If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The "Islam Is Peace" campaign...
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
They aren't 'supposed' Muslims, they think of themselves as Muslims and they are Muslims, they obviously have a more fundamentalist take on Islam than others but that doesn't mean they're not Muslims. They don't do it because they're poor or because they have some foreign policy grievance, though they use both to further their cause: the 9/11 lot certainly weren't poor and they were educated; as was the jackass who burnt himself in Scotland. At its core is an ideology based on an interpretation of Islam - San would call it a pure interpretation of Islam.
So you don't think the politicalisation and radicalisation of Islam has anything to do with the economic and social situations in these Islamic countries?
Sure, the purpotrators of 9/11 and the airport fiasco may have been educated but their actions were a result of the percieved conditions their fellow people's have suffered around the globe. Islam is the uniting factor in all this.
Marx was Middle Class, didn't mean he didn't have some grievences about the conditions of the Working Class and write some ground breaking stuff on the whole issue of Class struggle.
I disagree that he is treating Islam as a monolith, he is treating it as a dogmatic religion, which is exactly what it is. In discussing the contents of Islamic texts, he is approaching the problem of Islamically inspired terrorism from exactly the right angle. The fact that their religion tells them to kill is one of the most ignored factors in the so-called war on terror.
It is you who are showing ignorance by saying that muslims have no day to day requirement to adhere to the Qur'an. On the contrary ALL muslims are required to believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God, revealed to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel, and that they must follow every word of it. This, along with the fact that the contents of that book are based on the mentality of 7th century Arabia, is the single biggest reason that the Ummah is in such a mess.
Says who?
The Qur'an.
So now you're saying Islam is a monolith and they all agree on the same things?
No I don't. If you could ask one of these guys they would tell you that there is no 'politcalisation' of Islam involved here. As they see it Islam is all-encompassing, it can't be separated from politics or anything else for that matter. And they would say there is no 'radicalisation' either because all they're doing is following the Quran and the teachings of Mohammed properly, Muslims who don't aren't true Muslims - which is the point Sanitize is trying to get through to you.
At it's core is the ideology, not the 'perceived conditions' of their fellow Muslims, although they use that to further their cause. Ex-Islamist like Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz testify to this; i've looked but I can't seem to find any of their interviews online. Husain has a book called 'The Islamist' which you might want to check out.
Class and Marx have little do with it, it is an ideology, like Nazism.
Don't try the strawman approach. I said quite clearly that Islam is a dogmatic religion with certain fixed tenets. Whether or not everyone who calls himself a muslim subscribes to those tenets is irrelevant.
Put it this way, I know plenty of Catholic girls who go to mass every Sunday, but still use the contraceptive pill. They are called a la carte Catholics, and the fact that they use their own mind instead of blindly following the Pope, does not one single thing to change the fact the Catholic church teaches that contraception is a sin.
By the same token, muslims as individuals can take the a la carte approach, or at least they can if they live in a free country where they are protected by kaffir laws, but that does not one single thing to change the facts of what Islamic law teaches. And its teachings are horrible - the witness of a woman is worth half that of a man, a husband has the right to beat his wife, adulterers should be flogged, apostates should be killed, etc. This is the morality of the 7th century, and it is still being enacted on anybody unfortunate enough to be ruled by Sharia law in the 21st century, for one reason only. Religion. There God is telling them that they will go to Hell if they deviate from the Qur'an, hence they are trapped, and prevented from the natural progress that non-muslim countries have pursued.
I honestly think people in this country take freedom for granted.
You don't know what it feels like to be trapped in this Islamic mindset with the threat of the hell-fire constantly luring you back whenever you doubt its teachings.
Please don't underestimate the threat of the hell-fire and how it can psychologically damage ones ability to think rationally... especially when this threat has been with you since birth.
In mosques we are constantly taught to come closer to Islam and that this worldly world means nothing compared to the hereafter etc. This messages is drilled into us over and over again in practically every sermon.
I'll hopefully reply to some of your other messages later...
... Islam IS political and radical at its core.
Instead of just giving up, I would suggest you do what I did when I had questions about Islam and its alleged connection to terrorism. Read the Qur'an, and a book of the ahadith - Bukhari or muslim are recommended. Then come back and see if you can tell us that its got nothing to do with Islamic teachings.
They would find out if you exercised your right to free speech and expressed your opinion. Ex-christians take that right for granted - no threat of violence against Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett. Whereas when Ayaan Hirsi Ali publishes a book that criticizes Islam in the same way Dawkins et al criticize Christianity, she is bombarded with death threats and has to be given police protection.
I think sanitize is right, you take the freedoms you have so much for granted that you have lost the ability to impartially analyse countries and ideologies which lack any basic respect for freedom at all.
What do you mean "if"? The murder of Theo Van Gogh not enough? The death threats against Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan and Wali Shoebat not enough? None of the above people did anything by the way, apart from criticise Islam.
Given that these killings and other illegal things have already happened, I think it is time to act. Islam needs to be confronted ideologically, and placed under the same level of criticism that Christianity has had to get used to.
As for your intention to bring people together instead of divide them, I find that laudable, but that is exactly what I, and other critics of Islam, are trying to do. I am from Northern Ireland, from a Catholic, and staunchly Republican background. So I am speaking from experience when I say that you will not bring people together by putting a fake gloss over some very real differences. That just lets them fester, and leaves the field wide open for extremists.
Better to let a free and honest criticism take place. Put the differences between Islam and the rest of us into the sphere of open, and democratic debate, instead of leaving it in the field of who can bomb and terrorise who most.
Of course, in order to do that we do indeed have to stop stating our own beliefs, and get back to Islamic beliefs as laid down in the Qur'an and ahadith. Both of which make very uncomfortable reading.
What do you mean by "the whole of Islam"? Do you mean every muslim? If so, do not insult my intelligence by telling me that. Every reasonable person knows not to blame all, or even most, muslims for the violent actions of a few.
The Qur'an and ahadith need to be put under exactly the same spotlight of criticism that Christianity and the Bible have had to get used to. It is the only way they will ever catch up with the 21st century.
For a start we could discuss the Qur'anic injunction to kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, kill them until there is no more unbelief and all belongs to Allah. Or the Qur'an's verses which instruct to smite the necks of the unbelievers and chop off all their fingertips. Or how about Qur'an 4:34? That is a really charming little verse. Go look it up, I dare ya.
There is no logic at all in your post. Every muslim needs to change the Qur'an before Islam modernises? But, people will always interpret things differently? Can you not see how those two statements contradict each other?
Either Islam has an interpretation that is compatible with the morality of the 21st century, or it does not. Neither you or I can answer that. It needs an honest and robust debate between muslims and non-muslims who are knowledgeable about Islam.
Which we won't get until well meaning, but featherheaded people like yourself, stop stifling debate by undermining critics of Islam. Let them have their say, and let muslims come and debate with them.
No, I don't. I mean open, and honest criticism of the Qur'an and all the various interpretations of it. Why are you so opposed to that?
Exactly. Kaffirs like us can blame our own politicians till the cows come home, but it won't change a damn thing. Their religion is telling them to kill the unbelievers wherever they find them, and no tinkering with your foreign policy is ever going to change that.
The options before non-muslims are - military confrontation, and/or ideological confrontation. I would prefer the ideological stance, but you have to realise that if you are going to go the peaceful route, you will have to stop pussyfooting around and put all the sacred cows of Islam under the microscope. Starting maybe, with the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile.
EXACTLY the people who would want ot kill you would be responsible not people you didnt know
anyone who wants to kill someone for leaving their belief system woul be responsible, not all who hold the belief
But what about the ideology the killers suscribe to? If it says, for example, Whenever a muslim changes his religion, kill him, (which the Qur'an sadly does say). Would that ideology not deserve to be scrutinised and criticised, just as all other religions are criticised in this day and age?
I see your points now myself.
Right so now were back to Muhammad have a child wife are?
So we've gone from claiming that we should rationally challenge Islam as a real faith to attacking him because in his society hundreds of years ago the age of consent of marriage was much lower?
That's an utterly undermining arguement that reveals little or no interest in the reality of a modern faith and instead wants to use the same scare mongering attacks and sound bites that are used by the BNP.
If people want to discuss Islam then they can do so as adults willing to actually discuss a real perspective of a religion. To claim you want religion criticised in the same way as Chrisitanity means you are asking for the same level of debate.
No one, and I mean no one, criticises Chrisitianity because it suggests cannibalism in the communion, no one talks about Chrisitianity as encouraging incest because Abraham used his own sister to continue his supposedly pure blood line. It entirely removes the debate from one of the nature of religion (Islam) and into a soap box designed to spout soundbites attacking rather than critiquing a religion.
The average age of marriage was much lower hundreds of years ago and to say this is the key starting point to understanding Islam implies a clear intention to use this thread not to rationally discuss Islam but instead as a chance to slander a religion in exactly the same way the BNP would.
Because this is where a thread like this turns from looking like a chance to debate Islam to a chance to promote propoganda. If people want this thread to continue then I'd suggest people don't use it to sound like the BNP.
If the arguements against Christianity, especially when comparing reality with theology, often include discussions like -
Christ said love thy negiourbour. Christ said always turn the other cheek. So why did we have the crusades, witch hunts, subjugation of women, slavery and why do we continue to have certain Chrisitian demoninations that persecute people for their lifestyles or sexuality? Why has the Church been involved in acts of violence and repression?
If people want Islam to be held to the same standard then surely the arugement shouldn't be - look here's one quote that's really violent - so we've now proved it's at it's heart a violent religion.
Instead surely the arguement should be -
The Qur'an states;
"...Whoever kills an innocent soul it is as if he killed the whole of Mankind. And whoever saves one, it is as if he saved the whole of Mankind..." (Surah Al Maidah, Chapter 5 Verse 32)
So why is it that people who commit terrorist acts feel they can justify it through their religion?
Or
The Qur'an states;
"Those who believe in the Qur'an, and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians - any who believe in God and the last day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Surah Al Baqarah, Chapter 2 Verse 62)
So why is it that Islam is seen as an intolerant religion? Why is it people are happy to believe that Islam 'teaches them to kill the unbelievers'?
That would seem to me a much more equal place with how Christianity is discussed.
The natural progression from evidently not being able to take any religious text literally - for to do so would be madness - is the dilution of the word of God, and the admittance that obviously the words in these books aren't in any way divine.
Of course using religious texts in any argument about God and religion is equatable to arguing with a child how a fairy's wings stay on - the whole argument is absolutely fallacious and lends credence to the ridiculous notion that fairies exist.
Seems like one rule for Islam, one rule for all other religions in the climate we live in now. Given that it hardly seems surprising people would want to highlight other aspects of their religion.
But yeah, ultimately I agree with you that arguing about exactly what a text says only matters if the text was the word of god, which obviously it isn't. So surely what you're left with is how a religion is actually practised and used in the real world - not which quotes you can pull from a dried parchment.
Which brings us back to the core arguement here - should Islam be judged as religion based on how people practice Islam (in their many different ways and interpretations) or should it be judged based solely on quotes from a book?
The verse that you copy+pasted above has been purposely MISQUOTED and sugar-coated.
This is what the verse says in its entirety:
Quran
Sura 5, Ayah 32:
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
^ Notice the huge chunks of the verse (highlighted in red) which were left out to fool people like you.
This isn't a straightfoward "thou shalt not kill" instruction for the whole of mankind... this verse is merely recounting the instruction that was given to the Children Of Israel (Jews).
The verse says that you shouldn't kill anyone unless its for "murder" or "spreading mischief in the land".
What does it mean by "spreading mischief"? Propagating another religion besides Islam perhaps?
This ambiguous isolated verse which is always misquoted when presented to non-Muslims hasn't got a leg to stand on when confronted with the many many other verses in the Quran which clearly show intolerance and mandate warfare towards 'unbelievers'.
btw, this is what the verse immediately after that one says:
Sura 5 ,Ayah 33:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
Sura 5, Ayah 34:
Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Now it is the Quran that is the real problem because of the many many violent teachings in it. So regardless what the cultural trappings of the various countries are, the word of Allah is law. Secular countries do not have Sharia but only a very very tiny minority in those countries have ever said that they should not have Sharia. All muslim countries declare that their laws will not go against the Quran.
Because of that when the true believers start quoting the Quran and demanding Sharia, the secular muslims slink away and try to make excuses.
Jim, please don't think i believe Islam has exclusive dominion of barbaric and immoral religious text; The Old and New Testament contain a whole host of unsavoury passages. I have, largely, equal disregard for all religions - the reason I'm highlighting Islam is because that's what the OP was about.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive; I think it's an over-simplification to say you must either judge it on one criteria or the other. Religion in modern times - whichever one you care to chose - has, in the main, had be watered down from strict adherence to interpretation, and that interpretation has to be based on something - the religious texts.
EDIT: Sam Harris - YouTube Video
This is a good watch to hear, much more eloquently that i've put it, my position on the matter.
What about the age of consent for girls in muslim countries today? You do know it is whenever she gets her first period, and that can be as young as 9. Why do think that is? It is because they follow a religion founded by a paedophile, who they are required to view as the most perfect example for all humanity for all time.
If you show me a branch of Christianity that practises incest because Abraham did it, or a branch that practises actual cannibalism because Christ said they should, then I will criticise them on the same basis. There isn't one though, is there? It is Islam, and only Islam, which lauds the morality of a 53 year old man who had sex with a 9 year old child.
It may be uncomfortable for you to realise this, but this is not propaganda, it is the truth. It is not hard for you to verify it either, look at the laws of any country governed by Sharia.