm not playing this ignorant game with you, anymore. You've got your agenda, and let's not pretend otherwise.

[Doc Red]

That's really interesting, I didn't know that. Quick question on the topic, if a person believes that there is a God somewhere up there, but doesn't agree with any of the "available" ideologies that incorporate God within them. Is that considered agnostic?

[electricghost]

That's really interesting, I didn't know that. Quick question on the topic, if a person believes that there is a God somewhere up there, but doesn't agree with any of the "available" ideologies that incorporate God within them. Is that considered agnostic?

No that would be theistic still if that person is defining what they believe in to be a God.

[Weby72.]

We're playing this game again. Here you are, once again, "quoting" verses that you consider suits your argument, whilst quoting them independent of any context of the subject that verse is discussing, or the Surah it came in.

I'm going to explain all these three verses that you feel allow for violence. 

Whilst I'm sure Yorkykopite is more than capable of responding himself, isn't the point that it's the Islamist murderers (and wannabe murderers) who are the ones using the quotes out of context in order to justify their indoctrinated bloodlust?

[Pidalow]

Islamist, Islamism, Islamofascism, Islamophobia, extremist, Jihadist, radical, moderate... Probably missed out a few. As a Muslim its hard to keep up with what all these terms exactly mean. Just a few weeks ago some classmate of mine asked me whether I was a moderate Muslim, I said that i was just a Muslim. He hasnt spoken to me since. 

[Weby72.]

Islamist, Islamism, Islamofascism, Islamophobia, extremist, Jihadist, radical, moderate... Probably missed out a few. As a Muslim its hard to keep up with what all these terms exactly mean. Just a few weeks ago some classmate of mine asked me whether I was a moderate Muslim, I said that i was just a Muslim. He hasnt spoken to me since. 

For me, an Islamist is simply one who holds a devout faith in Islam and wants to impose their beliefs on to others.

Personally, I don't care how someone wants to live their lives as long as it doesn't have a direct, detrimental effect on others. If someone wants to deny themselves earthly pleasures like alcohol, soft drugs and bacon, fill yer boots. I just want other people to extend the same courtesy of freedom to choose how to live one's life to me and everyone else.

[bigbonedrawky]

For me, an Islamist is simply one who holds a devout faith in Islam and wants to impose their beliefs on to others.

What's the word for someone who can read the Bible or Koran but lack the ability to understand ? 
Is it devout ?


 

[Doc Red]

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 ?

The generally accepted translation of the Quran is by Yusuf Ali. A quick google leads to numerous sites, and pdf offerings, that show his work. However, this is a translation,  the best managed thus far, but it still requires tafsir if there is an attempt to study the verses.

If you'd rather, I can explain those verses on this thread, so it can be clarified for all. Taking into account what I mentioned above, about the process of analysis and understanding of a verse (or verses) taken from the Quran, below is an explanation of the verse 4.34.

I'm using Yusuf Ali's English translation to translate verse 4.34, and will present the two accepted interpretations of the final line of that verse. The analysis below, for verse 4.34, may seem a little long, but the full technical explanation for both intepretations are actually far, far, longer.  Statements or explanations that are derived from verses within the Quran, have to show the proofs that will be scrutinised and challenged before they are accepted (or not). Akin to making a research hypothesis and presenting your findings to your peers (or making a defense of your thesis).


Surah An Nisa (women)

This surah deals with women, orphans, inheritance, marriage, and family rights generally.

Verse 4:34
 1)"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means

Firstly, a quick background info on marriage in Islam: Within the guidlines of marriage, one of the responsibilities of the man is to take care of the financial issues of the family. That's not to say that the wife can't work (she can) but she is not under an obligation to take care of the financial aspects of the home . The ruling is, whatever money a wife makes is hers to keep (the husband is not entitled to it) and whatever money the husband makes is the for the family. Obviously, certain circumstances may dicate that the husband alone cannot balance the finances and the wife also shares the financial burden. In that circumstance, they wife may be assisting, but the understanding would be that she's assisting him in completing his obligations.

This verse highlights the role responsibilites of men (in essence husbands).Islamically, properly taking care of women requires more than ensuring their physical security and providing food and shelter. It also requires looking after their psychological and emotional needs (in verse 30:21, the benefits of marriage are described as bringing us tranquility, affection, and mercy between our hearts ).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard

The word "qanitat" in Arabic (obedient), means one who is a) devoted to someone and b)out of love and devotion obeys him or her. It is also used in other verses (for men and women), with the context of being devoted to God, and on one occasion the term is used for men. Obeying a husband is limited to the rights of a man over a women (as opposed to the previous verse that highlighted a few of the rights a woman has over a man) The latter part of the verse is about the wife guarding his reputation, his property, and her virtues (in the husband's absence)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next) refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly)

Note that former part of this verse highlights a wife with characteristics  that are directly opposite to those mentioned in the previous verse  (instead of "qanitat", they become "nushuz"). The word used to describe "fear" is more akin to meaning "strongly believe" as opposed to just"feeling" or "guessing" or "assuming" she may have done so. i.e "I have very bad news for you, I fear you will not like it"

The latter part of this verse gives specific steps that a husband can take if the wife is "disloyal", or shows "ill-conduct" or things along those lines.
Step 1: Verbal advice and or admonition.  If this still doesn't solve the issues, you move on to step 2.

Step 2: This is quite clear, sleep in separate rooms. It may not mean like much, but it's a sign that things starting to get difficult in the marriage. If this step also doesn't solve the issues, you move on to step 3.

Step 3: And beat them .This has been one of the most analysed verse in the Quran, especially the context of the word "beat. The Arabic word "dharb" (translated here as beat or strike) has two meanings; strike and divide (separate) and has been interpreted in two ways.

Some of the scholars accept the use of "dharb" as meaning "separate". They've considered that the word "dharb" was used in another verse to describe the dividing of the Red Sea (in the story of Moses). In this context, they understand this 3rd step to mean "separate from her". Considering the next verse directly following this one (4.35) discusses the use of arbiters from each family as a final step to prevent divorce, this understanding of "dharb" to mean "separate" makes sense.

Additionally, some of the scholars accept the use of "dharb" as "strike". They've considerd that the word "dharb" has been used several times in the Quran in the context of  a"strike or beat", such as in the in the story of Lot, when (I'll keep a long story short) he was upset and in a fit of anger promised to beat his wife (spur of the moment, reaction), and immediately rejected the thought. But because he was worried about breaking a promise (whilst also knowing he wasn't allowed to beat his wife) he picked up some grass with his fingers and lightly "struck/bea t" (dharb) his wife. This latter use of the word "dharb" is what has become understood to mean "beat or lightly beat". Especially when taking another hadeeth into account that stated "do not make a mark on your wife" (i.e via violence). So this intepretation considers this action as "symbolic" as opposed to physical. If you wife doesn't heed you, inspite of steps 1-2, it stands to reason she won't heed you if you "lightly" strike her with grass or cloth.

It's important to note that a wife does not, in any circumstance, have a religious oblication to accept a beating , instead she can ask for, and get, a divorce at any time in this situation. Considering she can get a divorce, especially on the grounds of being beaten, it stands to reason that it cannot be the right of a husband to beat his wife as an attempt to solve an issue .

Whichever interpertation is used, both sides agree that physical violence to a wife is unaccepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4)but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

Pretty much, if the issue is resolved, move on. All past faults are forgiven and forgotten, and you shouldn't bring up past faults in future arguments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a short version of the general debate. When I'm discussing this subject during debates, or lectures, I don't bother with the whole explanation (unless they really are interested in understanding the process), just a basic summary. And when asked if Islam condones wife beating, I give a categoric "NO" and explain that the word "dharb" and the two interprations that have been accepted.

[Doc Red]

Whilst I'm sure Yorkykopite is more than capable of responding himself, isn't the point that it's the Islamist murderers (and wannabe murderers) who are the ones using the quotes out of context in order to justify their indoctrinated bloodlust?

I am in 100% agreement with you. They're cherry picking quotes, taking them out of context, and using that to justify their aims. My main issue is, this isn't an alternate interpretation of Islam, it's a misrepresentation of Islam. And so, making statements that extremists are "deeply religious" and are simply following an "alternate interpretation" of the verses is inacurate. They're extremists that have made an extremists form of Islam and they want all of us to accept that their extremist form of Islam is an alternative, more correct, interpretation of Islam. And I'm not accepting that, not from them, or anyone else.  It's a misrepresentation via a clear manipulation of the texts.

[Corkboy]

The short version of all of this is that Doc is a moral person and interprets his religion accordingly. He is not surprised when his version agrees with how he generally feels about things and his surrounding culture feels much the same way. No extremism here, folks, everyone loves everyone and it's all square with the Holy Book, plus necessary accoutrements. Doc is lucky because he has the benefit of an education based on rational, secular principles and consequently has terraformed his faith in such a way as to fit that mould.

This is why it's super important for him to distinguish between his "true" faith and the behaviour of Islamist terrorists who, amazingly, are not religious in any serious sense despite having been furnished with all the same source material. He is much less comfortable when faced with brutal and inhuman acts mandated by the same religion which clearly enjoy the support of troubling amounts of Muslim people and nations. But Doc will surely explain that one, I can feel a wall of text coming. I have faith.

[Narwin Dunez]

The short version of all of this is that Doc is a moral person and interprets his religion accordingly. He is not surprised when his version agrees with how he generally feels about things and his surrounding culture feels much the same way. No extremism here, folks, everyone loves everyone and it's all square with the Holy Book, plus necessary accoutrements. Doc is lucky because he has the benefit of an education based on rational, secular principles and consequently has terraformed his faith in such a way as to fit that mould.

This is why it's super important for him to distinguish between his "true" faith and the behaviour of Islamist terrorists who, amazingly, are not religious in any serious sense despite having been furnished with all the same source material. He is much less comfortable when faced with brutal and inhuman acts mandated by the same religion which clearly enjoy the support of troubling amounts of Muslim people and nations. But Doc will surely explain that one, I can feel a wall of text coming. I have faith.

To be honest mate Doc Red has gone to the trouble to argue his side with posts that must have taken an hour or so to put together, this reads like a personal attack.

Some mental people wrote a book that you (and I also) don't believe is non-fiction, and twisted the words to suit their power-driven mental ideas. What's the difference between that anyone who thinks a book/tv show/video game is telling them to do something?

[Corkboy]

To be honest mate Doc Red has gone to the trouble to argue his side with posts that must have taken an hour or so to put together, this reads like a personal attack.

It isn't. He has ducked the question for long enough. He should either answer, or explain why he won't. Anyone else is free to pitch in and say why it's an unfair question.

[Narwin Dunez]

Is there a new question or is the question still "Do you think non-Muslims should be put to death?" because I'm sure I read at the end of one of his posts that he couldn't give a toss if his next door neighbour worshipped a rock?

[jooneyisdagod]

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.

Ah... cheers for the clarification. I learnt something new today !

[Corkboy]

Is there a new question or is the question still "Do you think non-Muslims should be put to death?" because I'm sure I read at the end of one of his posts that he couldn't give a toss if his next door neighbour worshipped a rock?

If anyone with any familiarity with Muslim atheist/apostasy laws could shed any similar light, please do. One would hope that ordinary Muslims would be less enthusiastic about them, but the poll results from places like Pakistan and Egypt suggest not. The other aspect I am curious about is, if there are atheism and apostasy death sentences on the books, are Muslim religious leaders bound to support them, and even prosecute them? If your Imam is telling you that the punishment for apostasy is death, then that's probably how you'll reply to a poll question. That brings us back to the question of whether, as Doc Red seems to suggest, they're doing it wrong. I'm not going to fall into the trap of trying to out Koran anyone but it would be nice if someone could clear this up.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Do you think killing people who leave Islam is wrong? If so, why do so many Muslims think it's right?
_______________________________________________________________________________
As I posted, some 13 different countries, all "Islamic" states, have laws that say atheists can be put to death. That's a group of countries with a total population of about 550 million people, nearly 10% of the planet. Aside from it being law, majorities in many of these places (I couldn't find stats for all of them) clearly support this position.

So my questions for Muslims on here are, do you agree? If you don't, how do you account for the widespread acceptance of this law? Are all those countries, all those people misinterpreting Islam? Are these laws Islam or Islamist?
________________________________________________________________________________
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.

________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've met loads of Muslims, know plenty of them and none of them have ever given me the slightest hint that they want me dead, or that people who leave Islam should be killed, and yet the Pew survey above seems to say otherwise. I am interested in how some Muslims can be decent, honest, lovely people and still hold these hateful views.
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 can't fault my persistence.

[Doc Red]

The short version of all of this is that Doc.......

Instead of writing about me, why don't you counter my arguments.
I write "walls of text" because, whereas it only takes a few lines to make an accusation, it takes far more to mount a credible defense. I could of course just keep things short, if you'd rather.

It isn't. He has ducked the question for long enough. He should either answer, or explain why he won't.

Do you think killing people who leave Islam is wrong?
Yes.
If so, why do so many Muslims think it's right?
Do you mean to ask, "the survey shows that the majority of those surveyed in Pakistan, Egypt, and Jordan think killing people who leave Islam is right. why do they think that?
I can't explain why people in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, hold those views. If I was inclined, I might have a deeper look at their recent history, and probably try to find a few representative from those countries to give their opinion on the survey. But since the vast majority of the remaining Muslim populace don't hold these views, I'm less inclined to dig deeper.

As I posted, some 13 different countries, all "Islamic" states, have laws that say atheists can be put to death
So my questions for Muslims on here are, do you agree?
No.
If you don't, how do you account for the widespread acceptance of this law?
There is no Law that says atheists can be put to death simply because they're atheists.
I've already discussed this article in another post related to this topic.

Are all those countries, all those people misinterpreting Islam? Are these laws Islam or Islamist?
Again, this research, and my opinion on this research has already been explained. It's in one of my "walls of text"

1)I am interested in how you can be against the death penalty for apostasy and atheism and adultery when 2)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.
1) Not that difficult. Really. The majority of the Muslim world is against the death penalty for the above.
2) Not really large swathes though, is it. Just 3 countries with a high percentage.
Once again, there is no death penalty for atheism. It's not mentioned on ANY of the links you've shared.

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.
Who is "they"?
"My" version of the religion is the generally accepted one that the majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims follow.
If ALL of them agreed with those sampled in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, we probably would be far too busy to have this discussion.
What are you implying with the last point? That it's either my death wish or their death wish that prevails?
Expand.

I've met loads of Muslims, know plenty of them and none of them have ever given me the slightest hint that they want me dead, or that people who leave Islam should be killed
I'm glad your safety was assured.

and yet the Pew survey above seems to say otherwise. I am interested in how some Muslims can be decent, honest, lovely people and still hold these hateful views.
In terms of "wanting you dead" The Pew survey says nothing of the sort.
 

Doc, 1)you seem like a moral person. 2)I can't believe that you think the penalty for leaving Islam should be death, or that 2)I should be killed for being atheist, or that adultery is a capital offence.
1) Wonderful to hear.
2) That can be read with two meanings.
3) You're really paranoid aren't you. And this question is starting to get a bit irratating.Where does it say, in any of your links that Muslims believe and atheist should be killed because of their views? If it doesn't say it anywhere, quit asking it.

These are extreme positions but they are common in many Muslim nations. The news piece from Abu Dhabi above proves that.
Explain to me how the news piece from Abu Dhabi proves that extreme positions are common in many Muslim countries?

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.
Are you referring to the Abu Dhabi piece again, or is there another link you've shared that shows examples of this happening in multiple countries?.

1) Do you agree with these barbaric practices? If you don't, 2)how do you explain why so many Muslims do?
1)No.
2) Answered previously.

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
I haven't diverted anything, I've simply ignored most of your posts.
You tried to manipulate information in an attempt to make it seem like you, as an atheist, weren't safe in specific Muslim countries. I countered that claim, simply by visiting the link you gave and giving the context that you failed to give. Since then, I've replied to other posts, or added additional personal opinions on the subject, as I've considered them a far more use of my time than responding to your queries.

What I respond with, and to whom I choose to respond to, is for me to determine. I'm not under an obligation to answer any, or all, questions that you, or anyone else, deem neccessary.

[deFacto please, you bastards]

Great posts by Doc Red. Interesting all around. Thank you for taking the time to explain many complex things .

[gamble]

Forget the Muslims, I'm offended as a social scientist. It's quite clear Corkboy doesn't come from a statistical background - using the minority to represent the majority, trying to find facts to support his argument rather than looking at the facts and then drawing conclusions. I'm also willing to bet he's never done a piece of original research himself.

When you are talking about penal law (and the application of that law) then then they are clearly political and open to interpretation (there is no universal shariah law, they are open to interpretation and jurisprudence).

Politics and religion are not the same. Without trying to sound pretentious there are some of us here who have studied politics (and some of us who haven't formally studied) but understand the difference. Well done to doc red for raising the level of debate.

The issue of the right to be atheist isn't confined to Islamic states, it is a matter of human rights and free speech - and there is no tent. There is a spectrum and we are all on it.

[Devon Red]

Politics and religion are not the same. Without trying to sound pretentious there are some of us here who have studied politics (and some of us who haven't formally studied) but understand the difference. Well done to doc red for raising the level of debate.

This is an important point. When I studied Islamism in university the basic definition of the term was as a political ideology. That is the difference between Islam and Islamism; Islam is personal whereas Islamism is political and social. If the debate on this thread followed that definition then perhaps we would be getting somewhere. The basic objection that myself and others on this thread have to Islamism has nothing to do with the Islam aspect and everything thing to do with the political aspect. As secularists we object fundamentally to any kind of theocracy.

[Haemoglobin]

I'd first of all like to thank Doc Red for taking the time to write out and expand on these verses of surahs that are somewhat controversial when translated a certain 'blunt' way, taken out of context and not given further detailed illumination by their corresponding hadiths.

Although I take a dim view of religions in general and make no secret of it, and don't beat about the bush when discussing it, I am interested in culture, and have a sincere wish to learn. Doc, you seem like a 'cultured' person in the way that you articulate your views and give intricate contextual historical detail to so many points of contention within these texts. I'll be sure to look further into the translations provided by Yusuf Ali (that's the guy ain't it? My first thought was the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens!  ), especially when any particularly 'hardline' verses are quoted by non-muslims in future. On that point alone, I feel I've been educated.

On an off-topic tangent, how do you personally feel about the muslim civilians we constantly see in the news (both abroad and sometimes at staged protests at home) who apparently get absolutely up in arms about the slightest perceived 'insult' to Mohammed and Islam? Those who insist that their women wear niqabs or burqas everyhere in public (no matter how hot a day it is!) as opposed to a lovely modest wholesome hijab or jilbab, and who call for beheadings and fatwas? Are they essentially uneducated oafs, the equivalent perhaps of a christian redneck who doesn't know much about their faith beyond the very closed culture they themselves have grown up in?

From how Yusuf Ali's English translations compare and contrast to other, far less nuanced and more severe, indelicate translations, it would appear to me that the Koran really is pretty wide open to disparate interpretations, even moreso than I thought before reading your recent posts. How do you feel followers of a more conservative and harsh nature (not necessarily those of a terrorist-sympathising bent) would react to you telling them they're a little misguided? Do you think it's even possible to reconcile these 'branches', and eventually have most view Islam through softer eyes, I mean both muslims and infidels? Is the word 'infidel' itself anything like as loaded with negativity in the most fitting translations of the Koran as seems now? I remember a muslim cleric trying to explain that sharia law does not discriminate or impact upon non-muslims in any community, and protects their individual rights not to practice any form of religion, no matter how distasteful their behavior may be to muslims - it can be hard to know exactly what the score is on anything with so many differing views of differing severity within the Islamic world itself, never mind outside of it.


I hope you don't feel these are leading questions, because they really aren't. I've made my position on religious matters clear enough, and I now just seek more knowledge to better inform my opinions.

[Haemoglobin]

And now I've just educated myself on the definition of the word fatwa.

I have to admit, the western media really don't help.

[Corkboy]

What I respond with, and to whom I choose to respond to, is for me to determine. I'm not under an obligation to answer any, or all, questions that you, or anyone else, deem neccessary.

Indeed, you are not. It's a voluntary forum, you can do what you like. Thank you for answering nonetheless. I realise this thread is about Islamism, but since you were the one who opened the Islam door, I think it's fair to press you on where that leads.

There is no Law that says atheists can be put to death simply because they're atheists....

And this question is starting to get a bit irratating.Where does it say, in any of your links that Muslims believe and atheist should be killed because of their views? If it doesn't say it anywhere, quit asking it.

Now, you're being a little disingenuous here, aren't you? There is the law of apostasy, which incorporates atheism. You're right when you say that I am probably not in any danger, provided I keep my mouth shut, but a Muslim who turns atheist is subject to the death penalty in Iran, for example or Sudan.

(Fun story. While reading on this, I came across a Muslim scholar who said that if he met an atheist, he would congratulate him. Why? Because he had already got past the "There is no God" bit, and all he had to do now was to learn the rest of it. "There is no God but Allah".)

In addition, you seem to have completely ignored the adultery aspect. Adultery is quite clearly a capital offence in Sudan, Somalia, UAE, Pakistan, Saudi.

What are you implying with the last point? That it's either my death wish or their death wish that prevails?
Expand.

I'm saying that where one Muslim thinks something deserves death and another doesn't, it isn't a matter of nuance. These are extremely opposed positions for people who follow the same religion.

You tried to manipulate information in an attempt to make it seem like you, as an atheist, weren't safe in specific Muslim countries. I countered that claim, simply by visiting the link you gave and giving the context that you failed to give.

And which I cheerfully withdraw (and indeed had done so already). There is enough supporting evidence for what I'm saying without bending more.

I've done a fair bit of reading on this since we started. You can find Muslims who state categorically that death sentences are unIslamic, and you can equally find Muslims who say death is mandated for murder (of a Muslim), apostasy and adultery. They seem to be the three big ones. I think you're right when you say the majority are in the former camp but wrong when you dismiss the latter as a tiny minority. Anyway, I can accept people having different opinions about things but where they are all the same religion, the marked divergence in views is hard to accept.

But since the vast majority of the remaining Muslim populace don't hold these views, I'm less inclined to dig deeper.

Now, that's simply not true. I accept that we may argue about whether it's 80% or 50% or 30% but the portion of Muslims who think adultery and apostasy are not capital offences do not make up the "vast majority". If you still disagree, please feel free to cite research or stats. I expect you would find markedly different results between Muslims in North America, for example, rather than Sudan which just buttresses my suspicion that it's more about general levels of education than any specific religious tenet.

I can't explain why people in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, hold those views.

Fair enough. Nor can I. And if there were no religion involved, that would be an end to it, people have different views, such is life. But when you're talking about a religious teaching, which is supposedly divinely inspired and infallible, it's hard not to reach the conclusion that either a) some of them are just wrong or b) the religion isn't infallible.

I meant what I said earlier, Doc, about you having the benefit of a good education. It is clear that there are many Muslims for whom death for adultery or apostasy is anathema, like you. It is also clear that many do hold these views (arguing about the numbers sort of misses the point). Yorky earlier welcomed some hypocrisy in Islam, as the harbinger of some sort of moderation in the harshness of Islamic strictures. Christianity used to be similarly harsh in its penalties, for similar offences, and they have moderated. Indeed, one can see Islam modifying already, due to internal pressures from its own people, or external pressures from the likes of the UN. One can also see Muslims, as in the Abu Dhabi adultery case, trying to meet these inhuman laws with as much humanity as they can muster. When I posted about the judges there advising defendants to change their stories to avoid execution, I wasn't ridiculing them. On the contrary, I would see it as their innate decency fighting against harsh and cruel laws.

From a sociological viewpoint, I can understand these things, views on issues like these are naturally subject to modification over time. It wasn't so long ago in my country that you could hanged for sheep stealing. But you can't say the same for religiously motivated laws. Religion shouldn't be subject to mutation. Well, it should, but it sort of makes a mockery of the notion that any of it was handed down from on high. Killing a fellow human is a serious business, so if the adherents of a religion can't even agree on when that should happen, it doesn't say much for the religion.

[Corkboy]

Forget the Muslims, I'm offended as a social scientist. It's quite clear Corkboy doesn't come from a statistical background - using the minority to represent the majority

For a social scientist, you don't seem to understand the concept of polls or sampling. Let me know if I can help.

[Yorkykopite]

I'm not going to waste my more time with someone that clearly has an agenda, which can be confirmed by his misrepresentation of  verses presented entirely out of context, simply to suit his agenda of "The Quran preaches Violence".

"Agenda". Is this the most abused word on this forum? It's impossible to debate with anyone if they refuse to take your arguments at face value and insist on seeing hidden motives behind everything you say. I have to say Doc you do this a lot. You are permanently on the look-out to expose some hidden meaning behind what I say. There’s no excuse for this. I'm a clear writer and therefore it shouldn't be a problem understanding my argument. I have no 'agenda' except the frequently stated one of opposing the evil of Islamism and raising awareness about it. That seems to me to be an entirely worth while thing to do since Islamism is one of the great phenomena of the age and – as I said in the opening post – one of the most dangerous. This is something amply born out by the almost daily atrocities committed by Islamists across the world since I started the thread. (No causation there I hope  ).

So, going back to your charge. My point about the Koran is not that "it preaches violence" but that it is a contradictory and confused text and therefore is open to all sorts of conflicting interpretations. Like I said, I don’t personally care which are the real, and which are the false, interpretations and frankly I’m bored stiff by the type of exegesis that you’ve undertaken – as wonderfully learned as I’m sure it is. All your appeals to different hadeeths, tafsirs and alternate translations remind me of the scholasticism of the medieval thinkers who used to immerse themselves in endless disputations about Christian dogma. Eventually, as is well known, these learned theologians wasted their lives on this kind of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

It’s boring to me, obviously, because I consider the Koran (like the Bible) to be a work of fiction (200 angels fighting with the Muslims at the Battle of Badr indeed!) and therefore my patience quickly runs out when faced with a minute examination of ‘what it really means’. 

I also made it quite clear to you why I quoted a couple of verses from your book. Not to clinch the argument that the Koran is a bloody text, but to say that I expect these were the passages that the “hard-core” (your term) believers in Islam quote at you in order to justify their extremism. Here’s the exact quote with the critical bit highlighted:

I'm willing to bet that you've heard these "hard-cores" cite 8.12 ("I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers") or 9.29 ("Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and his Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued") or 8.40 ("make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme").

I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong, or that you're right and they're wrong. I'm sincerely not interested in who's right.

Indeed, in among all your persiflage, you finally agreed with me:

They're extremists that have made an extremists form of Islam.......They're cherry picking quotes, taking them out of context, and using that to justify their aims

So we’re on the same page there. At last! Verses 8.12 etc are the kinds of verses that the Islamists or the “hard-core” like to quote.

As I say, I’m not surprised.

You say they’re wrong and that’s absolutely fine by me. If you can reason a young Muslim fanatic out of joining the ISIS terrorists in Syria or Iraq by pointing out their scriptural errors then good on you mate.  I mean that sincerely. But in the real world these “hard cores” do keep on quoting these verses from the Koran – verses, that without the intellectual gymnastics, seem to condone - even glory - in violence, misogyny and race hatred.

My other “agenda” if you will – again stated clearly – is that I think the long-term answer to Islamist violence isn’t a closer textual reading of the Koran or a deeper understanding of the word of Allah. It is to forget the Koran altogether, or at least relativise it. And most certainly it is to reject the absurd political dream of building a society on the back of a 7th century text.

That medieval book will not solve any of the social and economic problems afflicting Muslim countries, and will almost certainly only add to them. What is needed is not a clearer understanding of the Koran (as welcome as that might be as an intellectual exercise) but greater democracy, a more productive economy, greater social and economic equality, the emanciaption of women, the ending of slavery, and better education for everyone.

The region also needs to see the military and the clerics retreat from politics. That’s to put in crudely, I know. But once these things begin to happen religion will cease to count as much, at least in public - pretty much as it did in ‘Christendom’ (how we laugh at that quaint notion now!) after the 18th century. Even my friend 'Lenin', one of the great reactionaries on RAWK, will probably agree to that. 

Then, I bet you, folks will look at those violent verses from the Koran and simply shrug, pretty much as Christians now shrug at the incredible violence and brutality contained in the Old Testament. They won’t feel the need to ‘explain them away’ in strange, abstruse apologetics since their sting will have been long drawn by humanism and – for want of a better word – progress.

[the 92A]

Ah, my favourite wum! A great contribution, as ever

I would like to add my appreciation for your excellent posts on here, Doc Red. Highly informative and a breath of fresh air when compared to the usual snide, attention seeking, bullying  posts submitted by Yorkykopite and Corkboy.

Shite like this will get it locked

[the 92A]

Especially if I get the quotes the wrong way around

[Weby72.]

"Agenda". Is this the most abused word on this forum? It's impossible to debate with anyone if they refuse to take your arguments at face value and insist on seeing hidden motives behind everything you say. I have to say Doc you do this a lot. You are permanently on the look-out to expose some hidden meaning behind what I say. There’s no excuse for this. I'm a clear writer and therefore it shouldn't be a problem understanding my argument. I have no 'agenda' except the frequently stated one of opposing the evil of Islamism and raising awareness about it. That seems to me to be an entirely worth while thing to do since Islamism is one of the great phenomena of the age and – as I said in the opening post – one of the most dangerous. This is something amply born out by the almost daily atrocities committed by Islamists across the world since I started the thread. (No causation there I hope  ).

So, going back to your charge. My point about the Koran is not that "it preaches violence" but that it is a contradictory and confused text and therefore is open to all sorts of conflicting interpretations. Like I said, I don’t personally care which are the real, and which are the false, interpretations and frankly I’m bored stiff by the type of exegesis that you’ve undertaken – as wonderfully learned as I’m sure it is. All your appeals to different hadeeths, tafsirs and alternate translations remind me of the scholasticism of the medieval thinkers who used to immerse themselves in endless disputations about Christian dogma. Eventually, as is well known, these learned theologians wasted their lives on this kind of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

It’s boring to me, obviously, because I consider the Koran (like the Bible) to be a work of fiction (200 angels fighting with the Muslims at the Battle of Badr indeed!) and therefore my patience quickly runs out when faced with a minute examination of ‘what it really means’. 

I also made it quite clear to you why I quoted a couple of verses from your book. Not to clinch the argument that the Koran is a bloody text, but to say that I expect these were the passages that the “hard-core” (your term) believers in Islam quote at you in order to justify their extremism. Here’s the exact quote with the critical bit highlighted:

Indeed, in among all your persiflage, you finally agreed with me:

So we’re on the same page there. At last! Verses 8.12 etc are the kinds of verses that the Islamists or the “hard-core” like to quote.

As I say, I’m not surprised.

You say they’re wrong and that’s absolutely fine by me. If you can reason a young Muslim fanatic out of joining the ISIS terrorists in Syria or Iraq by pointing out their scriptural errors then good on you mate.  I mean that sincerely. But in the real world these “hard cores” do keep on quoting these verses from the Koran – verses, that without the intellectual gymnastics, seem to condone - even glory - in violence, misogyny and race hatred.

My other “agenda” if you will – again stated clearly – is that I think the long-term answer to Islamist violence isn’t a closer textual reading of the Koran or a deeper understanding of the word of Allah. It is to forget the Koran altogether, or at least relativise it. And most certainly it is to reject the absurd political dream of building a society on the back of a 7th century text.

That medieval book will not solve any of the social and economic problems afflicting Muslim countries, and will almost certainly only add to them. What is needed is not a clearer understanding of the Koran (as welcome as that might be as an intellectual exercise) but greater democracy, a more productive economy, greater social and economic equality, the emanciaption of women, the ending of slavery, and better education for everyone.

The region also needs to see the military and the clerics retreat from politics. That’s to put in crudely, I know. But once these things begin to happen religion will cease to count as much, at least in public - pretty much as it did in ‘Christendom’ (how we laugh at that quaint notion now!) after the 18th century. Even my friend 'Lenin', one of the great reactionaries on RAWK, will probably agree to that. 

Then, I bet you, folks will look at those violent verses from the Koran and simply shrug, pretty much as Christians now shrug at the incredible violence and brutality contained in the Old Testament. They won’t feel the need to ‘explain them away’ in strange, abstruse apologetics since their sting will have been long drawn by humanism and – for want of a better word – progress.

This.

[BoRed]

Then, I bet you, folks will look at those violent verses from the Koran and simply shrug, pretty much as Christians now shrug at the incredible violence and brutality contained in the Old Testament. They won’t feel the need to ‘explain them away’ in strange, abstruse apologetics since their sting will have been long drawn by humanism and – for want of a better word – progress.

Happy to see Doc and you reaching some sort of consensus, but isn't the reason that Christians now can shrug at the horrors of the Bible because no one confronts them about them any more? Do you ever ask your modern friendly Christian hypocrites to explain how the Ugandan anti-gay laws tie in with their own religion? Did you ever insist that a gay Anlican vicar sorts the Ugandans out once and for all? Do you ever quote the Bible when discussing with them the issue of how truly Christian the US gay-bashing Jew-hating fundamentalists are? Do you consider your peaceful Christian neighbour to be under obligation (to use Corkboy's terminology) to somehow make amends for what happens in his own tent (regardless of whether he even considers himself to be in that particular tent)?

Ordinary Muslims, who, religion aside, are not much different from you and me, are being put off our western societies and, consequently, values and worldviews, because they are daily being looked at through the prism of being, first and foremost, Muslim, and therefore, at the very least, more similar to the terrorists half the world away than to the rest of us.

Perhaps they won't feel the need to explain away why some people misinterpret their holy book once we stop insisting they do so?

[24/7]

Shite like this will get it locked

Indeed. Remember, we DO take action when needed...........

Keep the immature, snide and pointless personal sniping out of what is otherwise an engaging and, for some, enlightening debate.

Kapisch?

[Corkboy]

Happy to see Doc and you reaching some sort of consensus, but isn't the reason that Christians now can shrug at the horrors of the Bible because no one confronts them about them any more? Do you ever ask your modern friendly Christian hypocrites to explain how the Ugandan anti-gay laws tie in with their own religion? Did you ever insist that a gay Anlican vicar sorts the Ugandans out once and for all? Do you ever quote the Bible when discussing with them the issue of how truly Christian the US gay-bashing Jew-hating fundamentalists are? Do you consider your peaceful Christian neighbour to be under obligation (to use Corkboy's terminology) to somehow make amends for what happens in his own tent (regardless of whether he even considers himself to be in that particular tent)?

Sorry for interjecting but I would answer yes to those questions. I have asked Catholics if they still give money to their child abusing priests or kiss the rings of their crime occluding bishops. I have asked American bible bashers to accept responsibility for Ugandan gay haters. I regularly ridicule the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann for their paleolithic views on "gay conversion therapy" and their insistence that their God put fossil fuels there for white Christians to use. If you're implying that I am solely an Islam basher, you're wrong.

[The Gulleysucker]

The topic of Fundamentalist Christians and also modern day Evangelicalism have been discussed in quite a few threads including issues to do with their attitudes to Gay members of society, as well as the situation in Uganda.

There haven't been too many of these Christians that I can remember willing to join the debates and argue their perspective though.

The Dawkins thread occasionally throws up defenders...http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=285346.0

This thread had some interesting exchanges...http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=269468.0

Creationism was here ... http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=244573.0

Prosletysing Christians within the NHS here ... http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=244465.0

Religion in education in the UK here ... http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=255816.0

And then there's the endless mirth provided by the likes of Sarah Palin and her acolytes and their supposedly Christian view on the world within the Sarah Palin thread.

It's there and they are challenged.

Edit...just noticed Corkboy has responded too.

[Yorkykopite]

isn't the reason that Christians now can shrug at the horrors of the Bible because no one confronts them about them any more? Do you ever ask your modern friendly Christian hypocrites to explain how the Ugandan anti-gay laws tie in with their own religion? Did you ever insist that a gay Anlican vicar sorts the Ugandans out once and for all? Do you ever quote the Bible when discussing with them the issue of how truly Christian the US gay-bashing Jew-hating fundamentalists are?.....

Perhaps (Muslims) won't feel the need to explain away why some people misinterpret their holy book once we stop insisting they do so?

Well, two things to say to that.

The first is that I am not asking any Muslim to explain why Islamists are misinterpreting their holy book. For one thing I remain uncertain about whether they actually are, and supremely indifferent about the question too. What bothers me is not that they may have misinterpreted scripture but the whole flawed enterprise of wanting to build a society on the basis of a 7th century text. I really don't care whether the text has a joyful message or a savage one (this one, like the Bible, seems to have both). It's the fact that some groups of Muslims (Islamists) wish to recreate society in the image of scripture that, alone, inspires my contempt - especially when that enterprise is accompanied by the shedding of blood. It seems a mad thing to want to do and a potentially totalitarian one too. In practice it has created nothing but misery - as it did in Calvin's Geneva or Torquemada's Spain. If the Doc agrees with me that the enterprise of 'political Islam' (ie the desire to create a society in the image of the Koran) is flawed then we have nothing else of interest to argue about. We can agree that religion is a private matter that is best kept out of politics altogether.

If Christians in this country had sympathy with fundamentalist Christians abroad who wish to bring theology right back into the centre of politics I'd be asking the same question of them too. I'd probably be less patient in fact, since it would seem to me to represent a counter-revolution in western Christian thought which, since the Reformation and the fading away of Puritanism, and since the abolition of the Test Acts and the spread of toleration, has at least accepted with more or less good grace that it would be madness to recreate society in the image of the Bible.