Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri
I thought we were discussing whether Islam was inherently (and irrevocably) violent.
In that context, the differing interpretations of jihad matter a great deal.
If your point is merely that the "lesser jihad" exists, I agree. Duh.
My point is that the militant Islamists who think Islam justifies the killing of innocents and aggressive war against nonMuslims constitute a minority. Where the "war" version of Islam is most widely accepted is as a *defensive* struggle, not an offensive one.
As far as spreading Islam, the stated duty to turn the whole world to Islam does not inherently require violence, just like "spreading the good word" doesn't require missionaries to kill people. And most Muslims reject the whole "nonbelievers must submit to Islam" stuff. Just like most Jews and Christians reject nearly all of Leviticus.
|
So, we are backpedaling, are we? That's good to see. As usual, in your inimical dishonest way, you change your stance as we go. My point, from the onset, was that there was a militant aspect to Islam. How convenient that you agree with me now, and try to paint me as saying the converse.
Quote:
|
You're reading the Quran like an Islamic fundamentalist. Most people don't.
|
Well, since you don't read it at all, I can't see what you're criticising.
Quote:
|
So that *is* it: you're making a ridiculously obvious point. Sorry, I thought you were saying something beyond "the sky is blue."
|
Quite simply, I'm saying you are a dishonest person, who tries to put false words in other people's mouths and then goes on to disprove the fallacy you have attributed to them. And then, in a complete turn of hypocrisy, agree with your opponent and try to make it seem like they were wrong all along.
Quote:
|
But to argue that those regimes and cultures are representative of Islam everywhere is folly.
|
And I said that---where? Oh, I'm sure you can't find that. But throw up some bogus links anyway, my friend, and maybe people will be confused enough to believe you are right. I have said, and I still say, that there is a militant aspect to Islam, and that no single Islamic jurist, in history, has ever denied that militant aspect. And you will spin and turn that to suit your argument whatever which way...?
Quote:
|
And how, pray tell, did you determine that my links were apologists and wishful thinkers? Oh, right: they disagreed with your preconceived conclusion.
|
None rejected the sura in question, now did they? Ooops, I guess you forgot that. Go back to your ivory tower. It's so much safer there, my friend.
Quote:
|
Muslims who disagree with the militants about the justification of suicide bombings, terrorism, offensive war and killing civilians.
|
So, what? Now you're trying to claim its a basic inadequacy you have reading the written English word? Where did I say all Muslims justified suicide bombings? or terrorism? or killing civilians? Why don't we just make up some more arguments and then shoot them down and pin a medal on ourselves?
Quote:
|
See? You *are* claiming more than "there are militant interpretations of Islam." And it was to this that I was responding.
|
With no credence, evidence, or logical argument. Again, in a discussion, it's expected that you should listen and respond to the arguments of your opponent.
Quote:
|
You are essentially claiming that all Muslims *must* hew to a militant fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. That's not true of any other religion; why must it be true of Islam?
|
Because that is the way it is. And you cannot prove the converse, because it simply isn't true. All the mainstream interpretations of Islam admit that jihad implies, in some form, objective violence in the name of religion. You have failed to prove otherwise.
Quote:
|
Every religion has a not-too-devout majority. But Islam is, once again, somehow different than everybody else.
|
So, because some Muslims don't understand their religion, we should dismiss the dogma of their faith? I think not. Islam is the only faith that professes violence specifically against infidels, i.e. people who do not follow their faith. Every other religion, in cataloguing the violence in the pages of their holy books, do so only as a historical afterthought. Islam, in contrast, stands alone in urging its followers to give its un-believers a choice of death, conversion or submission.
Quote:
|
What a convenient way to both dismiss that majority *and* suggest that they're all just suicide bombers in waiting.
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah, make up what phony arguments you want. You know that's not what I said.
Quote:
|
I think the point was that Muslims aligned with the west are, by and large, more moderate.
|
But you fail to define how. Will they allow non-Muslims equal rights in their Islamic Republics? Will they allow Muslims to change their faith to other faiths? Will they allow non-Muslims not to show their submission by not paying the special tax, the jiyza, to the Islamic state? I think not. Yet you call that moderate, and in the same breath say you are not an apologist.
Quote:
|
That's such a disingenous dismissal I can't even respond. You're not even pretending to be objective. You're simply ignoring things that are inconvenient to your argument.
|
But you have no arguments at all! And what I'm not objective to is ignorance, of which you've shown you have an abundance.
I rate myself, on the Rictor scale, two points under you.
Quote:
|
If you're not going to read stuff, don't pretend you understand it.
|
I've read a lot about Islam. I can't help it if you chose to ignore the information I've availed you.
Quote:
|
The section is talking about Muslims developing an Islamic interpretation whose place in the world is similar to Christianity's -- "a political stance that is in some sense inspired or informed by religious ideals but is neither dogmatic nor exclusionary."
|
A complete thought here would be welcome. Of course, if that's too much to ask....
Quote:
|
You seem to be a one-man echo chamber sometimes.
|
Maybe I'm talking to a hollow head....
Quote:
|
I agree in general, with this caveat: The Old Testament describes an ideology that is just as exclusive and violent as anything in Islam, complete with divine justification for slaughtering the neighbors.
|
With one small difference, the Old Testament nowhere
commands the destruction or subjugation of non-believers, whereas the Koran does. And you, o great learned scholar, have failed to prove otherwise.
Quote:
|
Once again, though, you're interpreting the Koran like a fundy, and ignoring alternative interpretations. Jews don't go around slaughtering people indiscriminately even though the OT allows it; there's no reason to think that Muslims must.
|
Read the Halakha sometime. (I'm sure you never will.) No where in Jewish law is it anywhere stated that Hebrews have the right to subjugate anyone, anywhere. In Muslim law, however, it's as plain as reading a page. In all your posts, somehow, you keep ignoring this basic fact. The only fact, in truth, that I've been claiming from the onset.
Quote:
I *do* think we are witnessing a struggle for Islam's soul -- I've referred to it as Islam's Reformation. It's a struggle between the atavistic, violent, repressive Islam of the Taliban and the modern Islam of the West and Asia. It's going to be a messy struggle because it's not just about religion -- it's tangled up in the cultures and politics of regions where Islam holds sway. And the lack of a central authority (like the Catholic Church) complicates things further.
But those differing strains of Islam exist. Which is why I get bent out of shape whenever someone starts claiming "Muslims this" and "Muslims that." They're a diverse religion -- probably more diverse than Christianity. You can't just impose the fundy interpretation and insist that all Muslims must believe it.
|
Right. And where do Bin Laden, the Laskar Jihad Organization, Hamas, the Abu Nidal organization, the Abu Sayyaf Group, Ahl-e-Hadees, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, al-Gama's al-Islamiyya, Al-Ittihad al-Islami, Armed Islamic Movement, Asbat al-Ansar, Fighting Islamic Group, Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, the Muslim Brotherhood----fit in, in this ivory tower world of yours?
Quote:
|
Translation: Your single, unsubstantiated cite is accurate, but my substantiated cites aren't. Whatever.
|
Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm going to continue throwing up empty links.
Quote:
|
Maybe Tantawi said what you claim.
|
And therefore you lied.
Quote:
|
But he also said what I linked to. Those statements are diametrically opposed.
|
To a simple mind, possibly. To a dualistic mind, perhaps not. Again, death is not anathema to Islam. Islam is militant, as the Prophet was militant. Tantawi knows this, and you try to cloak him in a false robe of peace.
Quote:
|
What's dishonest? Your cite is from 2002. My link contains cites from 2001 and 2003 saying the opposite. Am I wrong about that?
|
You're dishonest, as none of the later quotes contravene what he said earlier. He advocates wanton violence against Israeli's, but since, at the present time, it does not suit his violent temperament to pit himself against he United States, he has deemed certain suicide actions unjust. You applaud his hypocrisy. I do not.