07-06-10, 05:57 PM #341
07-06-10, 06:07 PM #342Maybe you could work together: For example, spidergoat has introduced a lot of scripture out of context. If you would select a verse above, and explain its context, we can see if the impressions of Islam that you share with spidergoat are valid.
It is certainly in question here whether Islam inherently generates oppression, or if instead ruthless people (whatever their personal beliefs) do it of their own accord, even while often hiding behind religions- Especially in times and places when one religion is predominant. Even in the USA, our best and worst leaders have all been compelled to profess Christianity, because that is the insistent expectation of the majority. Yet, Christainity is not responsible for the millions of innocents who have been killed and dispossessed by US foreign policies. Today, as in the past, Muslims and Muslim-majority societies are not the only ones who fall short of religious ideals of justice and good governance. To disparage Islam as a source of terrorism is to join in with those who are manipulating religious sentiments for ulterior purposes.
Secular rational reasons for killing each other will always exist, but maybe we might be able to get rid of all the irrational religious reasons for killing each other. I think that would be an improvement.
07-06-10, 06:16 PM #343
Off topic I know, just a brief conclusion to this.
Their mythic quality remains to be demonstrated. Please feel at ease to do so.
You must be talking about the "western society" of another planet. On the one I live, if the "batting of an eyelid" were to make wind, it would ceratainly raised hurricanes.
07-06-10, 06:21 PM #344
Mod Note: I'll tolerate brief sidebars. If these turn into protracted off-topic discussion, then the appropriate thing to do (if a worthwhile discussion is generated) is to simply start a new thread.
This particular subject is fraught with the potential for disrespectful people to reveal themselves as such. Religion and World Events are a volatile mix both here and in the wider world. The premise under debate here is that Islam generates terrorism, and that premise is deeply offensive to believing Muslims. For people who have become deeply islamophobic, confronting their misconceptions can become alarming and emotional.
I am not immune to the emotions of the issue: Having lived among Muslims during my most formative years, I know from direct experience that Muslims are not more violent, that Muslims are not more uncaring, and I know that Muslims are certainly not more sympathetic to terrorism than are members of any other faith. Having looked into such accusations before, I know that those who accuse Islam of a unique violent flaw do so in ignorance of the verses, and in an unfortunate dearth of acquaintance with the 1 in every 4 people now living who are Muslims.
This makes it difficult to hold this kind of discussion, without inviting interruptions from people who will make incendiary and superficial hit-and-run posts. They are not worthy adversaries here in our little corner of the greater
jihadwar of ideas (not individuals).
07-06-10, 06:29 PM #345
The question is, is martyrdom in the name of Islam supported by the Quran?
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
07-06-10, 06:41 PM #346
Regarding your request about the context of the passages above: this is possibly an excellent idea. My impression is - since there is no authoritative interpretation, and no concrete chain of responsibility for the message - that the interpretation is up to almost anyone, but it sounds as though you know of some final authority. Could you perhaps explain the context of these passages? This would be much appreciated.
The problem is probably multifold: i) the lack of any single authority (with the appropriate humanitarian bent), ii) the existence of widespread conservatism in Islamic communities (this might be a symptom more than a problem per se, but I'm covering all the bases here), iii) the closure of the doors of itjihad. There are others. I don't think Islam inherently generates oppression, but unfortunately that's the case in most Islamic countries. It's sort of a tragedy of the commons, but for human rights, as though such rights were a zero-sum game in those nations. I've attached a perspicacious editorial below:
Yet, Christainity is not responsible for the millions of innocents who have been killed and dispossessed by US foreign policies.
Today, as in the past, Muslims and Muslim-majority societies are not the only ones who fall short of religious ideals of justice and good governance. To disparage Islam as a source of terrorism is to join in with those who are manipulating religious sentiments for ulterior purposes.
07-06-10, 06:42 PM #347
07-06-10, 06:54 PM #348
07-06-10, 07:09 PM #349
07-06-10, 07:12 PM #350
No, martyrdom is quite definitely supported, the thing open to interpretation is what exactly constitutes defending Islam. The fact that this is open to interpretation means that some people will interpret it broadly. That's the problem.
07-06-10, 08:13 PM #351
07-06-10, 10:00 PM #352
As for "final authority" of course I'm no expert there. But I don't think it's that difficult to discern what mainstream Muslim interpretations about such passages are like: Most Muslims simply do not condone terrorism. There are several Muslim members here, whose opinions would be more valid than mine.
Wikipedia:Muslims living in the West are subject to secular laws of the state rather than Islamic law. In this context ijtihad becomes mainly a theoretical and ideological exercise without any legal force.
Conservative Muslims say that most Muslims do not have the training in legal sources to conduct ijtihad. They argue that this role was traditionally given to those who have studied for a number of years under a scholar. However, liberal movements within Islam generally argue that any Muslim can perform ijtihad, given that Islam has no generally accepted clerical hierarchy or bureaucratic organization. At the other end of the political spectrum, a number of fundamentalist tendencies have also re-opened the doors of ijtihad though not in a liberal direction.
[QUOTE=GeoffP;2578790]It's sort of a tragedy of the commons, but for human rights, as though such rights were a zero-sum game in those nations. I've attached a perspicacious editorial below:
Originally Posted by A Mohit
There you have a Muslim with doubts. Whatever the implications, it's reasonable to surmise that these are not the words of a Muslim programmed to commit terrorism.
Christianity is not responsible for the millions of innocents who have been killed and dispossessed by US foreign policies.
To disparage Islam as a source of terrorism is to join in with those who are manipulating religious sentiments for ulterior purposes.
07-06-10, 10:14 PM #353
Suppose you love a flavor of ice cream. We'll say it's chocolate. OK so, you love chocolate ice cream. Don't you think it irrational (even childish) to teach people that chocolate flavored ice cream is the ONLY perfect ice cream and all other ice cream flavors are, while ice cream, are inferior?
Because from where I see things, I'm starting to wonder if it's really the chocolate flavor of the ice cream you love. Now that I've thought it over - I don't think so. I think you know there are other flavors of ice cream that are equally as tasty. Or at least the possibility exists there is an equally tasty flavored ice cream - for someone (maybe even you, but that's besides the point). What you really love - what really attracts you, is thinking chocolate is the ONLY Perfect ice cream. It's this idea of being the Only Perfection that you're really in love with. I'm surprised I didn't see it earlier. I find most people take a lot of comfort being intellectually lazy in this way. No more thinking about which flavor to buy. Nope. Done. Chocolate is the Perfect flavor - and all others are inferior - and that's that. It seems to go hand in hand with the way we like to think. No? We feel comfortable with certainty. If it's not possible other flavors are equally as tasty, then, life is just that much more certain. More certain = Less fear of the unknown. And that my dear SAMington, is the whole reason we came up with Religion, to explain the unknown. An attempt to rationalize fear away. Too bad it's itself irrational. And has since morphed into an intolerance "Religion" of Ice Cream: a whole dynastic lineage complete with Ice Cream Czars, Candied Caliphs with their magical Cream Puff Prophets and oh so yummy Cherry Rippled Revelations .... no no no, the ice cream flavors MUST be inferior, ONLY Chocolate is Perfect!
Thinking Chocolate ISthe Only perfectly flavored ice cream is not only irrational - it's bigotry.
Now, imagine if people were being murdered, women and children were being burned alive in their homes, all for daring to suggest Vanilla was as tasty as Chocolate. THAT'S how I personally view what is happening on an almost daily basis in Pakistan. It's that crazy and psychopathic to me. There's a lot of poor people in the world. There's a lot of poor people in Pakistan. People were killed for breaking the law: There's Only One Perfect Ice Cream. Now, if you can follow the logic here, maybe you can see why I think it's possible ANY ice cream flavor may be Perfect. Or none. Chocolate may be Perfect. Or not. I don't believe that any Flavor is Perfect. I accept that may be the case. I instead dare to think "Flavor" may actually be a precept and itself a subjective experience that may not "really" exist - except in our minds. Why do you think I keep harping on about changing the entire system? The entire system is flawed. Why do we need one based on "flavor"?? It seems to me that we can still teach all the good things (like don't lie, treat people with kindness) without the Intolerance of Only One Perfect Chocolate Ice Cream, hell, even without the whole food aspect! But, here you are telling me that you can't even think people who eat Vanilla could possibly be equal to you Chocolate eaters.
That's bigotry, irrational, asinine and thinking like that is leading to people being dead.
An Unnecessary Intolerance.
Last edited by Michael; 07-07-10 at 01:03 AM.
07-06-10, 11:21 PM #354
What's the context of:
2:89-”Therefore, the curse of Allah is upon the unbelievers!”
Firstly, what's an Allah curse? Sounds like a rash
Secondly, what's an unbeliever? Is it sinful to be an unbeliever? Are unbelievers as good of people as sheeple errr... believers? I'm wondering if labeling people "unbelievers" isn't setting the text up for "abuse"
Last edited by Michael; 07-07-10 at 12:15 AM.
07-06-10, 11:52 PM #355
oh, here we go again
then, what do you think about morocco, lebanon, tunisia, i think also sirya, turkey, what do you think of those countries, i mean, they are muslim countries, and they are all heading to the future.
lebanon and sirya are socially opened and liberal, also they are muslims and christians living together as one society.
07-06-10, 11:55 PM #356
ok, so, let me join the game,
well, then, in that case, i think christanity, tell you to kill people under teh cover of converting them, spanish killed thousands of original americans, i think they were inka, they killed them all under the cover of relegion, the hall europe, killed thousands of red americans, again, christians, caused the world war 1 and 2, and killed millions, and loosed millions, hitler, a christian, hmm, does it seems that he's a good guy? well, what about killing thousands of americans under the cover of relegion and the conversion and enlightning?
well, i'm just acting you do
so what do you think
07-07-10, 12:00 AM #357
because their are 3 kinds, the good relegious people, that don't are not fanatic and peacefull, the second is the relegious people, that some times get some craizy ideas, but they are peacefull, and kind,
and the third kind, is the totally fanatic groops, that you call them, terrorists, and they are very few, and they don't exist in my country, or in the maghreb in general, besides lebanon and sirya, the rest i don't know, those terrorists, say that they are doing it for god, but what they are doing, have no relation with what the relegion says, they use relegion as a cover, a dirty cover, and those are the fanatics, the sick people, that i hate alooot, the second kind, i just don't kare for their relegion side, i know one, and he's just peacefull as everyone one else, and the first kind, got nothing against them, they are peacefull. that's just about the relegious people. and those two first kinds are that you can talk to them and chat with them about any anything, normally, and no relegion stuff, but the other kind, the third, is the terrorist groups in middle east like al-qaeda (don't say middle eastern love them, or even saudi arabians(even that they are, well, closed, and, you know, but not terrorists,i mean the normal people, citizents)
anyway, those fanatic groops, have no intends for relegion, they are just using relegion as a cover, just as spanish did when they invaded mexico as we call it today, and killed thousands under that cover, so those terrorists, have politic and controlling intenses, they want to controll all, just like the israeilian zionist, they wanted more than the half of palastine for them, but palastinians didnt accept, so they started a war,and they get all for themselves, so, they made a country, by startting zionism, terrorists, want to do the same thing, and not for relegion, they just try to manupulate people's thinking, and to manupulate the quran, and islam, to try to make it as it commands them to do so, but they are using it as a cover, as spanish used christianity, as a cover to kill thousands of people, kill an netire race, and an entire civilisation,
07-07-10, 12:05 AM #358
next time i'll bring quranic verses, and hadithes, that are against terrorism,
and what terrorists doing, like al qaeda, have nothing to do with islam, they are just using islam as a cover, i mean, i don't blame them if they attacked america and keep attacking it because it invaded us in the first place, they invaded us first, not us, but, al qaeda, is not just attacking the invaders, or paying back, it's even hurting arabs and muslims!, they have deeper goals, bad goals, not just goals to defeat and make the invader go out,
07-07-10, 12:39 AM #359
But, put a Mongolian herdsman in charge of China, don't expect the most enlightened Taoism to come out of the Emperor's Palace. Get my drift there Shadow1?
...i mean, i don't blame them if they attacked america and keep attacking it because it invaded us in the first place, they invaded us first...
Best get back to your Qur'an there little man, you got you sum learning to be gitting at.
07-07-10, 02:37 AM #360Thinking Chocolate ISthe Only perfectly flavored ice cream is not only irrational - it's bigotry.
By Shadow1 in forum World EventsLast Post: 04-20-10, 05:12 PMReplies: 91
By Shadow1 in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 01-31-10, 05:51 PMReplies: 1
By Atom in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 11-20-07, 08:05 PMReplies: 171
By Solve et Coagula in forum PoliticsLast Post: 02-25-06, 03:43 AMReplies: 9