Activist Atheist divided regarding criticism of Islam

[Carn]

The fact that the Geneva Conventions on war rules have been systematically violated in almost every war don’t make them responsible of this violation.

The Geneva Conventions do not know an individual duty to enagage in war. So them being to some extent open to abuse is very different from the potential abuse of the duty to fight in defensive warfare in islamic theology.

Support to terrorist attacks in Europe and the USA can be more or less widespread in Muslim countries —it is difficult to quantify, but recent polls show that it is very limited— but it is not directly related to the reading of the Koran. Imperialist wars don’t need the Koran to find an excuse.

But they make them easier to jurstify and make recruitment easier.

Because there is no need to convince majorities that there is an offensive war against Islam/some islamic country going on to exploit the individual duty for defensive war; it is sufficient to convince 5-10% of the able bodied male population; then one has hypothetically tens or hundreds of thousands people prone to recruitment, because based upon their individual perception of the situation they would have to affirm that they have individually the duty to join the war.

This means that the use of the Koran as excuse for imperialist wars is not as broad as it was in other times —Ummaya caliphate,

You seem to hold 3 positions:

1. In the ummaya caliphate the Koran was interpreted to provide excuses for "imperialist wars".

2. With better interpretation the Koran cannot be exploited in such way or at least a lot less.

3. For the interpretation of the Koran the Hadiths are a necessary tool that must be used.


Let me provide one piece of evidence in regard to this 3 positions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith#History

"According to British historian of Arab world Alfred Guillaume, it is "certain" that "several small collections" of hadith were "assembled in Umayyad times."[24]"


So your position seems to be that using the texts intially being compiled by those using the Koran to generate excuses for "imperialist wars" as interpretation tool will minimize the potential for generating excuses for "imperialist wars" from the Koran.

I do not think that this is realy your view; cause it so ridiculously contradictory.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Because there is no need to convince majorities that there is an offensive war against Islam/some islamic country going on to exploit the individual duty for defensive war; it is sufficient to convince 5-10% of the able bodied male population;

And what's in the Bible that allowed European feudal nobility to be much more than decimated and indebted during the Crusades? Only the War of the Roses was more effective doing that.

Also, during WWII, the USA armed forces got 6,3 million volunteers from a population of 135 million. That's way more than 10% of the "able bodied male population".

It seems like people living in countries where egotistical individualistic post-modern culture is the king can't understand what motivation can be when something held dear is in danger.

With the exception of American made Afghanistan, I think the lousy, what? 100,000 arses? terrorists scraped and to be scraped from way over a billion people in 50 or more countries is evidence of how modern, tolerant and laic "Islamic" societies have turned.

 

[David Mo]

Because there is no need to convince majorities that there is an offensive war against Islam/some islamic country going on to exploit the individual duty for defensive war; it is sufficient to convince 5-10% of the able bodied male population; then one has hypothetically tens or hundreds of thousands people prone to recruitment, because based upon their individual perception of the situation they would have to affirm that they have individually the duty to join the war.

(...)

You seem to hold 3 positions:

1. In the ummaya caliphate the Koran was interpreted to provide excuses for "imperialist wars".

2. With better interpretation the Koran cannot be exploited in such way or at least a lot less.

3. For the interpretation of the Koran the Hadiths are a necessary tool that must be used.

(...)
So your position seems to be that using the texts intially being compiled by those using the Koran to generate excuses for "imperialist wars" as interpretation tool will minimize the potential for generating excuses for "imperialist wars" from the Koran.

I do not think that this is realy your view; cause it so ridiculously contradictory.

We are going round in circles.

Imperialist wars have been made in the name of the Koran, the Bible, King and country, Volk und Fuhrer, the American way of life or the Socialism in one country. Given the fact that we have to coexist with people that have diverse beliefs I am only worried by the way they inter-act with me. If they adopt a reasonable-civil behaviour and respect the others I have not any reason to attack them. And their true reasons to adopt a civil position are not my problem, provided they are effective. Even when these reasons don’t seem convincing to me. When a civilized debate would be possible I will entered in this debate that seems important to me, but I don’t want to force anybody to debate what he doesn’t wants to debate.

I thing that the discriminative measures against Muslims —they exist in Western countries— sometimes are not proportional to the principles of convivial, but imply hidden racist components.

I think my position is the only democratic possible and desirable.

 

[Carn]

We are going round in circles.

No, the argument i brought forth was a new one.

I think my position is the only democratic possible and desirable.

My argument was not about your general position.

But about you seeming to claim - spread across several posts in this thread - that by interpreting the Koran by using the Hadith texts compiled by those waging imperialists wars one will arrive at an interpretation of the Koran discouraging imperalist wars.


That argument has not been brought forth so far and hence you have not replied to this; and i do not think there can be a reasonable reply; cause the ummayads led according to your own wars imperialist wars and they compiled the hadiths, so politically naturally they have compiled the texts in such way that it would not undermine their case for imperialist wars.

 

[David Mo]

No, the argument i brought forth was a new one.



My argument was not about your general position.
But about you seeming to claim - spread across several posts in this thread - that by interpreting the Koran by using the Hadith texts compiled by those waging imperialists wars one will arrive at an interpretation of the Koran discouraging imperalist wars.
That argument has not been brought forth so far and hence you have not replied to this; and i do not think there can be a reasonable reply; cause the ummayads led according to your own wars imperialist wars and they compiled the hadiths, so politically naturally they have compiled the texts in such way that it would not undermine their case for imperialist wars.

I am sorry but your question is a particular example of a general problem that we have discussed yet. Not only the Koran, but every religious text can be interpreted in different ways. There are apparent contradictions between parts of the holy books and believers have to interpret them and see if a contradiction exists and what are the criteria to solve contradictions. Ambiguity and contradiction are the real danger of religious beliefs because they can justify anything, but they offer also the possibility to open the reading to some interpretations according with our modern societies. The Bible or the New Testament were also composed in older times and were used to justify wars and intolerance along centuries —still they are— and those that claim the war against Islam and restrictive measures against Muslims, frequently glorify the spirit of Christianity.

In your example: The Umayyads didn’t create the Koran. They used a previous existent tradition and made probably some arrangements in their benefit. The Koran and the Sunna are collective creations. If the Umayyads have made the Koran some hadiths such as “there is no compulsion in religion” would probably have been deleted. Therefore we have a contradictory text and not a custom-made text. The same than the Bible or the New Testament.

EXPLANATORY NOTE: I am not saying that “one” ought to interpret a holy book in this or that way. This is a problem for those who believe in sacred books. My way to criticism is not that. I am saying that we have to give a different treatment to those that interpret the Koran in different ways. They are two very different things. The believer way is hermeneutical. Mine is both hermenutical and political.

 

[Carn]

I am sorry but your question is a particular example of a general problem that we have discussed yet.

No it isn't.

People waging imperialist wars according to your own words have first compiled the hadiths which are according to your own words a necessary element in interpreting the Koran.

You cannot get out of that with some undefined mumbling about interpretation problems of religions in general.

You can only continue to ignore this issue.