Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Islam >> Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1233881017

Message started by mozzaok on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:43am

Title: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by mozzaok on Feb 6th, 2009 at 10:43am
We see the majority of non-muslims expressing concern about Islam having a negative impact on our world, with some even believing that a violent confrontation, or even full scale war, between Islam, and the western world, as being inevitable.

These doomsayers use the behaviour of Islamist extremists to illustrate how Islamic teachings are forcing muslims down this path toward confrontation, by citing phrases about Jihad, and Dhimmitude, for non-muslims.

They also speak of Taqiyya, the practise of dissimulation, or deceit of non-muslims by muslims, to illustrate the unreliability of muslim claims of being a peaceful religion, or for more fully understanding much of the Islamic teachings that non-muslims interpret as being aggressive and war like, and even about the claimed goal of total world domination by Islam.

In reply to these accusations, we invariably hear muslims protest that the non-muslims have misinterpreted the religious texts, or taken them out of context, or that they are mistranslations, so who do we believe, and is there any way to get definitive answers to these questions from Islamic scholars?

This is the great sticking point, for even amongst Islamic scholars, there is disagreement in regard to interpreting just what any particular Islamic text actually says, and ultimately means.

We see muslims referring to bible passages to illustrate the hypocrisy of christian critics of Islam, by highlighting distasteful ideals, that are found in the Koran, that are also mirrored in the bible.

The great distinction that Islamic teachers refuse to accept is that very few christians treat the bible as a literal instruction manual, that must be followed word for word, but they expect muslims to follow the koran in just such a way.

Now if the muslims are supposed to follow the koran literally, then we have the problem of interpretation, again rear it's ugly head, because the exact same text that an Islamist will read to mean that cutting off the head of an infidel, and posting it on al-jazeera, is a blessed act, condoned by god, will be interpreted by another muslim to mean something completely different.

In fact the contradictory nature of some texts, where in one part it seems to promote, or condone one thing, but in another section, that same action is denounced, leads to this unreliability about just how to correctly interpret Islamic teachings, if any one can work out just how to do that, then we may be able to finally see a more positive version of Islam, come to light.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by soren on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:33pm
We may have a problem of interpretation, they don't. Well, they are fighting it.
But the textual and comparative analysis of the koran and the hadiths have started, notably by non-muslim arabists, philologists and linguists as well as non arab muslims - see Prof. Muhammad Kalisch (trust the germans, with due respect - they destroyed the Roman empire, the Catholic Church, the British Empire and now Islam, by the looks of it.)

Once interpretation takes root, islam will collapse and will survive only in an unrecognisable form, if at all. After insisting for 1400 years that it is the unalterable word of good and that the koran actually exists in heaven, you don't have any wiggle room.


Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by mozzaok on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:54pm
Yes, I know you are right Soren, but I have seen how easily Christians pick and mix whatever they want to believe about the bible, and I am hoping that muslims can do the same.
After all, it is all make believe anyway, so what difference does it really make?

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:21pm

Quote:
They also speak of Taqiyya, the practise of dissimulation, or deceit of non-muslims by muslims, to illustrate the unreliability of muslim claims of being a peaceful religion, or for more fully understanding much of the Islamic teachings that non-muslims interpret as being aggressive and war like, and even about the claimed goal of total world domination by Islam.


My stance would be that Islam is somewhere in between these two claims.

Islam is neither absolutely peaceful, nor is it warmongering. It prefers peace, and calls all nations to be peaceful, but it leaves open the capacity to defend and use force when necessary. It is a well balanced attitude to war and peace, which is only logical that all human beings would need. People prefer to live in peace and strive to, but on the same token, they can't lay down like doormats and let people walk all over them and oppress and attack them as they please.

Until the West come to terms with this reality, and recognise the legitimate right of Muslims to defend themselves, then they will just continue to misunderstand Islam and promote extremist views one way or the other.

The stupidity of the 'warmongering' claims can be understood by examining their absolutist ultimatums that Islam either be all peaceful or all warmongering. They then go on to claim the peaceful verses are abrogated, and only the warmongering ones remain etc. It's all nonsense, Islam, like pretty much every other ideology on earth, strives for peace amongst humanity, but will not lay down and accept being a punching bag for anyone.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:30pm

Quote:
Islam is neither absolutely peaceful, nor is it warmongering. It prefers peace, and calls all nations to be peaceful, but it leaves open the capacity to defend and use force when necessary. It is a well balanced attitude to war and peace


Like when they had to defend themselves from the Spaniards?

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by soren on Feb 6th, 2009 at 8:10pm

mozzaok wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:54pm:
Yes, I know you are right Soren, but I have seen how easily Christians pick and mix whatever they want to believe about the bible, and I am hoping that muslims can do the same.
After all, it is all make believe anyway, so what difference does it really make?



I don't think that it is all make believe in the sense that there is no difference between, say, Bonhoffer and a woodoo or aztec priest. There is, and a very important difference it is.

I think that people organise their societies along the lines of how they imagine the nature of the world and themselves in it as an ethical question of the first order (god and man, if you like, to speak the language of an earlier age.)

There is all the difference between religions, beliefs, doctrines as regards the nature of the relationship between human beings. This matters enormously and it is NOT true that one is as good as the next or that they are all make belief.

We must act and interact, so how we grasp the I-thou relationship is of utmost significance. Some are productive, heartening; others destructive, stifling. The difference matters.






Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 6th, 2009 at 9:37pm
I must admit I could never get my head around the Islamic duality of fate and personal responsibility, especially when it comes to people under stress. It seems inevitable that some people considering doing the wrong thing would resign themselves to their fate, and that this psuchological resignation would be a barrier to them coming to their senses, or making the psycholigcally tougher choice to take the moral high ground. It makes personal responsiblity a technical, abstract concept that appears and disappears depending on how you look at it. Once people have decided on the moral low ground, it puts them in a position where they see the moral high ground as going against their fate and against God's will.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Calanen on Feb 6th, 2009 at 11:17pm

mozzaok wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:54pm:
Yes, I know you are right Soren, but I have seen how easily Christians pick and mix whatever they want to believe about the bible, and I am hoping that muslims can do the same.
After all, it is all make believe anyway, so what difference does it really make?


Because in Islam, unlike Christianity, all the beliefs were settled as doctrine a long time ago. They are considered, beyond dispute. So there is no possibility of reformation. Certain Islamic scholars are preferred, and there is no room for debate.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by mozzaok on Feb 7th, 2009 at 10:36am
Well galileo didn't find much room for debate, the christian ideas of the time were pretty fixed, but as humans evolved, they rejected some of the insanities of their religion, just because doing so improved their lives.

Why should we think muslims cannot do the same?

Sure as it stands now, it is as appealing as the spanish inquisition, but let's help them get past that, not box them into it for all time.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by helian on Feb 7th, 2009 at 11:21am

Calanen wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 11:17pm:

mozzaok wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 6:54pm:
Yes, I know you are right Soren, but I have seen how easily Christians pick and mix whatever they want to believe about the bible, and I am hoping that muslims can do the same.
After all, it is all make believe anyway, so what difference does it really make?


Because in Islam, unlike Christianity, all the beliefs were settled as doctrine a long time ago. They are considered, beyond dispute. So there is no possibility of reformation. Certain Islamic scholars are preferred, and there is no room for debate.

Now all you have to do is concoct an explanation for the historical actions and attitude of the Church towards perpetrators of the crime of heresy manifesting, for example, as the Inquisition and the doctrine of excommunication for heretical beliefs.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Calanen on Feb 7th, 2009 at 12:10pm

Quote:
Now all you have to do is concoct an explanation for the historical actions and attitude of the Church towards perpetrators of the crime of heresy manifesting, for example, as the Inquisition and the doctrine of excommunication for heretical beliefs.


We moved on. Islam doesn't.

More people died in the one day of the WTC attacks, than the entirety of the Spanish Inquisition.

Something to think about.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 7th, 2009 at 3:01pm

Quote:
Sure as it stands now, it is as appealing as the spanish inquisition, but let's help them get past that, not box them into it for all time.


Mozz no-one else is boxing them in. They are doing it to themselves.


Quote:
and the doctrine of excommunication for heretical beliefs


Why is it that you chose that particular issue to make your point?

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 8th, 2009 at 10:29am

Quote:
More people died in the one day of the WTC attacks, than the entirety of the Spanish Inquisition.


I think it'd be more reasonable to compare the WTC attacks with the crusades, not with the inquisition.

Let's do some comparisons shall we?

The Crusades began in the late 11th. century. On the way to the first Crusade, before even leaving Germany, German crusaders killed 2-3 times as many Jews as people were killed in WTC.

How many people in the WTC were eaten by those big bad nasty evil Muslims? Answer: None. Crusaders however, after besieging the town of Ma'arra and slaughtering about 20,000 odd civilians (what's that?? about 6 or 7 WTC's??) went on to eat the bodies of the dead. Some chroniclers reported out of hunger, others reported out of a desire to strike fear and terror into the hearts of the 'saracens'.

In 1098, the city of Antakya was taken by the Crusaders, over 100,000 Muslims perished. That's about 30 odd WTC's??

After arriving in al-Quds the Crusaders slaughtered over 70,000 Muslims, and on top of that all the Jews and most of their fellow Christians of the city. There's a good 25 WTC's for you.

Richard the Mouseheart, whom you seem to admire and respect massacred over 3,000 Muslim POW's, there's another WTC for you.

Now let's look at the 'internal' crusades, ie. Christians crusading against their fellow Christians...

The Albigensian Crusade resulted in the deaths of up to 1,000,000 Christians by many accounts. In one city alone, Beziers, up to 100,000 Cathars were massacred by their fellow Christians. So about 30 WTC's in just one city. And all up about 300 WTC's for that entire Crusade... not bad for an internal crusade I must say.

Btw, the Albigensian Crusade was the precursor to the Inquisition, the Crusade against the Cathars ended by forming the Inquisition, so you could pretty much count those 1,000,000 Cathars murdered in the initial 'military' aspect of the Inquisition (ie. the Albigensian Crusade) as being part of the Inquisition. Also some historians cite figures as high as 300,000 just for the Inquisition, the Catholic Church though does claim only 2000.

And the Protestants weren't much better. The witchhunts were the Protestant equivalent of the Internal Crusades/Inquisitions, in which some historians report up to 500,000 people were burned alive after being accused of witchery. In Europe as a total, some historians report up to 10,000,000. So all up close to about 3,000 WTC's.

After taking al-Andalus from the Muslims, the Christians bringing their englightened civilised ways to the Iberian peninsula set about causing a few 'WTCs' worth of damage to the Jews, Muslims and non-Catholic Christians. In Lisbon for instance in 1506, 3,000 Jews massacred, nice little WTC right there.

The list goes on and on, and the few isolated and desperate revenge attacks of a few scattered Muslims here and there cannot even hope to be compared to the massive scale of death and wanton destruction that Christians have caused all throughout their history. If anyone deserves your sarcastic "religion of peace" label it is Christianity. The religion that claims "turn the other cheek" but which in reality has killed millions upon millions of people down through the ages, and forced millions more to convert at the threat of death. Yet all we hear about is the last 5 minutes of the story,, of a few Muslims, who after years of colonialism, oppression, pillaging of their land and resources, constant and enduring political interference in their countries, finally say "enough is enough" and begin resisting, and you instantly claim it's the most evil brutal ideology on earth. Please put it into context, look at the history, and look at the quite obvious motives involved here.

Nothing can justify the deaths of innocent civilians, and Islam most certainly doesn't, it is striclty HARAAM (forbidden), but in reality, when you look at how many Muslim civilians the Christian world has killed, from the Crusades till now, the meagre Islamic response is really nothing. Neither side really has justification for doing it, but if anyone is really in need of justification, it would have to be the Christian West, since they've been the most brutal killers of Muslims civilians for close to a millenium now.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by helian on Feb 8th, 2009 at 10:32am

freediver wrote on Feb 7th, 2009 at 3:01pm:
Why is it that you chose that particular issue to make your point?

Because Christianity has not moved on. All the texts are exactly as they were at least 1500 years ago. Adherence to them waxes and wanes over centuries depending on the attitudes of the faithful. The current Pope (and his predecessor) is proceeding towards a conservative (and perhaps ultra-conservative) Church. If the détente sought with Orthodox and Protestant denominations results in their return to the Holy See and if the rate of lapse seen over the last few decades reverses, the world will see a Church once more passing censorious judgments on unsanctioned individual liberties and heterodoxy.

Most significantly, a revitalised and strong Church would see it standing as a formidable force against Islam.

And one that Islam instinctively respects and comprehends.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Yadda on Feb 8th, 2009 at 12:18pm

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 6th, 2009 at 7:21pm:
......Islam is neither absolutely peaceful, nor is it warmongering. It prefers peace, and calls all nations to be peaceful, but it leaves open the capacity to defend and use force when necessary. It is a well balanced attitude to war and peace, which is only logical that all human beings would need. People prefer to live in peace and strive to, but on the same token, they can't lay down like doormats and let people walk all over them and oppress and attack them as they please.






".......[ISLAM] calls [on] all nations to be 'peaceful',"



You should 1st understand, how ISLAM defines 'Peace'.

ISLAM defines 'Peace', as submission to Allah / ISLAM.

To all devout muslims, so long a 'unbelief' remains in the world, there can be no 'Peace' with 'unbelievers'.




The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh is the ISLAMIC equivalent of 'The Archbishop of Canterbury' in Saudi Arabia,
.....here he explains how all mankind can achieve peace with ISLAM.....

All 'unbelieving' nations must surrender to ISLAM!

"ISLAM IS INDOCTRINATED SUPREMACISM"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1226363739/0#0








FURTHER......

N.B. ....FROM AN ISLAMIC SITE,

A renowned ISLAMIC 'philosopher' here explains how muslims are to conduct themselves in their co-existance with non-muslim societies.....


"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"
by SAYYID QUTB
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html

Sayyid Qutb, was a renowned ISLAMIC 'philosopher', who was executed in Egypt [1966] for encouraging an ISLAMIC revolt against the Egyptian govt.

Jahiliyya = = an un-ISLAMIC lifestyle.


"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society






Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Grendel on Feb 8th, 2009 at 12:55pm
ROTFLMAO

back to the Crusades again...  :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 8th, 2009 at 1:04pm

Quote:
Yet all we hear about is the last 5 minutes of the story,, of a few Muslims, who after years of colonialism, oppression, pillaging of their land and resources, constant and enduring political interference in their countries, finally say "enough is enough" and begin resisting


Like the spoilt little white boys who blew up the London busses after converting to Islam? Oh that's right, they didn't suffer at all, they just wanted to be part of the action. Is 'resisting' your new euphemism for people who have no part in the conflict blowing up busses to try to spread the conflict?


Quote:
and you instantly claim it's the most evil brutal ideology on earth


No-one is saying that. most people will concede that Islam is better than Nazism for example. You make a reasonable case that it is better than burning witches at the stake and all the other crazy poo people used to do. What I don't get is why you bother to make these arguments when you know that if the same comaprison is made to modern society, Islam comes up short. You are not putting it into context, you are taking it out of context. You are trying to justify Islam's refusal to modernise by comparing it with every evil thing done in the past. The west used the evil things done in the past to avoid repeating the mistakes in the future. Islam seems to use them as a reason to repeat the mistakes of the past. It uses one ancient mistake to justify another.


Quote:
Because Christianity has not moved on. All the texts are exactly as they were at least 1500 years ago. Adherence to them waxes and wanes over centuries depending on the attitudes of the faithful. The current Pope (and his predecessor) is proceeding towards a conservative (and perhaps ultra-conservative) Church. If the détente sought with Orthodox and Protestant denominations results in their return to the Holy See and if the rate of lapse seen over the last few decades reverses, the world will see a Church once more passing censorious judgments on unsanctioned individual liberties and heterodoxy.


What does that have to do with excommunication?

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by helian on Feb 8th, 2009 at 4:06pm

freediver wrote on Feb 8th, 2009 at 1:04pm:
What does that have to do with excommunication?

Because with Christianity, like Islam, the doctrine has been settled long ago and the penalty for dissent against orthodoxy remains excommunication. If Christianity ever regains its socio-political status, you can expect that clerics will once again pronounce harsh judgement on dissenters using the same doctrine as was used 1000 years ago.



Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 8th, 2009 at 4:13pm

Quote:
Because with Christianity, like Islam, the doctrine has been settled long ago and the penalty for dissent against orthodoxy remains excommunication.


Who cares? Just start your own church if you think you ahve a better interpretation.


Quote:
If Christianity ever regains its socio-political status, you can expect that clerics will once again pronounce harsh judgement on dissenters using the same doctrine as was used 1000 years ago.


That is a problem with the fusion of church and state. The solution to that is separation of church and state, not interference in what are the legitimate interests of the church. You sound like you are using fear of the re-fusion of church and state to justify the state meddling in church affairs.

Excommunication is not a harsh doctrine. It is perhaps the most appropriate punishment a church can use. It's like not feeding trolls.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by soren on Feb 8th, 2009 at 6:03pm

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHGOl-jfUK0


Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by helian on Feb 8th, 2009 at 8:41pm

Soren wrote on Feb 8th, 2009 at 6:03pm:
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Oh, but we do....

Oh Yes...

We do.


Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 8th, 2009 at 9:22pm
Mr Rotflmao,


Quote:
back to the Crusades again...


I take it that since Calanen was the one who tried to compare past Christian atrocities to alleged Islamic ones that this comment is directed at him.

Freediver,



Quote:
Like the spoilt little white boys who blew up the London busses after converting to Islam?


Which spoilt little white boys exactly?? Can you give some more information on this..


Quote:
No-one is saying that. most people will concede that Islam is better than Nazism for example.


Firstly quite a few people here have claimed that Islam is the same as Nazism.

Secondly, the fact you consider it 'better' than Nazism, presumably by a narrow margin is still quite troubling.


Quote:
What I don't get is why you bother to make these arguments when you know that if the same comaprison is made to modern society, Islam comes up short


The thing is I didn't use them as arguments for anything. I merely used them to show that Calanen's feeble comparison to the Inquisition is a little historically dishonest.


Quote:
You are not putting it into context, you are taking it out of context. You are trying to justify Islam's refusal to modernise by comparing it with every evil thing done in the past.


What exactly do you mean by modernising? Do you think Muslims prefer to travel by camel than cars or something? If you mean adopting immoral social practises etc. then that's right, Islam is refusing to 'modernise' and will continue to do so.

I personally consider Islam to be the moderate 'middle road'. It was neither excessively restrictive in the past when Christianity was. Neither is it extremely liberal today when Christianity has become so. It has been a consistent and moderate path in between the two which need not change, because it doesn't exist at either extreme. The Christian world however went from one extreme to the other. So in the past Christians attacked Islam for being too liberal, and today they attack it for being too conservative. This is in fact vindication of Islam's moderate nature and middle path status for me. Christian European culture is in fact the extremist culture.


Quote:
Islam seems to use them as a reason to repeat the mistakes of the past. It uses one ancient mistake to justify another.


But you're forgetting something. Islam didn't make those mistakes, Christian Europe did. There's no lesson for us to learn, because we weren't the ones burning witches alive by the millions, you guys were. And neither does Islam do anything even remotely comparable to that today. There's simply some Muslims involved in independance/resistance struggles (against the Christian/European extremists), as people have been involved in independance/resistace struggles at many times throughout history. The only difference is, you've somehow been deluded into believing those resistance actions are somehow even remotely comparable to the vast sea of evil atrocities Christian Europe committed throughout her history... They don't compare, and they're not even remotely related phenomena.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 8th, 2009 at 9:43pm

Quote:
Firstly quite a few people here have claimed that Islam is the same as Nazism.


Well I think it is slightly better than Nazism, hence this thread:

Islam: not as bad as Nazism

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227073485


Quote:
Secondly, the fact you consider it 'better' than Nazism, presumably by a narrow margin is still quite troubling.


The fact that you persistently compare it to burning witches at the stake etc, as if that is supposed to make it look good, is troubling.


Quote:
What exactly do you mean by modernising? Do you think Muslims prefer to travel by camel than cars or something? If you mean adopting immoral social practises etc. then that's right, Islam is refusing to 'modernise' and will continue to do so.


Modernising: not stoning women to death, not overthrowing democratically elected governments to install an Islamic dictatorship, not killing apostates etc. Take your pick.


Quote:
The Christian world however went from one extreme to the other.


No it didn't. It ceased being a 'Christian' world.


Quote:
So in the past Christians attacked Islam for being too liberal


So invading Spain was a liberal idea?


Quote:
But you're forgetting something. Islam didn't make those mistakes, Christian Europe did.


Islam is still making the mistakes today that Christian Europe has consigned to history.


Quote:
The only difference is, you've somehow been deluded into believing those resistance actions are somehow even remotely comparable to the vast sea of evil atrocities Christian Europe committed throughout her history...


Duh. Of course they are remote. They are in the pages of history. Bali, 9/11, the London bombings, Benbrika etc, these are not remote. These are unfolding today. These are problems we still have. Trust me, if Christians were still burning witches at the stake I would get on your pedestal with you to decry them. But they aren't, and you just use the past acts that are not supported today to justify the barbarism that you do support.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Calanen on Feb 8th, 2009 at 9:57pm

Quote:
Neither side really has justification for doing it, but if anyone is really in need of justification, it would have to be the Christian West, since they've been the most brutal killers of Muslims civilians for close to a millenium now.


Not brutal enough.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Calanen on Feb 8th, 2009 at 10:07pm

Quote:
I take it that since Calanen was the one who tried to compare past Christian atrocities to alleged Islamic ones that this comment is directed at him.


Helian brought up the Inquisition.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 8th, 2009 at 11:04pm

Quote:
Well I think it is slightly better than Nazism
(emphasis added)

Precisely. You put it in much the same category, even though it's never exhibited anything like the extreme inhumanity of Nazism, albeit on a slightly different rung of the same ladder.


Quote:
The fact that you persistently compare it to burning witches at the stake etc, as if that is supposed to make it look good, is troubling.


As already stated, I did not.


Quote:
Modernising: not stoning women to death


Islam no more stones *women* to death than it stones tall people or people with skin disorders to death. who just happen to be adulterers. Anyway this is an issue of death penalty, many countries you probably consider 'modern' today have the death penalty. If you opposed it on those grounds, I could perhaps see your point, but just saying "we think that crimes not worth the death penalty whilst these crimes are" is just hypocrisy.


Quote:
not overthrowing democratically elected governments to install a friendly* dictatorship
(*irrelevant term replaced)

Your 'modern' countries are the largest perpetrator of this kind of activity in the history of mankind, what a laugh... you'd be a funny fellow fd if your ideas weren't bordering on xenophobic hysteria.


Quote:
not killing apostates etc


As has been mentioned above, death penalty is the issue you should be discussing. Also treason (which is what apostasy is according to Islam) *IS* a capital offence in many 'modern' states.


Quote:
No it didn't. It ceased being a 'Christian' world


It's still the Christian world, they're just not as good Christians anymore.


Quote:
So invading Spain was a liberal idea?


Confusing foreign policy with liberalism is pretty disingenious.

Is the U.S.A not a liberal society, because it's invaded a whole swath of countries over the past century and continues to occupy quite a few of them?


Quote:
Islam is still making the mistakes today that Christian Europe has consigned to history


Islam never made those mistakes, and is certainly not making them today. and you well know it.

You've just been duped into thinking the WTC attacks were the most evil horrific events ever to occur in the history of mankind.


Quote:
Duh. Of course they are remote. They are in the pages of history. Bali, 9/11, the London bombings, Benbrika etc, these are not remote. These are unfolding today.


But they're nothing like the Inquisition, Crusades, Witchhunts etc. whatsoever.


Quote:
But they aren't, and you just use the past acts that are not supported today to justify the barbarism that you do support.


I do no such thing. I don't think it's possible to compare the two, as they are so dissimilar, both in proportion, motive, outcome etc. that comparing them would be a joke.

I do however think it's a good idea for you to sit down and rationally and objectively compare the historical behaviour of Islam to the historical behaviour of the Christian-West, and then compare them today, you'll find in both cases, Islam to be far less extreme, violent and aggressive than the Christian-West. If you're incapable of doing it solo, then we can go through it together and compare them.

What you continually do is compare historical Islam with modern day Christianity (this has gotta be the most disproportional and out of context comparison I've ever seen made) by claiming Islam is a violent doctrine based on it's historical implementation (conjecturing that any future implementation would have to be the same, when it's obvious fact a lot of it was due to the historical aggressiveness of Christianity and other civilisations), and then comparing it to Christianity which is so peaceful, benevolent or even downright impotent in the present age. Whilst making such blatant errors in your analysis of Islam, you will not be able to make clear and honest judgements about it.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 9th, 2009 at 9:33am

Quote:
Precisely. You put it in much the same category, even though it's never exhibited anything like the extreme inhumanity of Nazism, albeit on a slightly different rung of the same ladder.


You frequently compare Islam to Nazism, burning witches etc. You put this idea in my head with your constant comparisons.


Quote:
Islam no more stones *women* to death than it stones tall people or people with skin disorders to death. who just happen to be adulterers. Anyway this is an issue of death penalty, many countries you probably consider 'modern' today have the death penalty.


I think there is a significant difference between stoning women to death and the death penalty. For example, it would be uncopnstitutional in the US as a 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Yes I do oppose the death penalty, but this is far more barbaric. Islam calls for members of the public to join in with the stoning. It demands that the death be slow and brutal to maximise the suffering. Also, I'm not a big fan of 'an eye for an eye' but this goes beyond that. Death for adultery is just absurd.


Quote:
If you opposed it on those grounds, I could perhaps see your point, but just saying "we think that crimes not worth the death penalty whilst these crimes are" is just hypocrisy.


It is not just the poor match between the punishment and the crime, it is they way Islam draws out the death to make it as cruel as possible.


Quote:
Your 'modern' countries are the largest perpetrator of this kind of activity


Is that supposed to make it OK to make a religion out of destroying democracy? I see these things as mistakes. You see them as God's will.


Quote:
As has been mentioned above, death penalty is the issue you should be discussing.


It is not for you to decide what I should discuss. Any punishment for apostasy is wrong. The fact that Islam calls for death just adds to the barbarity. I believe in freedom of religion. To me this is a more important issue than whether a country has the death penalty. So don't try to box me in and tell me what grounds I can criticise Islam on.


Quote:
Also treason (which is what apostasy is according to Islam) *IS* a capital offence in many 'modern' states.


Thanks, I had been wondering about that distinction. I see there is none.


Quote:
You've just been duped into thinking the WTC attacks were the most evil horrific events ever to occur in the history of mankind.


No I haven't.


Quote:
I do however think it's a good idea for you to sit down and rationally and objectively compare the historical behaviour of Islam to the historical behaviour of the Christian-West


Why? How would knowing all the details of our sordid history make me more accepting of someone who wants to treturn us to the dark ages? You seem to keep missing the point completely. I do not criticise Islam because of what happened 1000 years ago. I criticise Islam because of the ideology that you espouse today.


Quote:
and then compare them today, you'll find in both cases, Islam to be far less extreme, violent and aggressive than the Christian-West


I honestly do not understand why you think it benefits Islam to compare it with burning witches etc. I do not face a choice between Islam and the dark ages. I face a choice between Islam and the modern world. So do you. You are the one choosing barbarity, not me. The fact that islam might have been slightly less barbaric than neighbouring countries 1400 years ago is irrelevant to that choice. It would only make sense to consider it in its historical context if you were willling to leave it in its historical context. This is not about which past empire was the greatest. This is about the choices we make to day and the ideologies we adopt today. I choose democracy, freedom etc. You choose stoning people to death.


Quote:
What you continually do is compare historical Islam with modern day Christianity


I do no such thing. That is why I constantly ask you what Islamic ideology actually is. You just decided to refuse to answer, that's all. You deflect to history when I ask about the timeless aspects of Islam. Nor do I compare it with Christianity. It is the political aspects of Islam that concern me, so I compare timeless Islam to modern political movements, because that's the choice we have. I couldn't give a stuff how many times a day each religion expects you to pray. I try pretty hard to get you to discuss Islam in a modern context. You take every opportunity to deflect to history or anything else.


Quote:
by claiming Islam is a violent doctrine based on it's historical implementation


No Abu, I claim it is a violent doctrine because you think it is a good idea to stone women to death.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Calanen on Feb 9th, 2009 at 9:38am

Quote:
It is the political aspects of Islam that concern me, so I compare timeless Islam to modern political movements, because that's the choice we have.


The best way to think of Islam is as a political party that spans borders, and committed to gaining power through destruction, with all of the members of the political party being geared up from birth through indoctrination in madrassas and Islamic schools to think of one thing and one thing only:

your destruction, infidel.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 9th, 2009 at 10:05am

Btw fd I'm still interested in these "spoilt white kids" who supposedly blew up buses in London after converting to Islam, got any more information on them? did you overlook this request for clarification?

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Calanen on Feb 9th, 2009 at 10:26am

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 9th, 2009 at 10:05am:
Btw fd I'm still interested in these "spoilt white kids" who supposedly blew up buses in London after converting to Islam, got any more information on them? did you overlook this request for clarification?


None of the people convicted or involved were whiteys from recollection. There were I believe converts involved in other plots, but not the London tube bombing or the London Bus Bombing attempt.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 9th, 2009 at 7:42pm

Calanen, I'm well aware of that, freediver however does not seem to be. Like with most of his delusions about Islam, and yours, it's based on your own fantasy view of what you want to believe happened.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by mozzaok on Feb 10th, 2009 at 11:48am

Quote:
Until the West come to terms with this reality, and recognise the legitimate right of Muslims to defend themselves, then they will just continue to misunderstand Islam and promote extremist views one way or the other.
-Abu.

The interpretation, of this sentiment, "Muslim's right to defend themselves", is perhaps the most problematic, when it comes to people trying to legitimise the actions of Jihadists.
We see far too many muslims, interpreting any act of violence against any western society, as an act of defence, and this is clearly an irrational, and immoral response, to what they perceive as anti-muslim aggression, by some western powers.

What it really is doing, seemingly deliberately, is to increase the polarisation  muslims feel against the west, and vice versa.

Abu, when you identify the Palestinan conflict as "your" battle, because an Islamist regime is in control in the Gaza strip, even though the only commonality you share with them is your religion, you really are just reinforcing the belief in the "Us against Them", mentality, between muslims and the west, which is only going to prolong all these conflicts.
Only when we stop categorising who, and what, is right, along religious lines, and actually examine the ethical and moral choices made by each side, and fairly attributing responsibility for peoples' behaviours in that manner, will we be in the position to make them feel they are accountable to behave ethically, even by those who share a religious, or ideological philosophy.

This abrogation of guilt, by demonising their opposition, must cease, no matter if it be the US government, or Israel, or Hamas, or Al Quaeda, if they perpetrate immoral acts, all people of good faith should condemn them, openly and vocally, and when they start to feel that pressure from all people, of all faiths, will they then be marginalised to the point where they may moderate their actions to the point where peaceful dialogue can begin, rather than tit for tat violence, subjected on innocent civilians.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by soren on Feb 10th, 2009 at 1:03pm

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 8th, 2009 at 9:22pm:
But you're forgetting something. Islam didn't make those mistakes, Christian Europe did. There's no lesson for us to learn, because we weren't the ones burning witches alive by the millions, you guys were.



'by the million' is amassive exaggeration.Thankfully, Europe has long moved on.

But in the home of Islam you can still be arrested for witchcraft and sentenced to a halal death by beheading.


The Times
February 16, 2008

King Abdullah urged to spare Saudi ‘witchcraft’ woman’s life
Sonia Verma in Dubai
A Saudi woman condemned to death for “witchcraft” is still clinging to hope that King Abdullah will spare her life after Human Rights Watch appealed her sentence.

Fawzi Falih faces imminent beheading for sorcery unless the King issues a rare pardon.


Quote:
And neither does Islam do anything even remotely comparable to that today. There's simply some Muslims involved in independance/resistance struggles (against the Christian/European extremists), as people have been involved in independance/resistace struggles at many times throughout history.


What's the death toll in Darfur? Arabs resisting africans by murdering them. In Thailand? Iraq and Afghanistan, where the muslims are deliberately killing their co-religionists. Algeria? Hamas/fatah gang warfare? Pakistan.
Muslims resisting muslims. By killing them.
All together now.

People,
People who kill people
Are the luckiest people in the world

(Thanks, Barbs.)




Quote:
The only difference is, you've somehow been deluded into believing those resistance actions are somehow even remotely comparable to the vast sea of evil atrocities Christian Europe committed throughout her history... They don't compare, and they're not even remotely related phenomena.


Resistance actions, eh? Sounds like 'martyrdom operations'.

'Sea of evil' - ask an indian what he thinks about the muslim conquest of India. Islamic history is NOT the story of a bunch of woolly lambs persecuted by the big bad Wolfowitzes and Christiansens, so please don't insult us with nonsense.
Tha barbarians are still in charge in Muslim lands but not in Europe or the West generally - if a comparison is to be made today.







Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 10th, 2009 at 1:06pm
;D ;D ;D

So Abu constantly defends Islam by criticising Europe for doing this a thousand years ago, meanwhile it is still happening in the middle east.

Where are the Muslims taking to the streets to defend a woman's right to practice witchcraft?

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by mozzaok on Feb 10th, 2009 at 6:36pm
Actually, Abu points out atrocities done in the name of christianity.

Admittedly, the most ridiculous comparisons are those, like FD points out, of christian beliefs, carried out a thousand years ago.

However, when we heard the likes of GW Bush, openly stating his extreme Christian beliefs, helped guide his decision making, then that is a fair comparison to the extremist Jihadists, who also claim to have god, whispering in their ears.

I am sick of Christians, who seem to desire a conflict with Islam, pretending that they are 'Peaceful', while Muslims displaying similiar desires for conflict, are 'Violent'.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 10th, 2009 at 7:22pm
mozzaok,


Quote:
The interpretation, of this sentiment, "Muslim's right to defend themselves", is perhaps the most problematic, when it comes to people trying to legitimise the actions of Jihadists.


So what is your advice for people whose lands are under occupation by invasion forces? And whose homes are constantly being encroached upon by hostiles?? Sit tight, pack your bags and get ready to be expelled/murdered? But make sure you wait for it peacefully?

If you were a resident of Palestine what would you do mozza? How would you deal with an occupationist entity that daily usurps more of your land and demolishes homes etc??? It's all nice and good to sit back in your comfy home in Australia and offer advice that's completely detached from their situation, put yourself in their situation, and re-evaluate it.


Quote:
We see far too many muslims, interpreting any act of violence against any western society, as an act of defence, and this is clearly an irrational, and immoral response, to what they perceive as anti-muslim aggression, by some western powers.


So why do you think they do it... because they hate your freedoms? I don't think even Bush believes that tripe. The fact is, when you oppress, attack, occupy, murder etc. people, they're gonna lash out and respond. It quite clearly is all defensive. And as I've pointed out before, if you actually compare the Western actions against Muslims, and the Muslims retaliation, yo'll find it's EXTREMELY disproportionate. The Muslims 'defence' is really quite tame compared to what they're suffering.


Quote:
Abu, when you identify the Palestinan conflict as "your" battle, because an Islamist regime is in control in the Gaza strip


This is a very wrong analysis of the situation mozzaok. My support for the Palestinians pre-dates the Hamas regime. My support is for the people, not for any government.


Quote:
even though the only commonality you share with them is your religion, you really are just reinforcing the belief in the "Us against Them", mentality


I can choose to support people based on any criteria I so choose. I choose those whom I have a strong spiritual bond with, and I consider that the best criteria. You might choose colour of skin, shared colonial history, similar socio-economic situation or any other criteria, that's up to you also.


Quote:
This abrogation of guilt, by demonising their opposition, must cease, no matter if it be the US government, or Israel, or Hamas, or Al Quaeda


The West demonise their opposition and use it to justify their atrocities, the Muslims do no such thing, they simply try their best to defend themselves against the atrocities of the West.


Quote:
if they perpetrate immoral acts, all people of good faith should condemn them


Committing violent acts to defend yourself is a lot different to doing it just so you can swipe someone's oil or home... I'm sure if you think about it objectively, you'd have to agree.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 10th, 2009 at 7:34pm

Quote:
So why do you think they do it... because they hate your freedoms?


You certainly seem to go to great lengths to portray personal freedom as a bad thing. You portray people who speak up for that freedom as being motivated primarily by the downside of that freedom, that is by the freedom to choose the wrong thing, as if men who defend a woman's right to choose what to wear only do so for a perv. you repeat this over and over again, while totally ignoring the fundamental issue of personal rights and freedoms.


Quote:
I don't think even Bush believes that tripe. The fact is, when you oppress, attack, occupy, murder etc. people, they're gonna lash out and respond. It quite clearly is all defensive.


You are confusing being aggrieved with defensive military tactics. Or maybe you are deliberately mixing them up. I'm sure Osama thought he had a good reason for 9/11, but to equate that with 9/11 being a defensive move is nothing short of absurd.


Quote:
This is a very wrong analysis of the situation mozzaok. My support for the Palestinians pre-dates the Hamas regime. My support is for the people, not for any government.


Yet you always talk about how wonderful it is that they voted in an Islamist regime that vowed to take on Israel.


Quote:
I can choose to support people based on any criteria I so choose. I choose those whom I have a strong spiritual bond with, and I consider that the best criteria.


I think basing your choice on right and wrong is a far better criteria. It helps avoid the cycle of violence like we see in Israel and Palestine, like we see with Sunnis and Shite blowing each other up in Iraq, like we see with Muslims constantly making excuses for terrorists. Yours is an archaic, primitive, tribal criteria that has merely been subjugated for the betterment of a grand militant ideology.


Quote:
The West demonise their opposition


There is no need to Abu. They manage that fine themselves.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by soren on Feb 10th, 2009 at 7:36pm

mozzaok wrote on Feb 10th, 2009 at 6:36pm:
Actually, Abu points out atrocities done in the name of christianity.

Admittedly, the most ridiculous comparisons are those, like FD points out, of christian beliefs, carried out a thousand years ago.

However, when we heard the likes of GW Bush, openly stating his extreme Christian beliefs, helped guide his decision making, then that is a fair comparison to the extremist Jihadists, who also claim to have god, whispering in their ears.

I am sick of Christians, who seem to desire a conflict with Islam, pretending that they are 'Peaceful', while Muslims displaying similiar desires for conflict, are 'Violent'.



To say that the same thing is whispered into a Christian and a Muslim ear is to indulge in uncritical, reflexive equivocation.
A Christian needs to interpret 'love god and your neighbour'; a muslim, 'there is only one god and Mohammed is his prophet'. There is no call to kill all non-Christians, just to single out one of the many irreconcilably opposing doctrines. There is no 'the meek will inherit', or 'love one another' in islam.
The principles, reflexes, aims and world views of the two religions are as opoosed as two doctrines that are calculated to be polar opposites - which is the case as Islam came into being as a conscious and deliberate opposition to all jewish and christian dosctrines.

And one does not even have to be a Christian to see this much. It is obvious after a short pause to think. And it is obvious from the fruits of roughly equal cultural, civilisational history. Secular liberal democracy, human rights, rule of law, thee right and recognitiuon of human dignity and equality before the law - direct fruits of Christianity. For obvious reasons nothing like these exists in mulism lands and where germs of them do, they are resented and fought as evil western impositions.


I am not sure Christians desire a conflict. It is more like a paraphrase of the old Soviet era slogan (visit the Soviet Union before the Soviet Union visits you) or of the Lao Tze dictum of 'you may not be interetsed in war but war is interested in you. '



Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by abu_rashid on Feb 10th, 2009 at 8:07pm
mozzaok,


Quote:
Admittedly, the most ridiculous comparisons are those, like FD points out, of christian beliefs, carried out a thousand years ago.


As I've made clear enough times mozza, I never compared Islam today with Christianity 1000 years ago. I compared Islam and Christianity 1000 years ago.

Also, if you're talking about Witch burnings, no need to go back 1000 years, they were being committted in Europe right up until the 18th. century, the last witch convicted in England was in 1944, although she was gaoled, not burnt. And in Kenya today there's still Christians who lynch witches. One of the Kenyan witch hunters actually drove the demons of witchcraft away from Sarah Palin when she was running for Alaskan governor.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 10th, 2009 at 9:14pm

Quote:
I never compared Islam today with Christianity 1000 years ago


Yes you do, because to you Islam is unchanging. To you, women should still be stoned to death. You cannot see how modern society is better, which is why you think it is somehow relevant to compare different societies 1000 years ago. You justify stoning women to death on the grounds that 1000 years other societies also performed barbaric acts. It is the fact that you this this as relevant to the choices people have today that is so disturbing.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by mozzaok on Feb 10th, 2009 at 9:15pm

Quote:
I choose those whom I have a strong spiritual bond with, and I consider that the best criteria.
So says Abu.

Once again Abu, you seem oblivious to the key point.

Quote:
Only when we stop categorising who, and what, is right, along religious lines, and actually examine the ethical and moral choices made by each side, and fairly attributing responsibility for peoples' behaviours in that manner, will we be in the position to make them feel they are accountable to behave ethically, even by those who share a religious, or ideological philosophy.

FD, even reiterated it for you,

Quote:
I think basing your choice on right and wrong is a far better criteria. It helps avoid the cycle of violence like we see in Israel and Palestine, like we see with Sunnis and Shite blowing each other up in Iraq, like we see with Muslims constantly making excuses for terrorists. Yours is an archaic, primitive, tribal criteria that has merely been subjugated for the betterment of a grand militant ideology.

but you still choose to ignore it.

Also Abu, I must question your veracity here, when you say;

Quote:
The West demonise their opposition and use it to justify their atrocities, the Muslims do no such thing, they simply try their best to defend themselves against the atrocities of the West.


To any unbiased person, that appears to be either a bald faced lie, or total self delusion of the reality of the situation.
If it is not a self serving case of deceitfulness, then it throws your ability to view anything concerning Islam, with even a  reasonable degree of subjectivity, into serious question.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:23am

Quote:
Also treason (which is what apostasy is according to Islam) *IS* a capital offence in many 'modern' states.


Yes, treason is often a capital offence, but not apostasy. That's like saying the death penalty for littering is OK if you decide to define littering as murder. The fact that Islam considers apostasy to be treason is the problem, not the justification for the death penalty. Attempting to equate the death penalty for apostasy with the death penalty for treason in modern countries is absurd.

Title: Re: Interpretation-That's what it's all about.
Post by Yadda on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:52am

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2009 at 11:23am:
......Attempting to equate the death penalty for apostasy with the death penalty for treason in modern countries is absurd.



Only if you are not a devout muslim.

I'm not trying to be facetious here.

I'm being deadly serious [if you'll excuse the pun].





Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.