I’m sure there are millions of muslims that might feel ‘Islam needs reforming’.
But where we have got to with this thread - actually discussing with any seriousness whether or not Islam is evil…well it just beggars belief…
jjdude you need to study your religion. The Samurai are not Buddists. They are members of Japans Shinto religion.
Your premise that since all religions have had varying degrees of violence in their history they are all equally violent is wrong.
While there are religions that are peaceful that have experienced violence despite their teaching nonviolence it does not mean they are no different from islam. Islam expressly condones and encourages violence and killing.
There is a big difference between ignoring your religions peaceful teachings to comit acts of violence and following a religions instructions to be violent and murderous.
[quote]red bull wrote:
I’m sure there are millions of muslims that might feel ‘Islam needs reforming’.
But where we have got to with this thread - actually discussing with any seriousness whether or not Islam is evil…well it just beggars belief…[/quote]
Well no. If you’re asking if a muslim is evil simply by practicing any form of Islam, the answer is no. That’s not my argument, at all. You’ll not find calls from me to convert muslims by force. Or, to stick our muslim citizens in camps (wasn’t me).
I simply want immigration from muslims nations put on hold on until our screening system is set up better. And certain muslim nations (I’m looking at S. Arabia, for example) should be frozen out entirely, until they do a whole lot better shutting down Jihadist mosques and charities.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well no. If you’re asking if a muslim is evil simply by practicing any form of Islam, the answer is no. That’s not my argument, at all. You’ll not find calls from me to convert muslims by force. Or, to stick our muslim citizens in camps (wasn’t me). [/quote]
Again, that is your position and you are welcome to defend it. But please, do not jump on people responding to the OP’s silly thesis and the crowd backing him up. It creates amalgam and confusion that is, at best, not constructive. At worst, very dangerous.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well no. If you’re asking if a muslim is evil simply by practicing any form of Islam, the answer is no. That’s not my argument, at all. You’ll not find calls from me to convert muslims by force. Or, to stick our muslim citizens in camps (wasn’t me).
Again, that is your position and you are welcome to defend it. But please, do not jump on people responding to the OP’s silly thesis and the crowd backing him up. It creates amalgam and confusion that is, at best, not constructive. At worst, very dangerous.[/quote]
I respond when I see fit. If my position is not clear, it’s because others are confused. I’ll police my own posts, thank you very much.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
jjdude you need to study your religion. The Samurai are not Buddists. They are members of Japans Shinto religion.[/quote]
This is getting off the topic a little, but I disagree.
It is true that the Buddhist influence (especially Zen Buddhism) on the samurai has been exaggerated by scholars, or in the perception of popular culture, especially western popular culture.
But having said that, it is now becoming as much of an exageration, or as fashionable, to downplay it.
What about mikkyo Buddhism? My understanding is that it played a significant role in the belief systems of many samurai.
I know they say that the Japanese live with shinto, and die as Buddhists. And in a pithy kind of way, it is (or was) true. But again, it is becoming too fashionable, in my opinion, to disregard the impact of Buddhism on the samurai…
[quote]Sifu wrote:
While there are religions that are peaceful that have experienced violence…[/quote]
C’mon mate…religions that ‘have experienced violence’?? You make it sound so passive! Where’s the cause, the prime mover? Or the establishment, the figures, the PEOPLE that were responsible??
They’re gone, vanished. And all of a sudden, the violence ‘just happened’.
You got a clean slate. Perhaps you should be as forgiving with Islam…
There are practices in religions that can and do lead to violence. Jesus did a good job of rejecting violence but Christianity has at times descended into violence. The Romans doing things like including the old testament and excluding a lot of the gospels didn’t help. But Christians do have a good role model in Jesus to help them find their way.
Mohammad on the other hand embraced violence and murder as a way to settle differences. When you add into that the belief that he is the seal of the prophets and that his words are the final, unalterable word of god you have a religion that is going to be violent and cannot be reformed.
The wahabbis are a problem but it should not be forgotten that the rest of the umah is fertile soil for their ideology of hate to take root.
[quote]lixy wrote:
At worst, very dangerous.[/quote]
No more dangerous than the BS you preach
[quote]Sifu wrote:
jjdude you need to study your religion. The Samurai are not Buddists. They are members of Japans Shinto religion.[/quote]
And are Zen Buddhists to boot. Trust me. I’ve done Japanese martial arts for 25 years and have trained extensively with people from old samurai families. Zen was the dominant philosophy of the samurai. In any case, what about the other cases? The Tamil Tigers are strongly Buddhists and equally committed to violence, for example. China with its Mahayana Buddhism steam-rollered quite a few border states.
That was not my premise. My premise is that categorizing people based on their religion is not sufficient to explain their behavior. The shtick that Buddhists are always completely non-violent is also not supported by their history. Likewise with Hindus (read up on the Mogul wars, like the Battle of Chitor.) Violence comes from self-interest and that is what wins out over religious beliefs. If you cannot accept that Muslims can act out of that (and lying through your teeth about your motives is something humans do too), then they are fundamentally inhuman and you cannot deal with them in any meaningful way. That is where I see this thread heading.
–>To commit atrocities, you must believe absurdities ←
as Voltaire so well put it.
Yes it does in certain cases. Christianity has done that in the past too (the Conquistadors had special dispensation for killing Indians who would not convert). Not your religion? My Muslim friends have said much the same about the Islam you quote – that it was valid then but no longer applies. One dryly quipped that bin Laden managed to read about half the Koran.
I know Muslims who are middle class, urbane and about as far from a jihadi as you can imagine. The few I’ve known from Bosnia were all but indistinguishable from mainstream US Protestants. I’ve also met some who would murder you in a heartbeat (let me tell you about Hassan, who spelled his name with double swastikas…)
To look at a religion and ignore the behavior of its adherents in context is silly. Treat them as people. Any religion can be made to support mass murder and all have and this just shows that man is not a rational animal as much as a rationalizing one.
Besides, where this thread is heading is going to put a lot of you in a bad position. Let us say that Islam is evil and condones murder as a matter of course. Doesn’t it behoove you to exterminate every member? What do you do if you come to this conclusion? Are you stuck in moral paralysis? It will be easy to manipulate you much as the jihadis have manipulated other Muslims.
So try this argument out. I would argue from a strictly theological viewpoint though that the jihadis must be stopped and that is that under Muslim law they are idolators. How can this be? Worshiping false Gods is proscribed in Islam, but that is merely half of it. The other half is making others into demons to instill fear and loathing.
Have I given away yet that I’m a fanatical moderate?
– jj
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Sifu wrote:
jjdude you need to study your religion. The Samurai are not Buddists. They are members of Japans Shinto religion.
And are Zen Buddhists to boot. Trust me. I’ve done Japanese martial arts for 25 years and have trained extensively with people from old samurai families. Zen was the dominant philosophy of the samurai. In any case, what about the other cases? The Tamil Tigers are strongly Buddhists and equally committed to violence, for example. China with its Mahayana Buddhism steam-rollered quite a few border states.
Your premise that since all religions have had varying degrees of violence in their history they are all equally violent is wrong.
That was not my premise. My premise is that categorizing people based on their religion is not sufficient to explain their behavior. The shtick that Buddhists are always completely non-violent is also not supported by their history. Likewise with Hindus (read up on the Mogul wars, like the Battle of Chitor.) Violence comes from self-interest and that is what wins out over religious beliefs. If you cannot accept that Muslims can act out of that (and lying through your teeth about your motives is something humans do too), then they are fundamentally inhuman and you cannot deal with them in any meaningful way. That is where I see this thread heading.
–>To commit atrocities, you must believe absurdities ←
as Voltaire so well put it.
Islam expressly condones and encourages violence and killing.
Yes it does in certain cases. Christianity has done that in the past too (the Conquistadors had special dispensation for killing Indians who would not convert). Not your religion? My Muslim friends have said much the same about the Islam you quote – that it was valid then but no longer applies. One dryly quipped that bin Laden managed to read about half the Koran.
There is a big difference between ignoring your religions peaceful teachings to comit acts of violence and following a religions instructions to be violent and murderous.
I know Muslims who are middle class, urbane and about as far from a jihadi as you can imagine. The few I’ve known from Bosnia were all but indistinguishable from mainstream US Protestants. I’ve also met some who would murder you in a heartbeat (let me tell you about Hassan, who spelled his name with double swastikas…)
To look at a religion and ignore the behavior of its adherents in context is silly. Treat them as people. Any religion can be made to support mass murder and all have and this just shows that man is not a rational animal as much as a rationalizing one.
Besides, where this thread is heading is going to put a lot of you in a bad position. Let us say that Islam is evil and condones murder as a matter of course. Doesn’t it behoove you to exterminate every member? What do you do if you come to this conclusion? Are you stuck in moral paralysis? It will be easy to manipulate you much as the jihadis have manipulated other Muslims.
So try this argument out. I would argue from a strictly theological viewpoint though that the jihadis must be stopped and that is that under Muslim law they are idolators. How can this be? Worshiping false Gods is proscribed in Islam, but that is merely half of it. The other half is making others into demons to instill fear and loathing.
Have I given away yet that I’m a fanatical moderate?
No, but you have given away that you are in denial about radical islam. Good luck with your Kaffir /Dhimmi status.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/19/europe/EU-GEN-Norway-Terror-Assessment.php
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
Doesn’t it behoove you to exterminate every member? – jj[/quote]
I do not think that anyone has come to this conclusion. Most of the people here would say that Muslims need to do some introspective thinking and change within their ranks to weed out the people who would exterminate every member of another religion who does not believe as they do.
another point:
My name is Gkhan. I believe I should know SOMETHING about tribal behavior…lol.
(sorry Sloth):
You say that Muhammad did away with tribalism by uniting the tribes of Arabia. Yet, Genghis Khan brought back tribalism by uniting the tribes of Mongolia? GK was uniting and fighting for his God (pagan sky god) as well. How is one different than the other? Just because one is based on Judea/Christian roots, does it make it more of a religion?
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
. I would argue from a strictly theological viewpoint though that the jihadis must be stopped and that is that under Muslim law they are idolators. How can this be? Worshiping false Gods is proscribed in Islam, but that is merely half of it. The other half is making others into demons to instill fear and loathing.
– jj[/quote]
I would agree.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Most of the people here would say that Muslims need to do some introspective thinking and change within their ranks to weed out the people who would exterminate every member of another religion who does not believe as they do. [/quote]
That’s all well and good, but how does one do that in practice? I’m serious. Besides encouraging education and research, trying to be an example for the younglings and fostering dialog, I don’t see much else i can do. It’s not like the royal families in the Arab world can be voted out of office, you know.
But if you got any ideas (not wisecracks!), do share.
jj I find it interesting that you skip over 1500 years of Christianity and drop in on the Conquistadors. This moral equivalizing that people like you want to constantly engage in completely misses the point.
If Christianity is so much like islam why not give us examples from the life of Jesus. Or if that is too difficult how about some first, second or third century Christians?
Why do you and others skip twelve to fifteen centuries of history to find examples to make comparisons with the life of mohammad?
Why do you have to dig up the Tamil Tigers to indict Buddhism? Why not give examples of one of the Buddhas killing in gods name?
You are proving the point that the movie makes. Many in the west are trying to put islam into a context of something they are familiar with, in this case Jesus and Christianity.
Jesus and mohammad were two very different people. Just because mohammad paid lip service to some of Jesus’s peaceful teachings does not mean he was anything like Jesus.
Lixy has a point. It is not a situation where things can just be fixed. There is an element in islam that is not going to be reasoned with. The only thing we can do is kill the radicals. It is deeper than just a few royal families though. As long as you have the internet, one or more radicals and some impressionable teenage muslims we are going to have this problem.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
jj I find it interesting that you skip over 1500 years of Christianity and drop in on the Conquistadors. This moral equivalizing that people like you want to constantly engage in completely misses the point. [/quote]
Good point. I’ll admit it, I was just baiting you. Let me just cut to the chase.
Religions are of people, by people and for people. Regardless of who founded them, they are still ministered by us wretched mortals. As such, they are human institutions and should be treated as such. No religion can reasonably claim exemption from this, unless they can claim to be under direct divine control. Those that do are called cults. Humans also must interpret all scripture, so questions of its divinity are also moot – unless again one claims infallibility.
Public service announcement: I make such a strong difference between spirituality which is your direct relationship with God (or lack thereof) and religions which are meant to help you with your spirituality. Most of the anger and confusion directed towards religion is because religionists try very hard to blur this distinction. This is one (sleazy & manipulative) means of keeping themselves in control.
As I said you cannot categorize people on the basis of their religion alone because whatever they are doing will always have a subtext of self-interest. Religions, I feel, even large and diffuse ones like Islam, should be eyed every bit as critically as any other human institution and one should try to understand them in context. My experience with Muslims supports this interpretation, although I concede that maybe they are all liars and are planning Jonestown II and I’m just a chump.
So… Remember all those weird & nasty laws in Deuteronomy? Like stoning people to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Whatever happened to them? Christians and Jews just sort of forgot about them because the society changed. Bringing them up gets a snicker and a shrug usually. Is it possible that this can occur to Islam? Is it possible it is occurring in Islam and al Qaeda is a backlash? This I ponder, but do not know.
That clearer?
– jj
[quote]Chushin wrote:
I’ve often wondered why, when radicals march; carry signs calling for beheadings, the overthrow of governments, & killing of Christians; preach hatred; riot; etc, there are not MASSIVE counter-demonstrations.
Assuming there ARE many, many more moderates, why do they not just overwhelm the radicals with (peaceful) numbers?
I’d imagine some such current (albeit smaller-scale)efforts don’t get much press, but if the efforts were overwhelming (on the order of the “March on Washington” or the “Million Man March”), they could hardly be ignored. And they’d have a huge impact on the thinking of non-Muslims, as well.
Perhaps you should organize an annual European Muslims for Peace March? [/quote]
Well, here are 150,000 of Lixy’s countrymen taking to the streets of Casablanca protesting against Al Qaeda a few years ago. I think Lixy mentioned that he took part in that demonstration, but I may be mistaken.
Remember: just because CNN (or NHK) doesn’t report it, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/massive-muslim-demonstration-against.html