What next after Mosul and Raqqa?

[A'isha]

I was astonished when a half-Egyptian cab driver bringing me home from a meeting recited the 3rd-step prayer to me. His father had gone through the Big Book and annotated it comparing it to Islam. His father had produced a generally accepted (and generally liberal) translation of the Qu'ran.

The 3rd step prayer begins, roughly, "My creator, I offer myself to thee to build with me and do with me what you will."

His father's apostasy and, I believe, mental illness was tolerated until the late '80s. But he began to acquire an international following. A loose coalition of of disparate Muslims had him killed in 1990.

Did he mention who his father was? This is ringing bells with me but I can't seem to remember exactly for some reason.

(Supreme Leader is a pretty recent construct per my understanding of Shi'ite tradition..

Yeah, it's pretty much an invention of Khomeini's, cribbing heavily from the Sunni founders of Islamism, Abu Ala Maududi and Hassan al-Banna. Other Shia Grand Ayatollahs like Khoei and Sistani have generally considered Khomeini to be full of it and his "principle" of velayat-e-faqih to be bogus, partly because of the Sunni Islamist influence, and partly because of the quietist tradition in Shia Islam.

[EDIT: Incidentally, Khoei also completely rejected abrogation.]

 

[Minoosh]

Did he mention who his father was? This is ringing bells with me but I can't seem to remember exactly for some reason.

His father was Rashad Khalifa.

I didn't know the cab driver's name for a long time, but then he showed me some correspondence - I think he wanted me to know who he was. Which I did, since he had a moderate degree of fame in his own life. I had a big crush on him but "Allah had some other plan," in the words of Steve Earle.

Briefly a Rising Star, Forever a Mourning Son

There was an international conspiracy to kill Rashad Khalifa, which he knew full well. He didn't deserve to be killed, but he knew he was courting assassination. His bottom line became that he, Rashad, was the final messenger meant to purify Islam. Through numerology he claimed to have found the Qu'ran contained corrupted verses. In his theory the whole of the proclamation of faith is "There is no God but God." He rejected the "and Muhammad is his prophet" as a corruption, because he felt, roughly, that putting Muhammad in the same sentence amounted to idolatry.

Rashad Khalifa's followers were a splinter group and his son broke with them at some point and I don't know why.

Though I came to believe Rashad was insane, I respected his underlying philosophy - that a person's status as a Muslim is only knowable by God and that individual. Sam became my brother - not the relationship I wanted, but just as precious.

As far as I know, he is the one who repaints the large "Happiness is Submission to God" stencil on the former masjid. The point of that statement IMO is not to reject free will but to pray continually to accept the inevitable. I still pray sometimes and it's more about changing my attitude than anything else. "Peace is Acceptance of the Inevitable" is my secular translation. Only with free will can a person even be Muslim; it has to be a choice.

Obviously, I have internalized a more forgiving Islam. There is a verse that says roughly that "God will not drive too hard of a bargain if you are a believer."

So: After Mosul and Raqqa? It seems there is a generation or so of young men - mostly men - who have internalized such a brutal life view that God appears to be damning everyone and everything. On the other hand the secularists - Assad, Saddam and others - are every bit as brutal as the religious fanatics, so I don't blame Islam. To me it's nihilism, not religion, driving this violence. I have seen a more gentle approach, a culture of leisure, hospitality and reverence. It smells of tea and shisha, it sounds like the muezzin's call to prayer. Modesty is a habit, not a system designed to punish women. Could those threads of Islam prevail? Possibly, I think. The ideology of destruction is not Islam, in my opinion, it's a false idol. It may eventually fall. But I forget about the eternal seductiveness of that false god POWER.

Yeah, it's pretty much an invention of Khomeini's, cribbing heavily from the Sunni founders of Islamism, Abu Ala Maududi and Hassan al-Banna. Other Shia Grand Ayatollahs like Khoei and Sistani have generally considered Khomeini to be full of it and his "principle" of velayat-e-faqih to be bogus, partly because of the Sunni Islamist influence, and partly because of the quietist tradition in Shia Islam.

See, I don't who any of those individuals or traditions are, really, but I'm grateful for your scholarship. My takeaway: Khomeini was a man of great charisma, while his successor is a battle-scarred and wily power broker. You can't put too much stock in the presidents, who are allowed to be human only because they really have no power. I loved Khatami, really loved him. Iranian politics broke his heart.

 

[McHrozni]

Except that the attackers in the US don't cite simply "Islam" as justification, but they cite the attacks and interventions of the US in other countries. That's the difference between terrorists that attack the US and terrorists that don't attack the US: not religion, but geopolitical concerns.

This would be a compelling argument, if the geopolitical concern in question wasn't US war against ISIS. The only way you can make that a geopolitical concern is if you acknowledge ISIS as a legitimate entity and state.

So, um, good job at providing the evidence I'm right. Again. Also, thanks.

You were completely wrong about there being no Jewish terrorism pre-1945, know you were so wrong about it that you've done a complete 180 and are now trying argue that it's totally unsurprising and expected for there to have been Jewish terrorism pre-1945, and yet you're completely incapable of admitting that you were wrong.

I mentioned there were no appreciable Jewish terrorist attacks. A few attacks against theaters showing Nazi propaganda are not appreciable. This point of your has no merit whatsoever.

If the religion was based solely on the New Testament and the Old Testament were no longer valid,

I did not say that, I recommend you read my argument again.

In fact, it's pretty standard across the board that the most peaceful interpretations of verses in the Qur'an are generally to be found in the earliest tafsir, with the more intolerant interpretations coming in the later middle ages (not coincidentally, right around the time of the Crusades and the Mongol invasions).

Yeah. Crusades in particular were a modest response to a particularly bad outburst of Islamic intolerance. It took over a century of bloody conflict for the Crusaders to obtain victory and open up Jerusalem to Christian pilgrims.

[/quote]That's not a "translation", that's the theory of one guy who believes the Qur'an is not an Arabic Muslim text, but a Syro-Aramaic Christian text. No Muslim, exegete or believer, either today or in past, has ever translated houri as "grape".[/quote]

I was simply using it as an example of how your trickery works. It's the same thing, really.

No you don't, which is why you're so resistant to even the idea that Muslims have non-violent interpretations of the text, arguing that any Muslim who does is misreading the Qur'an and not practicing "true" Islam.

No, I'm resistant to the idea non-violent teachings within people who call themselves Islam are such due to Islamic teachings. The non-violent teachings of Islam are a product of the human evolutionary survival strategy, which works better with cooperation than with bloodshed. The non-violent teachings are there because they work better, not because Islam encourages them.

What counts as "contradiction" is completely subjective.

This is not a general rule. Some contradictions are subjective, some are objective.

That's the implication that the codifiers of abrogation used, yes. But the verse itself doesn't actually say that, and it certainly doesn't tell you which later verses are supposed to be the overriding ones, much less which verses were overridden.

No, it is evident from the verse that later verses abrogate earlier ones. The only way this would bot follow from the verse is if time would be able to run backwards.

It's why the second and third modes of abrogation exist.

You misunderstand. By the very definition of the verb "to forget" we do not know the content of forgotten verses. If we did they would not be forgotten.

That is, as long as a ruling can be reconciled in some way with other rulings, it hasn't been abrogated. Arguments over this kind of reconciliation of specific verses is why scholars pretty much never came to any kind of agreement regarding which verses were abrogated.

This is also why they don't deserve the title scholar. People like that aren't scholars, they're schoolchildren who red a text and are now arguing about who is able to cite it in the most flawless manner. Adults would realize that if people can't even agree on what a supposedly perfect texts says and what it means, then the text isn't perfect and needs to be modified from time to time, as the text even explicitly says should be done, but then provides no recourse about how this should be done.

This is again a major flaw within Islam itself.

Yes, that's your interpretation of the texts. But that's not what those texts actually say, as Skeptics Annotated Bible points out.

Well no, the text actually tells a story about how Israelites defeated some of their enemies. It doesn't actually endorse violence against anyone else, it is the interpretation the SAB chooses to make and rips the verses out of context in order to do so.

The New Testament has no such stories, oddly enough. It doesn't say, for example, that the apostles or Jesus sought out revenge against Rome, Pontius Pilate, Longinus or even Judas. That would be very worrying and worthy of a major criticism of Christianity.

Contrast the Christian attitude with this Islamic equivalent of gospel:

Sahih Bukhar, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 241: Once the Prophet was offering prayers at the Ka'ba. Abu Jahl was sitting with some of his companions. One of them said to the others, "Who amongst you will bring the abdominal contents (intestines, etc.) of a camel of Bani so and so and put it on the back of Muhammad, when he prostrates?" The most unfortunate of them got up and brought it. He waited till the Prophet prostrated and then placed it on his back between his shoulders. I was watching but could not do any thing. I wish I had some people with me to hold out against them. They started laughing and falling on one another. Allah's Apostle was in prostration and he did not lift his head up till Fatima (Prophet's daughter) came and threw that (camel's abdominal contents) away from his back. He raised his head and said thrice, "O Allah! Punish Quraish." So it was hard for Abu Jahl and his companions when the Prophet invoked Allah against them as they had a conviction that the prayers and invocations were accepted in this city (Mecca). The Prophet said, "O Allah! Punish Abu Jahl, 'Utba bin Rabi'a, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin 'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, and 'Uqba bin Al Mu'it (and he mentioned the seventh whose name I cannot recall). By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I saw the dead bodies of those persons who were counted by Allah's Apostle in the Qalib (one of the wells) of Badr.

I would be extremely critical of Christianity if the apostles sought out to avenge Jesus by killing Judas or any of the other characters in the story, or if they proclaimed they would destroy Rome for what the evil empire did to their teacher. However that doesn't happen in the Bible. It does happen in the Koran though, except that it's not for killing anyone, but rather for mocking their prophet in the past. If you do not criticize Islam for it but are ready to criticize Christianity for significantly smaller problems within that religion, you're a hypocrite.

And as I said above, I like how you mock me for pointing out interpretational context in reading the Qur'an, shortly after insisting that you have to read the Bible based on interpretational context.

I never mocked you, and you never acknowledge the context within the Koran is markedly different from the one in the Bible.

Oooh, you got so close there to finally understand and acknowledging the truth,

Excuse me? I told you this in different iterations probably ten times by now. If this is news to you you need to work on either improving your memory or actually reading what I wrote for a change. I don't know which is the problem, but it's probably one of those two.

The concept of being a slave to God not only absolutely exists in Christianity, it's even right there in the Bible (the New Testament even!): Romans 6:22, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life."

Yeah, in the exact same manner as Bible is an atheist book, Psalm 14, verse 1: (...) There is no God.

And free will certainly exists in Islam. Human beings can freely choose to do what they want to do, just as in Christianity, and God will judge them after death based on what they choose of their own free will, just as in Christianity.

With a side note that Muslims are allowed and even obligated to do the judging on his behalf in some instances, of course - fornication, homosexuality, making mischief in the land and so on.

The existence of different and opposing sects in Islam has lasted even longer than Christianity's 350 years since the Reformation, you know.

Reformation will be 500 years old this October. Over 350 years has elapsed since Christians have decided to set aside their differences and tolerate one another, after fighting bloody and destructive wars for over a century, to say nothing of the Schism around 1000 C.E. and various other heresies in between. Christians were able to tolerate different sects of Christendom far better in history than Islamic sects were able to tolerate one another and have decided centuries ago to put those differences behind them.

By contrast, the Islamic schism began almost immediately, turned bloody and lasts to this day - even though it has the benefit of an example of how well it could work in Christianity. It is far easier to emulate someone than it is to set a new standard.

In fact, the reasons why Jews were treated better in Muslim lands for almost all of the history of both Islam and Christianity is that acceptance of the existence of people of non-Muslim religions (including the statement that those non-Muslims will go to heaven too) is baked right into the Qur'an, whereas the Bible (in both Testaments) is completely unaccepting of any other religion besides Christianity.

The only difference that I see is that Christianity accepts only Christians whereas Islam accepts only Muslims, Jews and Christians. You could say the latter is less bad on that count I suppose, but since Islam didn't exist until some 600 years after Christianity arose and over 300 years after it was codified, you really only have the case about the Jews.

Islam holds the edge over Christianity in treatment of a single minor religious group historically. It did not treat them well by modern standards, only by contemporary standards. Over the past 50 years or so it lost that attribute so utterly it actually looks ridiculous now.

Is that the best thing you can say about Islam?

McHrozni

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yeah, it's pretty much an invention of Khomeini's, cribbing heavily from the Sunni founders of Islamism, Abu Ala Maududi and Hassan al-Banna. Other Shia Grand Ayatollahs like Khoei and Sistani have generally considered Khomeini to be full of it and his "principle" of velayat-e-faqih to be bogus, partly because of the Sunni Islamist influence, and partly because of the quietist tradition in Shia Islam.

[EDIT: Incidentally, Khoei also completely rejected abrogation.]

Velayat-e faqih is pretty absurd on the face of it. OK, if I recall correctly in Islamic tradition certain people (such as the mentally disabled) can have a guardian appointed, to help them follow the law. This is wilayat, guardianship. Khomeini's "innovation" was to decide that everyone in a country needed a great judge to act as their guardian, which would of course be himself as Supreme Leader, based on verse 24:62 saying that those who believe in Muhammad's message are those who ask for his permission to leave when meeting to discuss matters of common interest. The point of the verse as far as I can tell seems to be that those who ask for permission are the true believers and should be granted it with regard to their own affairs, leaving it to Allah to judge them. But Khomeini "interpreted" it to mean that his permission was needed in all public matters

 

[McHrozni]

The vast majority of Muslims in the world aren't Arabs.

Not that this has any bearing on what I said, but you're quite wrong.

There are about 450 million Arabs and about 1.7 billion Muslims. Arabs are predominantly Muslim and thus represent about 20-25% of all Muslims. This is not a small minority and 75% is not a vast majority. Arabs represent a significant minority within Islam, which also strikes above and beyond their already substantial weight in religious matters.

I think that once ISIS is removed from their current physical power base, their membership and influence will dwindle drastically. I don't think they'll go away entirely, but I believe that al-Qaeda will once again become the main global Islamist terror organization, the way they were before the rise of ISIS.

Just so you know, this is only a subset of what I said. The only difference is that you're way more specific. Your position is somewhat braver, but we're in complete agreement on this matter.

Which is bad for your argument, since the earliest exegetes had an interpretation that is strikingly at odds with yours.

Was this before or after the Muslims launched a century-long war of conquest against their neighbors?

For adherents of a religion that preaches peace against those who don't attack it they sure were a warlike lot.

Concordances don't actually help in sorting out interpretations. This is why, despite almah not meaning what it has been translated to mean for a couple thousand years, the nature and description of the Mother of Jesus for almost all Christians has remained unaffected.

This is what I'm saying, even poor translations can hardly turn the meaning around.

The Qur'an is not written in a straightforward narrative manner, the way the Torah and Bible were. That's why there are so many different ways of translating it (I have access to over fifty separate translations of the Qur'an, ranging from Islamist to Salafist to Modernist, and it's remarkable how different many of these translations are from each other even on the same verses), because not only do the translators have to deal with translating words and concepts into English, they have to add interpolations to the text in order to make it flow and be understood in English (that's why most translations of the Qur'an contain parts of the text in parentheses - those are the added bits by the translators in an effort to try and understand and explain the original text, but those are additions, not present in the actual Arabic original). In effect, it's the difference between translating a letter written in another language, and translating someone's abbreviated shorthand notes written in another language (when you don't know the method they used to abbreviate and write in shorthand and are trying to figure it out yourself).

I agree, the level of disorganization in the Koran is atrocious and it's no wonder the book is almost unintelligible.

The unwillingness of something so simple as to reorganize the book in a way that would make it more easily comprehensible is itself a major, legitimate criticism of Islam. If it is acceptable to add explanations inferred from other portions of the book it should also be acceptable to reorganize the book in a way that would make those explanations unnecessary or at least less necessary.

But the supposedly perfect book cannot be altered even in such small ways, so we're left with this atrocity.

Even in Arabic, understanding the Qur'an is so non-straightforward that the entire genre of tafsir, exegesis, was created in an effort to try and understand and explain the Qur'an. The fact that pretty much no two tafsir really agree with each other about what the Qur'an "really says" shows that even before the problems of translating between languages are tossed into the mix, the Qur'an is not nearly as straightforward and easily understood as you're trying to pretend it is.

It is if you're trying to read the supposedly perfect text in the way that requires the smallest amount of mental rodeo. You know, the way a perfect book is supposed to be read?

The fact you can make copious amounts of mental rodeo to reverse the meaning in many instances does not excuse Islam and the Koran from the very appropriate criticism that it's badly written in a way that invites horrible understanding of the scripture. Even if it also allows for better versions to be made this doesn't excuse the scripture or the religion coming from that scripture and it is an inadequate shield from criticism.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I agree with A'isha that Islam is not some abstract entity with a clearly spelled out ideology. It's the sum of the people who follow it, or at least identify with it. Same with other major religions.

No. All religions are a sum of what people who follow (or identify with) it plus what the scriptures say plus what the followers of the religion did historically. All three are vital and there are other cases which aren't universally applicable.

What happened with the religion when literacy levels among believers rose is also quite important. With Christianity it led to universal human rights, whereas with Islam it led to ISIS. This bit of information cannot be applied to all religions, but it can be applied to these two.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

There are Shi'ite Arabs and Sunni Arabs. Both wholeheartedly think they're right.

You (like A'isha) missed my point. Arab Muslims are the most prominent of all Muslims because Islam started out in Arabia, because the holy texts were written in Arabic, because the most holy places are in Arabia and so on. Oil money helps too of course, but as an ancillary factor.

It is similar as to why Italians historically had to much influence in the Roman Catholic Church, having a monopoly on popes for almost 500 years and so on, due to, in no small part, because RCC is centered around Rome, the capital of Italy and because the official language of RCC is Latin, itself a precursor of modern Italian. The prominence of Italians in RCC is less than that of Arabs in Islam, but the principle is the same.

I mean violent proselytizing with the goal of eliminating any traces of disagreement or secularism. Something like jihad as it's widely used now. And I mean really modern, as practically nonexistent until the end of the 1980s.

It was nearly non-existent for maybe a century, but probably just a few decades after WW1. This Islamic tradition always existed, but gained immense prominence around 1100 C.E. Their society functioned well for about three hundred years, before that it was camel herders turned conquerors and after that it was conquerors turned into bigots.

What changed? Various scientific discoveries often clashed with religion the natural response was to reject scientific discoveries in favor of the tautological truth of the religion. Roman Catholic Church tried to do the same thing centuries later, but failed.

But how will you know if Islam has changed?

The Pope condemned the attack in London, even though there was no connection to Roman Catholic Church (or any other branch of Christianity) and the attack. Once the overwhelming majority of Muslims realize why he still condemned the attack and act accordingly when Muslims act out, Islam will have changed.
Note: I define overwhelming majority as over 99.5%.

The 3rd step prayer begins, roughly, "My creator, I offer myself to thee to build with me and do with me what you will."

Yes, in Islam, humans are Gods' little playthings.

His father's apostasy and, I believe, mental illness was tolerated until the late '80s. But he began to acquire an international following. A loose coalition of of disparate Muslims had him killed in 1990. But other sects of Islam also have accepted later "messengers," creating other splinter sects. Is that change? How about Sufism? Hijab practices are hugely diverse, each based on the same Arabic text. It's almost like things come and go just based on fashion.

It doesn't matter how it changes, just so long as the changes are in the way of making Islam benign. Reorganizing the Koran in a way that would make it more easily understandable would be a good start. Eliminating the problematic Hadiths would be too. The bad news is that these are unthinkable for Muslims, as I'm sure A'isha will chip in.

When will we decide that Islam has changed? No more attacks, ever? International polling? A growing awareness that Lebanese food is delicious and most Iranians just want to sell us carpets? When there are no more moles to whack?

It would have to be an arbitrary point. I did not set out to say what must be changed and now, this is for Muslims to do. I only throw out ideas of what would greatly benefit Muslims and Islam.

Islam is a younger religion than Christianity or Judaism but globalization could accelerate change PDQ.

Only in terms of years since the religion was established. In terms of how important it was for how long the difference is far smaller if it exists at all. The first three centuries of Christianity existed as a persecuted sect within what is best described as an advanced, impressive and evil empire. It took about another century from that for Christianity to become the dominant force within that empire, but then a good part of the empire fell to pagan invaders, which later converted to Christianity.

By contrast, Islam violently subjugated vast new lands within the first century of its' creation. It took over 2/3 of Christian world and the entirety of Zoroastrian world by force of arms and was the epicenter of intellectual thought for three centuries in the first four hundred years of its existence. Islam saw meteoric rise, dominance and the beginning of its epic fall in about as much time it took for Christianity to establish itself as a dominant religion in its own sphere. The rise and dominance of Christianity in its cultural neighborhood happened centuries after the Islamic one.

You can't just compare the number of years and claim Islam is younger. It developed later, but its genesis was so different and so much faster for Islam the simplistic number of years since religion was established paints an inaccurate picture. It could be argued Islam is a more mature religion, because its early years were so different from those of Christendom.

The suicide bomber gene could deselect itself. There is "live and let live" Islam that is far more prevalent than many Americans realize.

The problem is that a good number of those people are converts. It will take a very, very, very long time for evolution to kick in, even if the selective pressure is strong enough (in which I doubt).

Why is that best? Do you actually do translations?

Not from Arabic, but I have done my share of translating from one language to another. The same principle applies.

I don't think it's difficult at all. I don't know NT Greek either but here's an example (my examples are all from novels, FWIW). In "Absolute Truths" a clergyman going through a series of disasters keeps repeating, "All things work together for good for them that love God." But he struggles. Later another priest, his archenemy, points out the interpretation, "All things intermingle for good for those that love God." Same NT Greek verb.

One is meaningless and the other has meaning. They don't mean the opposite things.

McHrozni

 

[Minoosh]

What happened with the religion when literacy levels among believers rose is also quite important. With Christianity it led to universal human rights, whereas with Islam it led to ISIS.

When did literacy in Christianity lead to universal human rights? And do you contend that increased Muslim literacy led to ISIS alone, and nothing else?

The anti-ISIS coalition includes Muslim nations.

 

[McHrozni]

When did literacy in Christianity lead to universal human rights?

Late 18th century, US Bill of rights is the forerunner of the Universal declaration of human rights.

It was written by Christians in what is now a quite conservative Christian state.

And do you contend that increased Muslim literacy led to ISIS alone, and nothing else?

No, but it's quite an important aspect.

The anti-ISIS coalition includes Muslim nations.

It's predominantly Muslim nations, whom it directly threatens, lies a claim to their territory and in two or three cases occupies territory. Infighting for the sake of one dogma over the other is an art form in Islam.

McHrozni

 

[Minoosh]

The New Testament has no such stories, oddly enough. It doesn't say, for example, that the apostles or Jesus sought out revenge against Rome, Pontius Pilate, Longinus or even Judas.

No, but he curses an innocent fig tree and it shrivels up. Revenge? Petulance? Hmm.

Contrast the Christian attitude with this Islamic equivalent of gospel:

It sounds like a mean practical joke. Someone put camel guts on his back and he cursed them. They believed the curses would work - in Mecca. Maybe they died as a result of this belief. The witness doesn't say they were killed, but he saw the bodies. Is that even in the Qu'ran? I certainly wouldn't call it equivalent of the Gospel.

I would be extremely critical of Christianity if the apostles sought out to avenge Jesus by killing Judas or any of the other characters in the story ...

They didn't have to. He knew himself to be cursed and hanged himself.

You talk about how Christians fought for centuries but now coexist. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims get beyond the violence as well. This thread talks about "after Mosul and Raqqa." Sectarian battles could collapse, culture could change. We'll see, if we live that long. You concede the Qu'ran has verses in it that point to a desire for peace and tolerance.

The only difference that I see is that Christianity accepts only Christians whereas Islam accepts only Muslims, Jews and Christians. You could say the latter is less bad on that count I suppose, but since Islam didn't exist until some 600 years after Christianity arose and over 300 years after it was codified, you really only have the case about the Jews.

I don't follow your logic in minimizing this part of the Qu'ran. You must have your reasons. I get the impression you do minimize selectively.

You and A'isha are talking past each other and it's an education for me. I see a pattern going on, almost like a game of telephone, where the story starts one way only to become massively distorted by the end of the game. I'm sparing in providing textual evidence because I don't have the patience for it; it varies too much from source to source. Maybe there is an algorithm we could apply to quantify the how violent a religion and its followers have been, metrics of how many dead, how many saved, which religion is more worthy. But I'm not sure that can be resolved in one thread. You have a passion for religious progress; she has a passion for the intricate scholarship of the Qu'ran, and each of you have strong views and like to argue, but this discussion will never be boiled down to comparing apples tp apples.

 

[Minoosh]

Late 18th century, US Bill of rights is the forerunner of the Universal declaration of human rights.

It was written by Christians in what is now a quite conservative Christian state.

The Universal Declaration was adopted in 1948. Was there a smooth trajectory from the 1770s until 1948, or were there a few bumps in the road?

It's predominantly Muslim nations, whom it directly threatens, lies a claim to their territory and in two or three cases occupies territory.

So, a battle over territory?

Infighting for the sake of one dogma over the other is an art form in Islam.

So an ideological battle. That's a quandary, all right.

 

[A'isha]

His father was Rashad Khalifa.

Thank you.

I knew your description sounded familiar, though I mainly know of him from an old Skeptical Inquirer article about his Qur'anic numerology involving the number 19, and his prominence in the Quraniyyun movement (Muslims who reject the hadith and rely only on the Qur'an).

There was a poster here who promoted his numerological calculations, but I don't believe he was a follower of Khalifa.

Though I came to believe Rashad was insane, I respected his underlying philosophy - that a person's status as a Muslim is only knowable by God and that individual. Sam became my brother - not the relationship I wanted, but just as precious.

I'm glad you found some happiness with him, even if it wasn't the relationship with him that you wanted.

See, I don't who any of those individuals or traditions are, really, but I'm grateful for your scholarship. My takeaway: Khomeini was a man of great charisma, while his successor is a battle-scarred and wily power broker. You can't put too much stock in the presidents, who are allowed to be human only because they really have no power. I loved Khatami, really loved him. Iranian politics broke his heart.

Khoei was the Grand Ayatollah of Najaf, Iraq (one of the holiest cities in Shia Islam, site of the tomb of Ali ibn Abi Talib). Sistani is his successor, after Khoei died in 1992.

 

[A'isha]

This would be a compelling argument, if the geopolitical concern in question wasn't US war against ISIS.

It's not that, either. The concerns cited by the terrorists who have attacked the US have cited a number of interventions by the US in the middle east, with attacks against ISIS being only some of them (and that only recently).

The only way you can make that a geopolitical concern is if you acknowledge ISIS as a legitimate entity and state.

I don't have to think that it is, just the terrorists do.

I mentioned there were no appreciable Jewish terrorist attacks.

You said it "didn't result in terrorism". No moving the goalposts now.

I did not say that, I recommend you read my argument again.

You said, and I quote, "I'm actually claiming Christianity is based on the New testament, not the Old one." Christianity is just as based in the Old Testament, which is why the authors of the bill proposed this week cited the Old Testament and not the New, even though the exact same verbatim text was in the New.

Yeah. Crusades in particular were a modest response to a particularly bad outburst of Islamic intolerance.

No they weren't.

It took over a century of bloody conflict for the Crusaders to obtain victory and open up Jerusalem to Christian pilgrims.

Pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem both before and after the Crusades.

I was simply using it as an example of how your trickery works. It's the same thing, really.

If you're trying to make an argument about the way Muslims translate the Qur'an, then cite things Muslims are saying, not what non-Muslims who think the Qur'an is actually a Christian text are saying.

No, I'm resistant to the idea non-violent teachings within people who call themselves Islam are such due to Islamic teachings. The non-violent teachings of Islam are a product of the human evolutionary survival strategy, which works better with cooperation than with bloodshed. The non-violent teachings are there because they work better, not because Islam encourages them.

Not only are you actually ignoring the way Muslims themselves read (and have read) the text, you're applying weird notions of evolutionary psychology to justify it.

This is not a general rule. Some contradictions are subjective, some are objective.

All contradictions are subjective. That's why Muslims can't agree on what those contradictions are.

No, it is evident from the verse that later verses abrogate earlier ones.

Again, it doesn't say which verses or how to identify them.

You misunderstand. By the very definition of the verb "to forget" we do not know the content of forgotten verses. If we did they would not be forgotten.

You misunderstand. There are hadith specifically about "forgotten" verses, with the legal-textual and textual modes of naskh developed to explain both why they think some verses and rulings don't appear in the Qur'an after Muhammad "forgot" them, and why they think some verses don't appear but their rulings are still valid after Muhammad "forgot" them.

This is also why they don't deserve the title scholar. People like that aren't scholars, they're schoolchildren who red a text and are now arguing about who is able to cite it in the most flawless manner. Adults would realize that if people can't even agree on what a supposedly perfect texts says and what it means, then the text isn't perfect and needs to be modified from time to time, as the text even explicitly says should be done, but then provides no recourse about how this should be done.

This is again a major flaw within Islam itself.

Yes, you don't agree with them, I know. I don't either (it's why I'm not a Muslim). That doesn't change the fact that their opinions and writings exist and are considered authoritative guides by believers.

Well no, the text actually tells a story about how Israelites defeated some of their enemies. It doesn't actually endorse violence against anyone else, it is the interpretation the SAB chooses to make and rips the verses out of context in order to do so.

Again, you take God's clear commands about what to do to certain people with certain characteristics (such as "be against God" or "try to turn believers away from God"), and insist they don't actually mean what they say because you think that the "context" shows otherwise.

You demand that the Bible be read in a way you refuse to allow the Qur'an to be read. You have a double standard that the SAB people, at least, do not share.

Contrast the Christian attitude with this Islamic equivalent of gospel:

Sahih Bukhar, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 241: Once the Prophet was offering prayers at the Ka'ba. Abu Jahl was sitting with some of his companions. One of them said to the others, "Who amongst you will bring the abdominal contents (intestines, etc.) of a camel of Bani so and so and put it on the back of Muhammad, when he prostrates?" The most unfortunate of them got up and brought it. He waited till the Prophet prostrated and then placed it on his back between his shoulders. I was watching but could not do any thing. I wish I had some people with me to hold out against them. They started laughing and falling on one another. Allah's Apostle was in prostration and he did not lift his head up till Fatima (Prophet's daughter) came and threw that (camel's abdominal contents) away from his back. He raised his head and said thrice, "O Allah! Punish Quraish." So it was hard for Abu Jahl and his companions when the Prophet invoked Allah against them as they had a conviction that the prayers and invocations were accepted in this city (Mecca). The Prophet said, "O Allah! Punish Abu Jahl, 'Utba bin Rabi'a, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin 'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, and 'Uqba bin Al Mu'it (and he mentioned the seventh whose name I cannot recall). By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I saw the dead bodies of those persons who were counted by Allah's Apostle in the Qalib (one of the wells) of Badr.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Hadith 53

Narrated `Aisha:

A group of Jews entered upon the Prophet and said, "As-Samu-Alaikum." (i.e. death be upon you). I understood it and said, "Wa-Alaikum As-Samu wal-la'n. (death and the curse of Allah be Upon you)." Allah's Messenger said "Be calm, O `Aisha! Allah loves that one should be kind and lenient in all matters." I said, "O Allah's Messenger! Haven't you heard what they (the Jews) have said?" Allah's Messenger said "I have (already) said (to them) "And upon you!"

EDIT: See also this.

I would be extremely critical of Christianity if the apostles sought out to avenge Jesus by killing Judas or any of the other characters in the story, or if they proclaimed they would destroy Rome for what the evil empire did to their teacher.

Of course they did. Rome is identified as Babylon in the New Testament, a center of sin and inquiry that will be destroyed by Jesus.

I never mocked you, and you never acknowledge the context within the Koran is markedly different from the one in the Bible.

Of course you have, you've repeatedly called me a "hypocrite" for applying to the Qur'an the exact same standard you insist on for the Bible.

Yeah, in the exact same manner as Bible is an atheist book, Psalm 14, verse 1: (...) There is no God.

You mean the one that actually says "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

I quoted Romans 6:22 in its entirety, and you not only didn't address that, you quoted a fragment of Psalms 14:1 in an attempt to argue, rather laughably, that Paul literally saying that Christians are "slaves of God" is the same that a verse talking about how atheists are corrupt and vile means the Bible is an atheist book.

With a side note that Muslims are allowed and even obligated to do the judging on his behalf in some instances, of course - fornication, homosexuality, making mischief in the land and so on.

You mean like this?

Reformation will be 500 years old this October. Over 350 years has elapsed since Christians have decided to set aside their differences and tolerate one another, after fighting bloody and destructive wars for over a century, to say nothing of the Schism around 1000 C.E. and various other heresies in between. Christians were able to tolerate different sects of Christendom far better in history than Islamic sects were able to tolerate one another and have decided centuries ago to put those differences behind them.

Only in certain parts of the world. Just like in certain parts of the world, Shia and Sunni get along just fine. Violence between different sects of both religions continues in other places.

The only difference that I see is that Christianity accepts only Christians whereas Islam accepts only Muslims, Jews and Christians. You could say the latter is less bad on that count I suppose, but since Islam didn't exist until some 600 years after Christianity arose and over 300 years after it was codified, you really only have the case about the Jews.

That last sentence doesn't even make sense.

 

[Minoosh]

You (like A'isha) missed my point. Arab Muslims are the most prominent of all Muslims because Islam started out in Arabia, because the holy texts were written in Arabic, because the most holy places are in Arabia and so on.

You say there are 450 million Arabs; Wiki says 366 per CIA. Throws off the math. Besides, you would have to ignore differences between Arabs in order to make Arabs a consolidated chunk of influence.

The Pope condemned the attack in London, even though there was no connection to Roman Catholic Church (or any other branch of Christianity) and the attack. Once the overwhelming majority of Muslims realize why he still condemned the attack and act accordingly when Muslims act out, Islam will have changed. Note: I define overwhelming majority as over 99.5%.

Pick any figure you like. Islam does not have a pope. Pope says something, he's the Grand PooBah of Catholics - who aren't even Christians, according to a cute little Evangelical teenager at a school where I subbed. I opened my mouth to argue, then thought better of it. So anyway, he's pretty much the only person who could claim to be speaking for a whole Church. It gets coverage in the news.

Yes, in Islam, humans are Gods' little playthings.

That's a cheap little shot. The idea of a human spirit seeking to align itself with the will of God, or a greater reality, is so not a strictly Muslim thing. Your tone makes me suspect you view Islam with jaundice-colored glasses.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

It's mysticism, it's paradox, it's literally impossible, so we need a Trinity to deal with it, apparently. The idea of "Christ died for your sins" is something a lot of people can't get their heads around (like Jews, for instance), even though they believe in God and that God is One. Therefore Jesus could not have been divine. He was a great prophet, he was born of a virgin, God took him up to the sky ... but Jesus was not God. That is the intellectual aspect that attracts me to Islam; it just seems more coherent. God doesn't need to impregnate a woman to give birth to Himself in order to offer Himself up as a sacrifice so that He can come back to life and save humanity.

It doesn't matter how it changes, just so long as the changes are in the way of making Islam benign.

I traveled in the Middle East and 99.5 percent of the people I met were benign.

It would have to be an arbitrary point. I did not set out to say what must be changed and now, this is for Muslims to do. I only throw out ideas of what would greatly benefit Muslims and Islam.

The resources to see online Qu'rans and compare different translations are widely available. There are people like Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Khatami and maybe Rouhani as well as millions of young people, probably the most important segment. But if Muslims are finding themselves targets of hate and harassment it could slow down any incremental progress that might be occurring. "Islam sucks and let me tell you why" is probably not going to win hearts and minds.

 

[McHrozni]

No, but he curses an innocent fig tree and it shrivels up. Revenge? Petulance? Hmm.

I consider violence against innocent fig trees an acceptable kind of religious violence. I realize fig trees may disagree.

It sounds like a mean practical joke. Someone put camel guts on his back and he cursed them. They believed the curses would work - in Mecca. Maybe they died as a result of this belief. The witness doesn't say they were killed, but he saw the bodies.

Either the curses did work and were killed by magic, or they were executed by more mundane means, such as beheading. The story is quite bad either way.

Is that even in the Qu'ran? I certainly wouldn't call it equivalent of the Gospel.

It's in the Hadith. Hadith are the stories of Mohameds' companions about his life, just like Christian Gospels are the stories of Jesuses companions about his life. The Hadiths are the closest thing to Christian Gospels in Islam.

They didn't have to. He knew himself to be cursed and hanged himself.

And?

You talk about how Christians fought for centuries but now coexist. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims get beyond the violence as well. This thread talks about "after Mosul and Raqqa." Sectarian battles could collapse, culture could change. We'll see, if we live that long. You concede the Qu'ran has verses in it that point to a desire for peace and tolerance.

Yes, but if you look closer there are qualifiers in the Islamic scriptures as to when those verses are to be used. They're not the default state, but rather contingency plans for the time when Muslims are unable to defeat the unbelievers. The Islamic scripture tells them to lie in wait for the right time to strike and conquer the unbelievers.

Now, I fully agree that a substantial majority of Muslims - over 80% certainly - don't buy that or are ignorant of those commands and are in fact content to live peaceful lives among unbelievers. However a notable minority of 5-15% (it depends on demographic) buys it wholeheartedly and believes they will conquer all unbelievers once they get their chance. The problem is compounded by the fact the majority of Muslims are unwilling to take the necessary steps to destroy this minority (which is a just cause), simply because they're also Muslims like them. A'isha is a master of making up excuses for these unproblematic Muslims, an occasional condemnation here and there is considered to be all that is necessary for instance, as if she is the decider of what should be done. Politicians of sane parties are also unwilling to face the problem. The result is the progressive rise of politicians like LePen, who consider the Holocaust as something no one should be ashamed of and pick out Muslims as the target of their hate.

A'isha, by insisting the status quo should be maintained indefinitely, come hell or high water, is a part of the problem, hence that out of context quote in her signature.

I don't follow your logic in minimizing this part of the Qu'ran. You must have your reasons. I get the impression you do minimize selectively.

Not all of the Koran is important and the parts of the important may not be relevant to the discussion. I don't care how many times it says God is merciful either.

You and A'isha are talking past each other and it's an education for me. I see a pattern going on, almost like a game of telephone, where the story starts one way only to become massively distorted by the end of the game. I'm sparing in providing textual evidence because I don't have the patience for it; it varies too much from source to source. Maybe there is an algorithm we could apply to quantify the how violent a religion and its followers have been, metrics of how many dead, how many saved, which religion is more worthy. But I'm not sure that can be resolved in one thread. You have a passion for religious progress; she has a passion for the intricate scholarship of the Qu'ran, and each of you have strong views and like to argue, but this discussion will never be boiled down to comparing apples tp apples.

Yeah, I agree, and this is why I participate in these ... I wouldn't really call them debates, but maybe exchanges ... with A'isha. It's not that I'll convince her of anything, this is not something you can do over an internet forum. But you can provide information that is useful for a third party, and maybe sometimes convince a fence sitter.

As for you algorithm, I think it is unnecessary. Comparing Islam to Christianity is a common tactic to divert the discussion away from Islam, in the sense "Christianity is bad too, look!!!1". It's an obfuscation tactic with no merit, I frequently propose Mesoamerican beliefs would be a far easier target, with their human sacrifices every three weeks or so and all that. Alas, those are not as interesting, so we get to listen about the Deuteronomy, Hittites and the Crusades every so often.

This is no more than obfuscation. Whatever problems Christianity may have they do not excuse the problems Islam have. Furthermore it is evident those problems with Christianity that do exists (I have yet to hear a very relevant: poor Hittites!) are not a relevant factor in today's' world, whereas problems with Islam are.

It is also evident these problems are severe, seeing as most of the Muslim world is locked in perpetual violent conflict with itself, mostly on religious grounds. The conflict is far too bloody to ignore and not nearly bloody enough to lead to an eventual resolution. If there were millions of dead every year we would see a resolution one way or another within a lifetime, but the way things stand right now they could go on forever, perpetually destroying their society and damaging ours. Status quo is unacceptable, something must be done. I have proposed many possibilities, all of them helpful and none of them easy, but any solution is hamstrung by the fact it can only be done by Muslims, who are also supposed to be shielded as if they're the victims of evil non-Muslims.

The reality of the situation is that they're victims of their own religion. The only wrong way to go about that is to push the narrative their own religion has nothing to do with it and that it's only being abused for some nefarious purpose you never can put your finger on, but it's there, trust me.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You say there are 450 million Arabs; Wiki says 366 per CIA. Throws off the math. Besides, you would have to ignore differences between Arabs in order to make Arabs a consolidated chunk of influence.

450 million Arabs, 366 million people living in the Arab world. It doesn't matter anyway, they are above and beyond any reasonable definition of a tiny minority.

Pick any figure you like. Islam does not have a pope. Pope says something, he's the Grand PooBah of Catholics - who aren't even Christians, according to a cute little Evangelical teenager at a school where I subbed. I opened my mouth to argue, then thought better of it. So anyway, he's pretty much the only person who could claim to be speaking for a whole Church. It gets coverage in the news.

If you look at my earlier conversations with A'isha you'll find I frequently proposed Muslims should always condemn Islamist crimes, whether they are implicated or not. This is the best if not the only way to distinguish yourself from them.

The Pope condemned an attack by a Muslim against non-Catholics. This is good PR. A'isha claims Muslims shouldn't be required to continuously condemn other Muslims when they do bad things, because they have nothing to do with them. This is atrocious PR.

Unwillingness to do anything, not even condemn evil because it's evil, is a major problem within Islam.

That's a cheap little shot. The idea of a human spirit seeking to align itself with the will of God, or a greater reality, is so not a strictly Muslim thing. Your tone makes me suspect you view Islam with jaundice-colored glasses.

Did I ever claim it was? Human sacrifice wasn't a strictly Aztec thing either, but they were still true masters of human sacrifice.

It's mysticism, it's paradox, it's literally impossible, so we need a Trinity to deal with it, apparently. The idea of "Christ died for your sins" is something a lot of people can't get their heads around (like Jews, for instance), even though they believe in God and that God is One. Therefore Jesus could not have been divine. He was a great prophet, he was born of a virgin, God took him up to the sky ... but Jesus was not God. That is the intellectual aspect that attracts me to Islam; it just seems more coherent. God doesn't need to impregnate a woman to give birth to Himself in order to offer Himself up as a sacrifice so that He can come back to life and save humanity.

Yeh, I don't quite get that aspect of Christianity either. I know what it says, but it doesn't make sense to me. Islam is more coherent, I'll give you that: submit yourself to Allah and conquer the world in his name.

Coherent is not synonymous with good though.

I traveled in the Middle East and 99.5 percent of the people I met were benign.

You could travel to North Korea and say the same thing, but Juche would still be a horrible supremacist (among other things) ideology.

The resources to see online Qu'rans and compare different translations are widely available. There are people like Shirin Ebadi and Muhammad Khatami and maybe Rouhani as well as millions of young people, probably the most important segment. But if Muslims are finding themselves targets of hate and harassment it could slow down any incremental progress that might be occurring. "Islam sucks and let me tell you why" is probably not going to win hearts and minds.

Perhaps, but it's a hard cold fact: Islam sucks, more so than any other major religion in existence. Even if we assume A'isha is completely right in that it's all down to how you interpret the scripture, Islam still sucks because it doesn't say anything firm, but can be used to inspire evil without a significant effort and at the same time it does inspire evil on a daily basis.

Muslims must accept their religion is a significant source of evil, then take steps to remedy that evil. This can be done in a myriad of different ways, from active education of all Muslim kids in peaceful coexistence, above and beyond what the rest of us will ever receive (to shield them from their scriptures) to changing the religion and scriptures (which IMHO amounts to abandoning Islam for something similar, but different) to establishing an institution like the Pope in RCC in order to establish some order and coherence and so on. None of these are easy, indeed they seem impossible at this time.

These solutions are how you defeat the evil within Islam though. There is no prospect of things getting better in Islam anytime soon, and they will get far, far uglier once the oil which provides the illusion of prosperity in the most prolific Islamic countries ceases to be a viable economic option (for whichever combination of reasons, depletion, competition or environment). Things might improve a century from now, but they also might not. Even if they do it will be just an end of a cycle, which will then just repeat itself in a never-ending circle of chaos and destruction.

If you're content with that you're a hater of Muslims.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It's not that, either. The concerns cited by the terrorists who have attacked the US have cited a number of interventions by the US in the middle east, with attacks against ISIS being only some of them (and that only recently).

Yes, yes, I'm sure. But if you're going to claim a French guy is angered because USA is intervening in Arabia, so he naturally responds by attacking the French is coming from anywhere else but Islam, you're too hypocritical to talk to.

Truth to be told I'm finding Minoosh a far better conservationist than your incessant and increasingly boring excuses upon excuses.

Pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem both before and after the Crusades.

See, this is why I don't take you seriously. You posted something factual, I'll grant you that. Do you know what prompted the first Crusade? It was two things:
- Islamist invasions of Christian Byzantine empire and
- refusal to allow Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem

Do you know what ended the Crusades in the Islamic world? A peace treaty that allowed Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem.

To put this in perspective, what happened in the area was like USA (or whomever) conquering Saudi Arabia, converting most of Mecca into a Christian city and some time later prohibiting Muslims from making the pilgrimage to Mecca, because filthy unbelievers don't deserve entrance to a holy Christian city.
And then the angry Muslim response would be provided as evidence of Islam being bad, because Muslims attack poor Christians.

This is literately how the Crusades are usually painted by apologists and deniers.

That doesn't change the fact that their opinions and writings exist and are considered authoritative guides by believers.

So are rule-books for board games, but that doesn't make their authors scholars.

You demand that the Bible be read in a way you refuse to allow the Qur'an to be read. You have a double standard that the SAB people, at least, do not share.

Assuming you're 100% correct and the Bible and the Koran say the same thing, the difference is still that the Bible says this about peoples long since extinct, whereas the Koran does so about peoples who are still very much alive. If that is true the Bible no longer inspires violence (because those enemies are gone), but the Koran will at least as long as the peoples in question still exist.

In other words, even if we take up your stance to the fullest, the entire argument doesn't move by a Planck length.

You mean the one that actually says "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."

Why yes, I did mean this verse. See, the phrase "There is no God" appears in the Bible. Therefore it is an atheist book. I'm not saying because I believe in this nonsense, I'm saying it to show you how many of your defenses of Islam look, albeit in a more extreme manner.

Only in certain parts of the world. Just like in certain parts of the world, Shia and Sunni get along just fine. Violence between different sects of both religions continues in other places.

Shia and Sunni get along fine in areas dominated by non-Muslims. It's curious how that works, isn't it?

That last sentence doesn't even make sense.

Muslims didn't exist at the time Christianity was established, so we don't know what it would say about Muslims if they had the chance to codify it in scriptures.

Given how the two religions started out I imagine nothing good. It's all the grievances Muslims are supposed to have against the West times a billion. Out of five holiest cities in Christendom, three are in Muslim hands, Muslims are fighting the Jews for a fourth and have pillaged the fifth in the past. Yet, this historic grudge, above and beyond everything Muslims ever suffered at the hands of Christians, was forgotten by Christians, whereas the latter still hold grudges over something as minor as the Crusades.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The Universal Declaration was adopted in 1948. Was there a smooth trajectory from the 1770s until 1948, or were there a few bumps in the road?

Of course there were bumps in the road. What of it?

So, a battle over territory?

You can't say it's an ideological battle solely because of the fact they fight them when they're also trying to establish control over their country. Some of the fighting may also be ideological, but they would fight anyone who took controls over their country. It's the whole point of having a country to begin with.

So an ideological battle. That's a quandary, all right.

Saudi Arabia isn't far from ISIS ideologically, but they have a system of government that is more pragmatic than the hard-core dogma of ISIS and has some aspects of secularism (not many). It has a long-standing ideological conflict with Iran, who is also similar to ISIS and SA, but with aspects of secularism (more than SA).

In other words, it is hard to make the case that SA is fighting ISIS on ideological grounds. Some of it may be ideological, but most of it appears just a pragmatic approach to a problem. Not that Saudi contribution against ISIS is particularly large, they may in fact be helping them more than they're doing.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Yes, yes, I'm sure. But if you're going to claim a French guy is angered because USA is intervening in Arabia, so he naturally responds by attacking the French is coming from anywhere else but Islam, you're too hypocritical to talk to.

The bombing of civilians and the killing of children in Iraq and Syria seems to be most often cited.

See, this is why I don't take you seriously. You posted something factual, I'll grant you that. Do you know what prompted the first Crusade? It was two things:
- Islamist invasions of Christian Byzantine empire and
- refusal to allow Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem

As pointed out in this scathing, in-depth review of a book that tried to make the same claims about the Crusades you are, that's not anywhere near the truth.

Plus, far from helping the Byzantine empire, the sack of Constantinople by Western Crusaders and their partitioning of the empire during the Fourth Crusade fatally weakened it and is what led to its final defeat by the Ottomans.

Not to mention that one of the first things the Crusaders did, the year after the First Crusade was called, was massacre thousands of Jews in Europe.

Do you know what ended the Crusades in the Islamic world? A peace treaty that allowed Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem.

Actually, it was the complete failure of the Eighth and Ninth Crusades and Edward I being forced to negotiate a ten-year truce with the Muslims (he cared more about what was happening back home in England than about what was happening in the Middle East, in any case), after the expiration of which came the final collapse and reconquest of the Crusader Kingdoms in the Levant.

So are rule-books for board games, but that doesn't make their authors scholars.

If you're trying to make an argument about chess, ignoring the established rules and the players who write about the established rules of the game in favor of arguing based on your own made-up rules for chess is not going to make your arguments about chess very convincing. Kind of the opposite, in fact.

Assuming you're 100% correct and the Bible and the Koran say the same thing, the difference is still that the Bible says this about peoples long since extinct, whereas the Koran does so about peoples who are still very much alive.

Even that's not true, since the entire context and focus of the Qur'an was on the polytheists of Mecca, and that's how pretty much all exegetes understand the verses in the Qur'an.

Why yes, I did mean this verse. See, the phrase "There is no God" appears in the Bible. Therefore it is an atheist book. I'm not saying because I believe in this nonsense, I'm saying it to show you how many of your defenses of Islam look, albeit in a more extreme manner.

Yes, the only defense you have for me quoting both Bible verses and Qur'an verses in full is to snip out the vast majority of a verse to change its meaning, so you can pretend that's what I'm doing (even though, again, I was quoting the verses in their entirety)

Even as projection, your argument there is terrible.

Muslims didn't exist at the time Christianity was established, so we don't know what it would say about Muslims if they had the chance to codify it in scriptures.

Jews certainly existed at the time Christianity was established, and we can get a clue as to how Christianity might have treated Muslims from the way they treated Jews.

Hint: it wasn't very good.

Yet, this historic grudge, above and beyond everything Muslims ever suffered at the hands of Christians, was forgotten by Christians, whereas the latter still hold grudges over something as minor as the Crusades.i

Actually, the Crusades weren't a big deal to Muslims either until sometime in the mid-late 19th Century (after all, they quite rightly believed themselves to have won). It wasn't until the Western imperialism, conquests, and colonialism of Muslim lands starting in that period that the Crusades were recast as a precursor invasion to what was happening contemporaneously.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm glad you found some happiness with him, even if it wasn't the relationship with him that you wanted.

We had many mini-adventures, like trying to save a baby bird and transporting 3 Mexican gentlemen to farm country. He had made a deal to be my driver to mandatory meetings (which I would have attended anyway) when I lost my driver's license, and sometimes he would pick up other fares before dropping me off. I put off getting my license or a long time. I hope I was "a fare to remember!' Actually I know I was.

We talked a lot about God, some about Islam, and he'd switch on the radio sometimes and I noticed which songs he liked most: "My Sweet Lord," "Imagine" and "Dust in the Wind." And ELO's "Evil Woman," showing his not-so-spiritual side.

He asked me once, "Which do you think is more important, belief or prayer?" I said "prayer" and he seemed to agree. In a way we were both doubters, practicing a similar religion. He had literally been sent to my front door (by God? Or by the dispatcher?), at a time when I was reeling from several deaths and other traumas. He had had similar losses and maybe guilt because he hadn't gone to the mosque with his father that morning. One day he said, "Maybe God sent me to you as a test" and I answered, "Maybe God sent you to me as a gift." His response was, "Don't be naive." We had both fallen into a belief that we were in each other's lives for some kind of purpose.

He claimed not to be an Arab - though two years before he was born Egypt was actually part of the "United Arab Republic." I didn't bother arguing about it; I don't really know that much. The attempt to create stable nation-states in the Middle East has unfortunately enabled the rise of (largely secular) kleptocracy. Also a factor is the successful creation of Israel. Conditions have been perfect to nurture rising resentments and unfortunately the leaders who kept things under control have been brutal dictators.

The Jews prevailed, IMO, because they knew how to create a nation-state, while many Arabs lived in a more nebulous (to me) tribal sort of world. Meanwhile other powers drew arbitrary lines on maps supposedly made "countries," but not ones with a great cohesion to form around. Sub-Saharan Africa has had horrible genocidal violence along tribal, not religious lines. Do they even have Scripture?

I don't think the Qu'ran is any more violent (maybe less) than the Old Testament - yet Jews have largely avoided extremism. They were aggressive in annexing land, yet internally the country is stable and fairly peaceful.

Khoei was the Grand Ayatollah of Najaf, Iraq (one of the holiest cities in Shia Islam, site of the tomb of Ali ibn Abi Talib). Sistani is his successor, after Khoei died in 1992.

Wasn't a mosque blown up there?

I dated an Iranian guy named Najafi - I have an affinity for the Middle East, I'm not sure why - I like the aesthetics of old places, narrow streets, plain doorways leading to secret, sumptuous courtyards behind earthen walls. I've seen such neighborhoods in Spain as well. I like mosaics, the abstract flowing or geometric designs, the non-figurative art. The most beautiful building I've ever seen is the Sheikh Lotfollah mosque in Isfahan. Guiltily, as I said, when I think of bombs raining on these treasures I wince. There is a lot of culture in the Middle East worth preserving.