Islam

[xiannaix]

The fact that you have read those authors is to be commended, but I suspect that this would not be the case across a broad spectrum of those professing to call themselves 'Christians' - which was essentially the point I was making.

Fair enough. Frankly, I've a bit of a problem with many of the "born again" ilk myself. A deeply committed and involved faith that is not an informed faith is troubling. Regardless of the particulars.

In response, I would again urge an individual to read the Qur'an, in that way they would be able to determine for themselves what the Qur'an states regarding those particular subjects that you highlight. This is the best position from which to argue against the apparent teachings of so called community leaders and Imans, and against which to view the often crude stereotyping found in certain sections of the press and elsewhere.

BB

hehe - How about we go at it like this - could you point out to us where the teachings of the Imams which lead cats like OBL to arrange for the WTC attacks and fellow religionists to bomb the trains etc etc in the name of their faith with the promise of the virgins? Is it the Imams or their followers or both who got it wrong? That might clear things up faster. Because I'm of the uninformed opinion, having not read most of the Qur'an or haddith, that those notions just aren't in there to be found or to be wrung out like water from a rag.

 

[xiannaix]

This is precisely what makes Islam different. The qur'an and the hadith contain lots and lots of practical, day-to-day instructions on how to live your life. It is a complete spiritual, political, moral and practical rule/guide-book to earthly life. Rather than the sometimes cryptic guidelines and suggestions given in the bible, for example, it is much more concrete and definite. Sure, the christian church has also built up its own cultural, political and practical teachings, but the crucial thing is that they are not the word of god. The qur'an is. Therefore, by living by its rules, you live the most holy life. This is a big factor in its appeal - It leaves no room for doubt. You join, you learn the rules, you follow them, you go to heaven. This is also why imams and other islamic religous leaders primarily call themselves 'scholars' as there is no need for a priesthood when god's direct word can be read from the book. Obviously, the practical truth is a little bit warped from that ideal

lol - I'd put it to you that the Bible has a great deal to say that requires little interpretation. The short version - be a good person.

Perhaps the haddith and Qur'an describe a much more strictly regimented order. I'd put it to you that sometimes following the letter of the law violates its purpose.

And, as it is true that not all Imams agree on what the rules are: they are interpreters of "god's" word - not merely conduits.

Foreigners forget sometimes that not all Muslims have read and/or understood the Quran or the hadiths.

or that can read 7th century Arabic

or that can read Arabic

or that can read

 

[rennie]

Of course they are not there to be found! nothing exists suspended in the air! religion and religious belief/behavior changes with time and according to circumstances... OBL's beliefs can't be dissociated from growing up in Saudi, the environment in Arab Afghan camps during the fight against the Soviets, US policies in the Middle East etc...

it's not just one Imam who one day, because of hatred in his heart, decided to change his friday sermon n order the killing of americans. U're deluded and very simplistic if u think so.

Politics and religion go hand in hand.

 

[Boogie Boy]

This is precisely what makes Islam different. The qur'an and the hadith contain lots and lots of practical, day-to-day instructions on how to live your life. It is a complete spiritual, political, moral and practical rule/guide-book to earthly life. Rather than the sometimes cryptic guidelines and suggestions given in the bible, for example, it is much more concrete and definite.

Sure, the christian church has also built up its own cultural, political and practical teachings, but the crucial thing is that they are not the word of god. The qur'an is. Therefore, by living by its rules, you live the most holy life. This is a big factor in its appeal - It leaves no room for doubt. You join, you learn the rules, you follow them, you go to heaven. This is also why imams and other islamic religous leaders primarily call themselves 'scholars' as there is no need for a priesthood when god's direct word can be read from the book. Obviously, the practical truth is a little bit warped from that ideal

I'm not sure that I agree there Crispy, which was the point I was making in asking the question relating to the number of times prescribed for prayer. For example, it could be argued that the Qur'an indicates that prayer is required three times a day - as opposed to the five times that we see indicated within the Five Pillars. This difference is largely argued away as a matter of interpretation - but it also shows that there may be discrepancies in the way that the Qur'an exists and operates as a text, and how the Qur'an has been translated in to human religious and cultural practice (for some this alone renders the idea of God's infallability a nonsense).

It is also the case that some sections of the text do not appear to make much sense until an exterior source is referenced to give 'context' to a verse. It is worth noting that there is not a great deal of material available outside of the Islamic tradition against which the Qur'an can be referenced, so very often the Qur'an will be explained with regard given to the recorded practice of the Prophet, but here it is problematic as the tradition of recording what the Prophet is believed to have said and done relies largely on oral tradition - and being able to determine the authenticity of the 'train of transmission' from those around Muhammad to the time of the oral tradition being codeified in to a collected literary form.

As you can no doubt imagine, this process of giving the traditions and practice a definitive form took place many years after the death of Muhammad. This is not to suggest that the scholars recording the traditions did not allow for variations of nuance or style, but very often the differences might be considered trivial. Depending upon your point of view this could be due to the absolute certainty and accuracy of the reporting, or an example of judicious editing and literary skill.

My point is that the Qur'an should be engaged with (if you are interested) as a means of being able to consider the very many questions it poses as a religious, social and historical document or text.

BB

 

[Boogie Boy]

Fair enough. Frankly, I've a bit of a problem with many of the "born again" ilk myself. A deeply committed and involved faith that is not an informed faith is troubling. Regardless of the particulars.



hehe - How about we go at it like this - could you point out to us where the teachings of the Imams which lead cats like OBL to arrange for the WTC attacks and fellow religionists to bomb the trains etc etc in the name of their faith with the promise of the virgins? Is it the Imams or their followers or both who got it wrong? That might clear things up faster. Because I'm of the uninformed opinion, having not read most of the Qur'an or haddith, that those notions just aren't in there to be found or to be wrung out like water from a rag.

That isn't the way that I work - instead of having me apparently providing you with the dots and lines I would recommend that you read the Qur'an (if you have not already done so), and then make up your own mind as to who you think might have got it wrong? (or right)

BB

 

[xiannaix]

Of course they are not there to be found! nothing exists suspended in the air! religion and religious belief/behavior changes with time and according to circumstances... OBL's beliefs can't be dissociated from growing up in Saudi, the environment in Arab Afghan camps during the fight against the Soviets, US policies in the Middle East etc...

it's not just one Imam who one day, because of hatred in his heart, decided to change his friday sermon n order the killing of americans. U're deluded and very simplistic if u think so.

Politics and religion go hand in hand.

I can't disagree with any of that (excepting your suggestion that I'm deluded )

Imams and their faithful flock may well do that - but the world is only faced with one religion that's out there killing people in the name of Allah. Sure they infuse religion with politics and politics with religion but that integration makes therm no less - only more - religious and they act on that basis. That's the entirety of my point.

 

[xiannaix]

That isn't the way that I work - instead of having me apparently providing you with the dots and lines I would recommend that you read the Qur'an (if you have not already done so), and then make up your own mind as to who you think might have got it wrong? (or right)

BB

hehe - I think that an exercise in futility and I think you know that



and yes, they're both on my reading list just not yet in the pile

 

[rennie]

Ok, let's be friends then!

 

[Boogie Boy]

hehe - I think that an exercise in futility and I think you know that



and yes, they're both on my reading list just not yet in the pile

Futility? No. I just feel quite strongly that in order to engage with a subject it is worth engaging with it fully. So, for example, if we were to be discusisng Shakespeare I would expect you to have read one of his plays (although all would be better) as a primary text - rather than having a discussion in which you haven't read the play but have read the York/Arden/Norton notes.

BB

 

[xiannaix]

Futility? No. I just feel quite strongly that in order to engage with a subject it is worth engaging with it fully. So, for example, if we were to be discusisng Shakespeare I would expect you to have read one of his plays (although all would be better) as a primary text - rather than having a discussion in which you haven't read the play but have read the York/Arden/Norton notes.

BB

But I'm not discussing Islam. I'm discussing what Muslims have done in the name of Islam. I don't think there's much debate that the Qu'ran speaks no where of virgins in exchange for blowing up one's self in a crowd of Jews for example

I understand your point I just don't think it's a necessity to know the Qur'an inside and uot when there is agreement that those bad actors are relying on bad (politically motivated) interpretations.

 

[Boogie Boy]

But I'm not discussing Islam. I'm discussing what Muslims have done in the name of Islam. I don't think there's much debate that the Qu'ran speaks no where of virgins in exchange for blowing up one's self in a crowd of Jews for example

I understand your point I just don't think it's a necessity to know the Qur'an inside and uot when there is agreement that those bad actors are relying on bad (politically motivated) interpretations.

I understand your point, but how can you truly seek to understand (or even attempt to understand in some instances) what some individuals claim to have enacted in the name of Islam, if you have no understanding of Islam, of the core text from which everything else may have sprung?

Your point almost appears to seek to make Islam redundant in the judging of how and why individuals might choose to act in a particular way (even if they have referenced that value system in doing so).

BB

 

[xiannaix]

I understand your point, but how can you truly seek to understand (or even attempt to understand in some instances) what some individuals claim to have enacted in the name of Islam, if you have no understanding of Islam, of the core text from which everything else may have sprung?

Because it is only necessary for me to know that the guy who claimed he acted in the name of Islam to believe that he acted in the name of Islam. That's the more central issue. There is pretty universal agreement that he's wrong - detailed understanding of why seems beside the point. I'm arguing that his act was bad and his justification was a violently tragic understanding of his own faith.

Your point almost appears to seek to make Islam redundant in the judging of how and why individuals might choose to act in a particular way (even if they have referenced that value system in doing so).

BB

it's not redundant - it's irrelevent. What is relevent is what the bad actor believed and accepting that his belief was based on a bad interpretation.


Still, your point that a more fully enriched background in understanding the faith is valid - but that simply goes to being able to describe more clearly what we already know - that the bad actor relied on a bad interpretation.




hehe - I think we're getting down to the pedantic nit-picknig now - which generally means general agreement even if its informative and intereting

 

[Crispy]

As you can no doubt imagine, this process of giving the traditions and practice a definitive form took place many years after the death of Muhammad. This is not to suggest that the scholars recording the traditions did not allow for variations of nuance or style, but very often the differences might be considered trivial. Depending upon your point of view this could be due to the absolute certainty and accuracy of the reporting, or an example of judicious editing and literary skill.

Sorry, you'll have to excuse me - this subtlety was missed out of my post. Of course there are many, many human additions and interpretaions - it is a holy book after all
What I was really driving at was that the intent of the book is for there to be a set of rules for a holy life. Islam is a whole way of life, not the sort of 'addition to' a secular western way of life that christianity has become (in some places)

But, like you say, I'd better go read the damn thing before opening my gob too wide

 

[Boogie Boy]

Because it is only necessary for me to know that the guy who claimed he acted in the name of Islam to believe that he acted in the name of Islam. That's the more central issue. There is pretty universal agreement that he's wrong - detailed understanding of why seems beside the point. I'm arguing that his act was bad and his justification was a violently tragic understanding of his own faith.

I can't agree here, having a full understanding of the issue enables an individual to place an event in a context even if the meaning of that context is not readily apparent. It might also enable an individual to understand what motivated an individual to act in a particular way - what drove them. Furthermore there is a risk that in just participating in a superficial acceptance ofa set of given conditions, you ignore the important questions that need to be asked - which might of course work to your advantage as it means you do not have to address the issue or conditions that may have contributed to a particular event. So I can't agree with your belief that taking an infomed position is in any way unimportant. I believe it to be of central importance.



it's not redundant - it's irrelevent. What is relevent is what the bad actor believed and accepting that his belief was based on a bad interpretation.

But the question is how do you know it was a bad interpretation (whatever that might mean) unless you have fully engaged with the framework - otherwise you just accept the actor on their own terms (assuming of course that you do so correctly, or even that there was such a set of terms in existance)


Still, your point that a more fully enriched background in understanding the faith is valid - but that simply goes to being able to describe more clearly what we already know - that the bad actor relied on a bad interpretation.

The issue here is who is/are the 'we'?




hehe - I think we're getting down to the pedantic nit-picknig now - which generally means general agreement even if its informative and intereting

But interesting, yes.

BB

 

[Boogie Boy]

Sorry, you'll have to excuse me - this subtlety was missed out of my post. Of course there are many, many human additions and interpretaions - it is a holy book after all
What I was really driving at was that the intent of the book is for there to be a set of rules for a holy life. Islam is a whole way of life, not the sort of 'addition to' a secular western way of life that christianity has become (in some places)

But, like you say, I'd better go read the damn thing before opening my gob too wide

Crispy it wasn't meant as some kind of 'put down', read it and then see how (or even if) your view of Islam changes.

BB

 

[Crispy]

Wasn't taken that way
If I can find the time, I will.

 

[angry bob]

You could go on and on? Want to gives examples from the previous couple centuries?

hmmm ... I cant think of anything right now but I'm sure with a little research you could find any number of self-proclaimed christians who have commited horrible acts in recent times

And, all of the examples you described above - have their current and historical parallels within Islam so that kinda knocks out your relativism argument by noting that 1) they did it too 2) Christians aren't doing it and 3) Islam still is

How do you mean?

I'm not judging a religion - I'm judging the assholes that bombed the trains, that flew the planes and that rioted - I'm judging their acts and I'm specifically noting that no other religious group on the planet is bombing Spainish or UK trains, nor flying planes into NYC buildings nor rioting world wide over a couple stupid cartoons. Failing to recognize that fact is turning a blind eye hoping not to offend some rather offensive assholes don't you think?

You're not judging a religion but you are specifically noting that "no other religious group on the planet is bombing Spainish or UK trains, nor flying planes into NYC buildings nor rioting world wide over a couple stupid cartoons"

Do you not see a contradiction there?

 

[big footed fred]

But I'm not discussing Islam. I'm discussing what Muslims have done in the name of Islam. I don't think there's much debate that the Qu'ran speaks no where of virgins in exchange for blowing up one's self in a crowd of Jews for example

I understand your point I just don't think it's a necessity to know the Qur'an inside and uot when there is agreement that those bad actors are relying on bad (politically motivated) interpretations.

I had some long conversations on this and related subjects with Muslims in Malaysia. The general opinion seems to be that while they dislike Israel's and America's actions they don't like to see Muslims doing this in the Name of Allah. They say that the Qur'an forbids suicide and the killing of those not involved in a conflict.
This, if true, negates the reasons that some extremists use as an excuse to kill and, further to that, excudes the bombers from entering paradise.

 

[xiannaix]

hmmm ... I cant think of anything right now but I'm sure with a little research you could find any number of self-proclaimed christians who have commited horrible acts in recent times

We're talking planes into buldings, bombing barracks, war ships, trains etc

if your comparison is valid then surely there must be big enough examples ion news that are readily available shouldn'tthere?

How do you mean?

I mean that its a capital crime to bring Bibles into Saudi Arabia. I mean shari'a resembles the inquisition in many frightening ways.

You're not judging a religion but you are specifically noting that "no other religious group on the planet is bombing Spainish or UK trains, nor flying planes into NYC buildings nor rioting world wide over a couple stupid cartoons"

Do you not see a contradiction there?

Nope. I'm calling the assholes assholes for being assholes. I'm not calling all Muslims assholes because all Muslims aren't assholes. just the ones who fly planes into buildings, bomb trains, riot over cartoon and agree whole heartedly with those who do those things.

Just because many members of a group are assholes it doesn't mean they all are. Does that help clarify?

 

[xiannaix]

I had some long conversations on this and related subjects with Muslims in Malaysia. The general opinion seems to be that while they dislike Israel's and America's actions they don't like to see Muslims doing this in the Name of Allah. They say that the Qur'an forbids suicide and the killing of those not involved in a conflict.
This, if true, negates the reasons that some extremists use as an excuse to kill and, further to that, excudes the bombers from entering paradise.

of course you're right - and that's a very important disctinction that Angry Bob isn't getting from my comments.

Bad actors relying on bad interpretations are assholes when they do bad things on the basis of the bad interpretation. Thats a far cry from calling Islam bad.

 

[Aldebaran]

Interesting, isn't it.... All non-Muslims "discussing" Islam and telling the other they "know" Islam. In complete disregard of the post (let alone interest in opening the link it contains) of a Muslim. Funny enough to watch but obviously you want to have a playground without any disturbance by a Muslim.
If any of you has serious questions on or about Islam, you can always PM me.

salaam.

 

[Boogie Boy]

Interesting, isn't it.... All non-Muslims "discussing" Islam and telling the other they "know" Islam. In complete disregard of the post (let alone interest in opening the link it contains) of a Muslim. Funny enough to watch but obviously not worth a second of my time.
If any of you has serious questions on or about Islam, you can always PM me.

salaam.

I'm surprised by the tenor of your post. You assume that all the individuals that have taken part are not Muslim - do you know this for a fact?

Your arrogance, in this instance, is breathtaking.

BB

 

[xiannaix]

Interesting, isn't it.... All non-Muslims "discussing" Islam and telling the other they "know" Islam. In complete disregard of the post (let alone interest in opening the link it contains) of a Muslim. Funny enough to watch but obviously not worth a second of my time.
If any of you has serious questions on or about Islam, you can always PM me.

salaam.

I really don't care abouit Islam as much as the Muslim guys driving planes into buildings and bombing trains etc.

The issue isn't Islam - it's assholes who use it to justify their violence.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm surprised by the tenor of your post. You assume that all the individuals that have taken part are not Muslim - do you know this for a fact?

Your arrogance, in this instance, is breathtaking.

BB

I'm in fact surprised by the way this thread degraded so rapidly, since the OP had clearly good intentions.
The arrogance of some of the people "discussing" here my religion and Muslims in general (while completely ignoring what is a mouse-click away) is "breathtaking".

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I really don't care abouit Islam as much as the Muslim guys driving planes into buildings and bombing trains etc.

The issue isn't Islam - it's assholes who use it to justify their violence.

That doesn't read from your posts. It is also not what the OP was about, I suppose.
If you open the link in my first post, you shall get at least somewhat informed (like the title of the thread already explains). Since you didn't, you come across as not wanting to know what does not fit into your pre-conceived ideas.
Muslims don't like people flying planes into buildings and blowing things up either.
Muslims got and get killed on such occasions too. Even much more these days then non-Muslims. Do you think they, or their relatives liked it?

salaam.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Interesting, isn't it.... All non-Muslims "discussing" Islam and telling the other they "know" Islam. In complete disregard of the post (let alone interest in opening the link it contains) of a Muslim. Funny enough to watch but obviously you want to have a playground without any disturbance by a Muslim.
If any of you has serious questions on or about Islam, you can always PM me.

salaam.

Why do you jet every time there is the least hint of criticism of Islam or Islamic history???? Most posters don't bail the second their ox gets gored. If you truely believe, defend it.

BTW, Xiannaix, you're acting like a butt-hole.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why do you jet every time there is the least hint of criticism of Islam or Islamic history????

I don't know what you mean with the use of the word "jet" and if it is something negative, then I don't think you have read much of my posts on this website.

Most posters don't bail the second their ox gets gored.

Sorry, don't know the meaning of this expression.

If you truely believe, defend it.

I don't feel any call to "defend" anything, let alone what I believe. If people ask me information, I am required to give them what they ask for, and for as far as my knowledge goes (and that is a command of my religion).

salaam.

 

[xiannaix]

That doesn't read from your posts. It is also not what the OP was about, I suppose.
If you open the link in my first post, you shall get at least somewhat informed (like the title of the thread already explains). Since you didn't, you come across as not wanting to know what does not fit into your pre-conceived ideas.
Muslims don't like people flying planes into buildings and blowing things up either.
Muslims got and get killed on such occasions too. Even much more these days then non-Muslims. Do you think they, or their relatives liked it?

salaam.

I'm sure most Muslims don't like those things - which is why I restrained ,and have repeatedly noted that restraint, my comments to those who do those nasty things and those who support such nastiness

my beef is not with Islam - it is with Muslims who do bad things and justify it on a bad interpretation of their faith - I cannot possibly be clearer about the limitations of my condemnation than that.... it's the bad guys I'm pissed at... not all Muslims.... which would be pointless and stupid. To read my comments more broadly than I have specificly and explicitly stated is just poor reading

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

American slang dictionary:

jet -- leave quickly

bail -- leave quickly

gored ox -- something important to you has been criticised.

 

[Boogie Boy]

I'm in fact surprised by the way this thread degraded so rapidly, since the OP had clearly good intentions.
The arrogance of some of the people "discussing" here my religion and Muslims in general (while completely ignoring what is a mouse-click away) is "breathtaking".

salaam.

Discusssing "your religion" and "Muslims in general". Why not point to the specific posts which you find so, shall we say, 'unworthy' of serious consideration. Or are you seeking to suggest that, in some strange way, only Muslims are capable of engaging in a debate regarding Islam?

And, even if you are Muslim, that does not entitle you or neccessarily mean that you are best placed to answer a question relating to Islam.

Or does it?


BB