[segovius]

A while back it was mentioned that Yemen is winning it's own 'war' against Islamic extremists by novel means - the clerics there challenged the Islamists to a debate with the winner to accept the ideology of the other side.

The extremists believed they could justify their view of Islam from the Qur'an and accepted the challenge. Months later they had all rejected terrorism and problems in Yemen have fallen by 80% plus.

Of course this issue was ignored by this boards own resident extremists and Islam-haters so I thought in the same spirit I would issue a similar challenge: prove your view of Islam is correct and I will accept you are right.

We need some rules - and of course this isn't going to work as these characters refuse to even debate, let alone research facts - but something needs to be done as extremism and hate is running rabid on this board.

So. Post a statement. Just one at a time, we can go sequentially. A few notes: something like "all Muslims are killers" would be unacceptable - we'd need to break it down into something like "the Qur'an commands all Muslims to kill old ladies" or something similar.

Then I disprove it with something called a 'fact', the Islamophobes look stupid and try something else and we repeat the process. eventually they get fed up and/or everyone sees then (even more) for what they are and we can all get on withy our lives. That's the theory although I am painfully aware of the Middle Eastern proverb "Only two things have no limit - the mercy of God and the stupidity of man".

This is all probably not clear enough so another example (at least) is necessary: in the example above of the clerics and the extremists, logically one side is right and one side is wrong - we call this in philosophy "mutually exclusive" - that means they cannot both be right. Ie, one of them at least is wrong. Therefore only one can be representative of true Islam - they cannot both be (though at least it will be amusing to see what BS people come up with to try to twist it that way".

So, let's go. One simple statement........

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Islamophobes

Ooops. Already in violation of Doofy's Law*. You lose.

* Anyone using a word ending in "phobia" (or derivative) whilst not actually describing a legitimate medical condition automatically loses the argument

[Y3a]

How do we KNOW it's a fact?? YOU??

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Ooops. Already in violation of Doofy's Law*. You lose.

* Anyone using a word ending in "phobia" (or derivative) whilst not actually describing a legitimate medical condition automatically loses the argument

That is not a statement of evidence of Islam equalling hate. Sorry, you're out.

Anyone else?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Y3a

How do we KNOW it's a fact?? YOU??

No. We only make statements that refer to facts. I knew I was not being simplistic enough in my examples above.

For example, if you wish to say that Islam commands killing innocent children then you would say perhaps "the Qur'an commands killing innocent children".

Either it does or it doesn't. these are facts. It's simple really - avoid statements of opinion and back up contentions with research.

It has worked in the academic field for over a thousand years - go on, you can do it......it'll be fun.....

[Doofy]

You should have quit while you were ahead.

Originally Posted by Hadith, Muslim vol III 5113

A believer eats in one intestine whereas a non-believer eats in seven intestines.

Promotes the idea, Nazi style, that infidels are sub-human.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You should have quit while you were ahead.



Promotes the idea, Nazi style, that infidels are sub-human.

If you take the time, you will find in the Hadiths-collection, everything from the most noble and thought-inspiring wisedom to the most racistic and chauvinistic propaganda. Why? Because Hadith-collection are not much more than a representation of human philosophies, collected over a course of centuries and just tagged as a saying from the prophet in order to add the air of legitimacy. Sure there are legitimate sayings of the prophet in the Hadith-collections but those are rare, and even these just represent the ideas of the prophet and are not anywhere near the legitimacy of God's word, called the Quran.

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

If you take the time, you will find in the Hadiths-collection, everything from the most noble and thought-inspiring wisedom to the most racistic and chauvinistic propaganda. Why? Because Hadith-collection are not much more than a representation of human philosophies, collected over a course of centuries and just tagged as a saying from the prophet in order to add the air of legitimacy. Sure there are legitimate sayings of the prophet in the Hadith-collections but those are rare, and even these just represent the ideas of the prophet and are not anywhere near the legitimacy of God's word, called the Quran.

So essentially the hadiths are all complete BS then, as we cannot legitimately tell what is a "correct" verse from an "incorrect" verse.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So essentially the hadiths are all complete BS then, as we cannot legitimately tell what is a "correct" verse from an "incorrect" verse.

Yes, the vast majority of Hadiths is completely BS. The only way to find the correct ones is a very thorough comparison with the Quran. If any Hadith contradicts the Quran in any way, it is a false one.
While most muslims hold dear the Hadith-collections, because it is a way to connect with the prophet's time, through the witness-chain, they are only secondary to the Quran and rightfully so.

Taliesin

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So essentially the hadiths are all complete BS then, as we cannot legitimately tell what is a "correct" verse from an "incorrect" verse.

Why do you think in terms of 'correct' or 'incorrect'? This seems to me a 'fundamentalist' characteristic.

But yes, the hadith contains much conflicting material - some of it in direct variance to the practice of the Prophet.

So, we have established something. As they are contradictory adherence to them is a matter of personal opinion (this is an Islamic concept btw) and as such they cannot be advanced as some monolithic system of binding injunctions.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

So essentially the hadiths are all complete BS then, as we cannot legitimately tell what is a "correct" verse from an "incorrect" verse.

I wanted to expand on the topic of Haidths, cause it's a very interesting and important topic. One has to remember that the first Hadith-collection was written down more than two centuries after the prophet's death, and that the prophet himself always discouraged and refused that his sayings should be recorded:

Did Prophet commend the writing of his “sayings”?

There was a lapse of nearly two centuries from the year of the death of the Prophet to the time when most of the hadiths were compiled. This time factor alone is enough to make one question the accuracy of the written hadiths. To say in retrospect that the memories of human beings did not or do not slip away in the course of time would be a hollow and speculative claim. Often it is theorized that Arabs living in the era of the Prophet had far greater capacity than ours today, for memorizing and then later repeating without error what the Prophet had narrated. Not only is this theory unsubstantiated, but also, how can one verify an unwritten text years later? Further, this lapse may in fact have been due to the reluctance of the companions and early followers to write down hadiths These compilations were not made from the "recorded" documents, because reports in fact confirm that whatever was written by the companions of the prophet, other than the revealed verses of the Qur'an, was effaced during the lifetime of the prophet. The Prophet commanded this effacement, although there are diverse opinions as to why he did so. In the opinions of some scholars, the instructions to efface were of a transitory nature. Others argue that the instructions were never rescinded or withdrawn and that the expressed reasons held good for all times. For example, one hadith speaks of the concern that his ummah (community) may follow the path of the earlier prophets. This could be a reference to the association of the rabbinical teachings called Mishna or Talmud (a secondary document) with the Torah (the primary document) after the death of Prophet Moses, or the inclusion of the Letters (Epistles) with the Gospels in the New Testament after the death of Prophet Jesus. The added official texts might have a distorting or misleading effect on the original message.

Source: http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook-sectionone.htm

Taliesin

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by segovius

That is not a statement of evidence of Islam equalling hate. Sorry, you're out.

Anyone else?

No, but it shows your issues with people who have an opposing view, and how you feel it's proper to classify an entire group of people based on a few nutters.

Islam has a ways to go.

[Y3a]

A question of Mechanics:

Is assuption as good as a fact?

Mohammad is assumed to be a prophet, just as Moses is.

[Y3a]

OK Try this:

Muslim extremists/fundimentionalists have hijacked the direction and meaning of the religion, and have given it a new, more violent and narrow way of dealing with the rest of the world.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by segovius

A while back it was mentioned that Yemen is winning it's own 'war' against Islamic extremists by novel means - the clerics there challenged the Islamists to a debate with the winner to accept the ideology of the other side.

The extremists believed they could justify their view of Islam from the Qur'an and accepted the challenge. Months later they had all rejected terrorism and problems in Yemen have fallen by 80% plus.

Of course this issue was ignored by this boards own resident extremists and Islam-haters so I thought in the same spirit I would issue a similar challenge: prove your view of Islam is correct and I will accept you are right.

We need some rules - and of course this isn't going to work as these characters refuse to even debate, let alone research facts - but something needs to be done as extremism and hate is running rabid on this board.

So. Post a statement. Just one at a time, we can go sequentially. A few notes: something like "all Muslims are killers" would be unacceptable - we'd need to break it down into something like "the Qur'an commands all Muslims to kill old ladies" or something similar.

Then I disprove it with something called a 'fact', the Islamophobes look stupid and try something else and we repeat the process. eventually they get fed up and/or everyone sees then (even more) for what they are and we can all get on withy our lives. That's the theory although I am painfully aware of the Middle Eastern proverb "Only two things have no limit - the mercy of God and the stupidity of man".

This is all probably not clear enough so another example (at least) is necessary: in the example above of the clerics and the extremists, logically one side is right and one side is wrong - we call this in philosophy "mutually exclusive" - that means they cannot both be right. Ie, one of them at least is wrong. Therefore only one can be representative of true Islam - they cannot both be (though at least it will be amusing to see what BS people come up with to try to twist it that way".

So, let's go. One simple statement........

Been done before

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=202024

[segovius]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

No, but it shows your issues with people who have an opposing view, and how you feel it's proper to classify an entire group of people based on a few nutters.

Islam has a ways to go.

My issue is not with an opposing view, it is with non-thinking and the glorification of illogicality. Yours should be too - it's a killer.

As it happens I discuss and debate people with an opposing view very often elsewhere - mostly about Islam - the thing is these people research their topics and know the subject very well. Hence it is possible to learn something.

Let's start with some logic. A direct quote please, where did I "classify an entire group of people based on a few nutters".

Actually don't bother, I didn't.

Btw, Islam has 'a ways to go' to where?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Been done before

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=202024

So what happened to Logic? He seems like an enlightened poster....

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by segovius

So what happened to Logic? He seems like an enlightened poster....

:looks in mirror and points:

[segovius]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

:looks in mirror and points:

Hehe

[Y3a]

So...Logic is no longer a philosphy? Are you asuming that you are NOT BIASED in some way?

[placebo1969]

How about:
Not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism, but most acts of terrorism are in the name of Islam.

I think that at this time it is factually correct.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

How about:
Not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism, but most acts of terrorism are in the name of Islam.

I think that at this time it is factually correct.

Thats the point of all these discussions, at least to me.

Also, i like how seg has framed the "logic" for a discussion he would like to have. But he forgot to mention one important thing:
Islam, and specifically the Quaran is 1600 odd years old, based on a language and dialect equally as old. Bearing that in mind, its text is open to a wide range of interepretations, and therefore could hardly(in my opinion) be regarded as "fact" since there is no "official" translation. Therefore, he could easily refute anything anyone else says by offering his own interpretation(opinion almost on the text).

It would be like finding a poem from 1600 years ago, and then discussing it and arguing about what it means. Everyone has their own interpretation, and ASSUMING that your intrepretion is the right one, dosent make it a fact. the reality of the situation being that you might have a "peaceful" intrepretation of it all, but there are a heck of a lot of people getting the wrong message. but thats my opinion . (And you have muslims refusing to translate the Quaran cause it will loose meaning..... rather ironic isnt it ?)

So what ? that dosent change the fact that:
There are AROUND the same number of Christians, Muslims and Hindus on this planet right now. And most acts of terrorism are carried out in the name of Islam. And not any other world religion.

PS>> good opening about Yemen, are we supposed to take your word as fact ? or is asking for a source being an "islam-o-phobe" as well ? And speaking of "islamophobe".... look at the number of attacks against civilians by islamist terrorists all over the place....id say you can blame the islamist-terrorists for all the "islamophobes".

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

How about:
Not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism, but most acts of terrorism are in the name of Islam.

I think that at this time it is factually correct.

A couple of things.

1. I "like" how you say "not all Muslims" instead of a different choice of words.
2. Define terrorism.
3. That something is done in the name of X doesn't mean that X supports it.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by segovius

Of course this issue was ignored by this boards own resident extremists and Islam-haters so I thought in the same spirit I would issue a similar challenge: prove your view of Islam is correct and I will accept you are right.

When you say it was ignored are you saying you started a topic in regards to this and no one responded or are you saying that no one started a topic at all? Of course, to ignore it would require that we had knowledge of it and this is the first I've heard of the debate. Do you have a link to the details?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Doofy

You should have quit while you were ahead.



Promotes the idea, Nazi style, that infidels are sub-human.

Godwin's law!

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Bearing that in mind, its text is open to a wide range of interepretations, and therefore could hardly(in my opinion) be regarded as "fact" since there is no "official" translation.

Of course there is no official translation. If you'd know an inkling about Islam you'd know why. The "official" version is the Arabic original.

PS>> good opening about Yemen, are we supposed to take your word as fact ? or is asking for a source being an "islam-o-phobe" as well ? And speaking of "islamophobe".... look at the number of attacks against civilians by islamist terrorists all over the place....id say you can blame the islamist-terrorists for all the "islamophobes".

If you'd actually read what Muslims have posted on here you'd have seen the articles several times. But since it's almost always Muslims who post it you ignore it. So perhaps you should google it. That way you might notice it this time around.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by segovius

Why do you think in terms of 'correct' or 'incorrect'?

Something is either true or untrue.
I believe that was one of your requirements when you started this thread?

This is all probably not clear enough so another example (at least) is necessary: in the example above of the clerics and the extremists, logically one side is right and one side is wrong - we call this in philosophy "mutually exclusive" - that means they cannot both be right. Ie, one of them at least is wrong. Therefore only one can be representative of true Islam - they cannot both be (though at least it will be amusing to see what BS people come up with to try to twist it that way".

Originally Posted by segovius

This seems to me a 'fundamentalist' characteristic.

Yes, but you're an idiot.

Originally Posted by segovius

But yes, the hadith

hadith / hadiths. Either/or.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Godwin's law!

Godwin's Law has no meaning in a thread once Doofy's Law has been invoked.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by segovius

Why do you think in terms of 'correct' or 'incorrect'? This seems to me a 'fundamentalist' characteristic.

But yes, the hadith contains much conflicting material - some of it in direct variance to the practice of the Prophet.

So, we have established something. As they are contradictory adherence to them is a matter of personal opinion (this is an Islamic concept btw) and as such they cannot be advanced as some monolithic system of binding injunctions.

Are you saying 'personal opinion' is an Islamic concept? I think the argument could easily be made that the concept of 'personal opinion' predates Islam by a few thousand years.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Godwin's Law has no meaning in a thread once Doofy's Law has been invoked.

Touche!

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Of course there is no official translation. If you'd know an inkling about Islam you'd know why. The "official" version is the Arabic original.

Parlez vous anglais ?

Isnt that what i said ? there is no official translation. it's in the same language asit was written 1600 years ago. Thats a fact. thanks for reiterating my point.

Now my opinion on that fact:
Thats part of the problem. Leave it open for interpretation, thats all well and good. Now the result of doing that are the islamic-terrorist groups all over the place. benefit anyone ? no. time to have the text brought(translated) into the 21st century ? i think it's high time. Whether or not Islam/muslim world has the means of doing so, is not my concern (or anyone elses for that matter). it's upto you to at least atemt to prevent such radical interpretations.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Thats the point of all these discussions, at least to me.

Also, i like how seg has framed the "logic" for a discussion he would like to have. But he forgot to mention one important thing:
Islam, and specifically the Quaran is 1600 odd years old, based on a language and dialect equally as old. Bearing that in mind, its text is open to a wide range of interepretations, and therefore could hardly(in my opinion) be regarded as "fact" since there is no "official" translation. Therefore, he could easily refute anything anyone else says by offering his own interpretation(opinion almost on the text).

It would be like finding a poem from 1600 years ago, and then discussing it and arguing about what it means. Everyone has their own interpretation, and ASSUMING that your intrepretion is the right one, dosent make it a fact. the reality of the situation being that you might have a "peaceful" intrepretation of it all, but there are a heck of a lot of people getting the wrong message. but thats my opinion . (And you have muslims refusing to translate the Quaran cause it will loose meaning..... rather ironic isnt it ?)

So what ? that dosent change the fact that:
There are AROUND the same number of Christians, Muslims and Hindus on this planet right now. And most acts of terrorism are carried out in the name of Islam. And not any other world religion.

PS>> good opening about Yemen, are we supposed to take your word as fact ? or is asking for a source being an "islam-o-phobe" as well ? And speaking of "islamophobe".... look at the number of attacks against civilians by islamist terrorists all over the place....id say you can blame the islamist-terrorists for all the "islamophobes".

Good points.

I agree with most of them or as near as dammit. I'll state my point in this thread more clearly:

There are, as you say, a lot of terror attacks and extremist acts carried out under the Islamic banner. No argument there.

My divergence would occur when people - as happens here every day - use this as proof that Islam=terrorism or some such.

If someone said - as some do and I have no disagreement with them - 'extremists are carrying out crimes in the name of Islam' then there is no problem. In fact they do say this but they then go on to say that Islam is the root of the problem - it is not. Extremists and literalists are the root of the problem.

Why is this important? Because if this attitude persists then it alienates Muslims and creates a situation where they will not help fight extremists on the West's terms because they feel (rightly) that it is their religion that is under attack rather than the extremists.

And of course, there is the issue of the fact that the Islamophobes are extremists themselves who can now operate without censure in a way impossible before 911. Make no mistake, these people have an agenda and it isn't just Muslims in their sights.

Btw: here is the Yemen link

[segovius]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Are you saying 'personal opinion' is an Islamic concept? I think the argument could easily be made that the concept of 'personal opinion' predates Islam by a few thousand years.

I am saying that it is a concept inherent in Islam as opposed to a concept foreign to Islam as some suggest and did not mean to imply that it was a concept invented by Islam.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

A couple of things.

1. I "like" how you say "not all Muslims" instead of a different choice of words.
2. Define terrorism.
3. That something is done in the name of X doesn't mean that X supports it.

1. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what do you mean "different choice of words"?
2. To paraphrase Justice Potter, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."
3. Never said that. However, I would argue that sometimes not actively opposing something is similar to supporting it in the end result. Does that make sense?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by segovius

I am saying that it is a concept inherent in Islam as opposed to a concept foreign to Islam as some suggest and did not mean to imply that it was a concept invented by Islam.

Aw man, and I was Googling all over about the Greeks and self identity.

But to debate I would say that the concept of self-identity, though perhaps not foreign to Islam is not the same concept as we in the West perceive it as. IMO, and of course this comes from observations from the outside, Islam is less about individual thoughts and practices and more about collective thoughts and practices.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by koran, sura 9.29

Fight those among the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) ... who do not profess the true religion, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.

Originally Posted by koran, sura 33.27

And he bequeathed to you their lands, their homes and their possessions, together with land you have never trodden

Originally Posted by koran, sura 2.216

Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you.

Originally Posted by koran, sura 3.118

Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They [i.e. non-Muslims] will not fail to corrupt you. They long for your ruin. Hatred has already shown itself out of their mouths, but more grievous is what their breasts conceal.

Originally Posted by koran, sura 8.60

Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah. All that you give in the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged.

Originally Posted by koran, sura 9.28

Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean.

Originally Posted by koran, sura 48.29

Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.

Originally Posted by koran, sura 98.6

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of creatures.

[Artful Dodger]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

A couple of things.

3. That something is done in the name of X doesn't mean that X supports it.

hahah. you make me laugh. that only highlights a serious flaw in the practice of islam, and doesn't serve as an excuse.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Hawkeye_a and segovius for excellent posts.

But on topic, I can't add much. I do not know the Koran verse by verse. I would think it would be much more interesting to know what the AQ prisoners and the Yemen judge debated about. I would say that is the crux of the matter. What is it that AQ members use in the Koran (or wherever) to justify their actions? and how is that misunderstanding of the Koran made.

Granted I can imagine how the misunderstanding was/is made. The Bible itself it misunderstood and misrepresented by tens millions of people in the USA and millions outside the USA. But I know what they are misrepesenting and why. I also know how to refute them.

If you know or have the time, segovius, it would be great for you to demonstrate the things that the extremists are using and how it is wrong.

cheers

W-Y

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by segovius

A while back it was mentioned that Yemen is winning it's own 'war' against Islamic extremists by novel means - the clerics there challenged the Islamists to a debate with the winner to accept the ideology of the other side.

Not to temper the spirit of the debate but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programm...ts/4328894.stm
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...9/nislam09.xml

My thought on this is that a Yemeni prison is no bed of roses. I would wager that those imprisoned, if told they could gain their release by entering into a theological debate on Islam and accepting the views of the judge well, I think the choice is obvious. The reason there has been no more terrorist violence in Yemen are twofold. They are all in Iraq fighting the US (10 percent of the foreign fighters are estimated to be Yemeni) and those released in Yemen are under constant surveillance. Add to that the fact that Yemen has a porous border and I am sure the Yemeni government is quite happy to see these folks move on and continue their struggle else where.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by segovius

Good points.

I agree with most of them or as near as dammit. I'll state my point in this thread more clearly:

There are, as you say, a lot of terror attacks and extremist acts carried out under the Islamic banner. No argument there.

My divergence would occur when people - as happens here every day - use this as proof that Islam=terrorism or some such.

If someone said - as some do and I have no disagreement with them - 'extremists are carrying out crimes in the name of Islam' then there is no problem. In fact they do say this but they then go on to say that Islam is the root of the problem - it is not. Extremists and literalists are the root of the problem.

Why is this important? Because if this attitude persists then it alienates Muslims and creates a situation where they will not help fight extremists on the West's terms because they feel (rightly) that it is their religion that is under attack rather than the extremists.

And of course, there is the issue of the fact that the Islamophobes are extremists themselves who can now operate without censure in a way impossible before 911. Make no mistake, these people have an agenda and it isn't just Muslims in their sights.

Btw: here is the Yemen link

Thats all well and good. And i appreciate/admire it when ppl CHOOSE the peaceful intrepretations. Thats what most people(imo) will do irrespective of the religion they practice. (Notice im not labeling all Muslims terrorists or making some broad generalization like that)

So now, we are agreed upon that the intrepretations can vary considerably. right ? Now, i can have an opinion that your "intrepretation" is "good"/"right" and the islamist terrorists are "wrong"/"bad". in fact that is my opinion, and apparently its urs as well. That brings me to the next question. when left to intrepretations and opinions....how can anyone (muslim or not) descide which intrepretation is true to the teachings from the Quaran ? Sure, i can say urs is the "right" way cause i agree with it, but does that mean that thats what the Quaran actually teaches ? Thats the problem with intrepretations. neither you, nor them can claim to have the "correct" intrepretation, cause imo... no one really knows. (Thats why having a single commandment that can be translated into any language that clearly states "Thou shall not kill"....leaves no room for misunderstanding)

Now marry that with the sheer number of terrorists fighting in the name of Islam(from totally different backgrounds...geography, culture, languages,etc), and i think it's either:
-a rather unfortunate ccoincidence(for Islam) that all these people seem to get that message from the Quaran and Islam
or
-that there is reosnable doubt that thats the message thats being taken out of Islam and the Quaran.

Incidentally, i think the latter is more likely. How can this "misunderstanding" be solved ? bring the Quaran and Islam into the 21st century. translate it. who ? u as the muslim community need to figure that out. but at least atempt(and hopefully succeed) to prevent such intrepretations from being taken in the first place.

Weyland-Yutan:
it is my opinion that the concept of "Jihad" is behind that, and that needs to be seriously addressed by the muslim community.(but nothing has been said/done about it "officially")

But thats just my opinion and suggestion to try and solve the problems in ur communities.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Not to temper the spirit of the debate but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programm...ts/4328894.stm
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...9/nislam09.xml

My thought on this is that a Yemeni prison is no bed of roses. I would wager that those imprisoned, if told they could gain their release by entering into a theological debate on Islam and accepting the views of the judge well, I think the choice is obvious. The reason there has been no more terrorist violence in Yemen are twofold. They are all in Iraq fighting the US (10 percent of the foreign fighters are estimated to be Yemeni) and those released in Yemen are under constant surveillance. Add to that the fact that Yemen has a porous border and I am sure the Yemeni government is quite happy to see these folks move on and continue their struggle else where.

The point is not to suggest that the programme is a complete success but to show that there are two mutually exclusive sides - Islam as represented by the Yemeni cleric and the Jihadis.

Anyone is free to argue that the jihadis represent the true Islam in it's original form and that the Cleric is wrong but one thing no-one can (logically) argue is that the Cleric and the Jihadis are in agreement. One of them is wrong and one of them at least, has deviated from the path of Islam.

It really depends which side you are on. The Clerics, the Jihadis or those who ignore all this and say they are both the same.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Parlez vous anglais ?

Isnt that what i said ? there is no official translation. it's in the same language asit was written 1600 years ago. Thats a fact. thanks for reiterating my point.

You didn't get my point. What a surprise.

Now my opinion on that fact:
Thats part of the problem. Leave it open for interpretation, thats all well and good. Now the result of doing that are the islamic-terrorist groups all over the place. benefit anyone ? no. time to have the text brought(translated) into the 21st century ? i think it's high time. Whether or not Islam/muslim world has the means of doing so, is not my concern (or anyone elses for that matter). it's upto you to at least atemt to prevent such radical interpretations.

How do you "translate" the text into the 21st century.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

1. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what do you mean "different choice of words"?
2. To paraphrase Justice Potter, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."
3. Never said that. However, I would argue that sometimes not actively opposing something is similar to supporting it in the end result. Does that make sense?

1. It might not have been your point but don't you see the difference between saying "not all Muslims" and for example "a (small) minority of Muslims"?

2. Which is always convenient because by using that definition you are able to turn a blind eye to acts of terror that doesn't suit your argument.

3. You might not, but many using your exact argument do. And have you tried to find out how Muslims oppose terrorism? Or do you wait for it to appear on the (Western) 6 'clock news?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Aw man, and I was Googling all over about the Greeks and self identity.

But to debate I would say that the concept of self-identity, though perhaps not foreign to Islam is not the same concept as we in the West perceive it as. IMO, and of course this comes from observations from the outside, Islam is less about individual thoughts and practices and more about collective thoughts and practices.

Which is exactly the problem with Western and OBL way of understanding Islam. That's the real problem Muslims today face. The West believes OBL's version of Islam is the true Islam.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Hawkeye_a and segovius for excellent posts.

But on topic, I can't add much. I do not know the Koran verse by verse. I would think it would be much more interesting to know what the AQ prisoners and the Yemen judge debated about. I would say that is the crux of the matter. What is it that AQ members use in the Koran (or wherever) to justify their actions? and how is that misunderstanding of the Koran made.

The extremists base most of their "thought" on the hadiths. Then they also lack the understanding necessary of the Quran (time of revelation and context and etc).

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

bring the Quaran and Islam into the 21st century. translate it. who ?

Again, how?

Weyland-Yutan:
it is my opinion that the concept of "Jihad" is behind that, and that needs to be seriously addressed by the muslim community.(but nothing has been said/done about it "officially")

It's very clear what Jihad is. The only ones failing to understand it are you (Westerners) and OBL.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

1. It might not have been your point but don't you see the difference between saying "not all Muslims" and for example "a (small) minority of Muslims"?

2. Which is always convenient because by using that definition you are able to turn a blind eye to acts of terror that doesn't suit your argument.

3. You might not, but many using your exact argument do. And have you tried to find out how Muslims oppose terrorism? Or do you wait for it to appear on the (Western) 6 'clock news?

1. No offense meant, if you took it that way.
2. I was being facetious and little lazy to come up with a definition on the stop, hence the
3. Again, I don't see a large uprising of Muslims in the U.S. (where I live) or where ever that actively work against the people who are subverting Islam. Sure there are numerous statements issued, but actions speak louder than words a lot of the time.

In the end, what's the point of this? Right now, people are bad things in the name of Islam. Does it matter that you or anyone else say that they are not true Muslims? In the U.S., KKK members feel that they are Christian. However, most Christians don't give the KKK the time of the day.

I'm not trying to disrepect you or your religion. I just don't get it.

One question for you, though. How long have you been Muslim? Were you born into it or converted? Just curious.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

1. No offense meant, if you took it that way.
2. I was being facetious and little lazy to come up with a definition on the stop, hence the
3. Again, I don't see a large uprising of Muslims in the U.S. (where I live) or where ever that actively work against the people who are subverting Islam. Sure there are numerous statements issued, but actions speak louder than words a lot of the time.

1.
2. Which is a problem when debating these things.
3. What actions would you like to see?

In the end, what's the point of this? Right now, people are bad things in the name of Islam. Does it matter that you or anyone else say that they are not true Muslims? In the U.S., KKK members feel that they are Christian. However, most Christians don't give the KKK the time of the day.

It does matter because all Muslims are victims of this hate campaign. Every single Muslim is a target. That's why it matters that people understand that OBL is not a true follower of Islam. His version of Islam is not remotely close to being the true Islam.

I'm not trying to disrepect you or your religion. I just don't get it.

You are just one of many in that.

One question for you, though. How long have you been Muslim? Were you born into it or converted? Just curious.

Revert.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The extremists base most of their "thought" on the hadiths. Then they also lack the understanding necessary of the Quran (time of revelation and context and etc).

You are saying they are just stupid bastards who don't know what they are talking about. OK fine. You're probably right, but what are they misunderstanding and misinterpreting? The Koran and hadiths must be quite ambiguos and dangerous if they can be misunderstood that bad, no?

Like the Christian heretics are misunderstanding the Bible the Muslim Islamics are misunderstanding the Koran. The reason is the lack of a central authority of the text. There is no caretaker and no interpreter. This results in heretics bombing abortion clinics and Muslims bombing trains and Catholics doing nothing of the sort. Literal evengelical preaching seems to breed extrimism and literal interpretation of the text and thus personal interpretation.

The Church fought back against heresy in the beginning of last millennium with the Inquisition and succeeded. Islam could do well with something similar.

cheers

W-Y

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

You are saying they are just stupid bastards who don't know what they are talking about. OK fine. You're probably right, but what are they misunderstanding and misinterpreting? The Koran and hadiths must be quite ambiguos and dangerous if they can be misunderstood that bad, no?

Hadiths without understanding the Quran, yes. Lack of understanding will make any text dangerous.

Like the Christian heretics are misunderstanding the Bible the Muslim Islamics are misunderstanding the Koran. The reason is the lack of a central authority of the text. There is no caretaker and no interpreter.

The Quran (in Arabic) hasn't changed since it was first written down. Can you say the same about the Bible? Unfortunately not. There shouldn't be any "Church" in the spiritual bond between human and God. Which is why the Quran tells us to seek knowledge. Knowledge to understand the message he has sent down in history.

This results in heretics bombing abortion clinics and Muslims bombing trains and Catholics doing nothing of the sort. Literal evengelical preaching seems to breed extrimism and literal interpretation of the text and thus personal interpretation.

Forgotten IRA? They were Catholics and were one of the more active and dangerous terrorist organisations in recent history. Oh, you just forgot to add the disclaimer "in the name of the religion".......

The Church fought back against heresy in the beginning of last millennium with the Inquisition and succeeded. Islam could do well with something similar.

Islam doesn't teach us to kill innocent people who don't believe in Islam. So an Inquisition is not what is needed.