Manhattan explosion

[mijopaalmc]

 

[Belgian thought]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

'Of course it doesn't answer that question... that is not the question you asked!


Islam is a problem because its scriptures command its devotees to do the things that Islamic terrorists do, and aside from a lot of handwringing, mainstream Islam makes no real effort to reign in the radical clerics esposuing that message.

Perhaps you could show me another religion whose scriptures have been misread literally and resulted in terrorist attacks all over the world?'

Your answer:

'Buddhist terrorism

Christian terrorism'

However, from what I read from your recent input, you do not accept or fully agree that the Koran (Islam) could lead to Islamic terrorism yet the Bible (Christianity) and The Tipitaka (Buddhist) can lead to their respective terrorist forms.

Keep Calm and Deny

 

[A'isha]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

'Of course it doesn't answer that question... that is not the question you asked!


Islam is a problem because its scriptures command its devotees to do the things that Islamic terrorists do, and aside from a lot of handwringing, mainstream Islam makes no real effort to reign in the radical clerics esposuing that message.

Perhaps you could show me another religion whose scriptures have been misread literally and resulted in terrorist attacks all over the world?'

Your answer:

'Buddhist terrorism

Christian terrorism'

However, from what I read from your recent input, you do not accept or fully agree that the Koran (Islam) could lead to Islamic terrorism yet the Bible (Christianity) and The Tipitaka (Buddhist) can lead to their respective terrorist forms.

Keep Calm and Deny

The question even specified "misread".

 

[Belgian thought]

If you mean "condemn it", they do.

Indeed my mistake

The question "where all all the non-extremists at an extremist mosque" kind of answers itself. Muslims aren't forced to gonto the nearest mosque whether they approve of it or not. Muslims, like the members of any other kind of congregation, go to the mosques and choose the imams they want based on individual preference.

As described in the sequel documentary, the mosques in question are heavily influenced by Wahhabist ideology, thanks to money from Saudi Arabia. Muslims who object to that sort of thing (and there are many of them) aren't exactly likely to stick around a place like that for very long.

And not mention anything to authorities so that such mosques (some had been around since the 1980s) can be nipped in the bud rather than fester in society.

If it's "Islam" (as you or anyone else define it) and they don't actually follow it, then they can't exactly be said to be following Islam. If it's not "Islam", then that kneecaps your entire claim.

Indeed - they can cherry pick from Islam to suit. However, most if not all of these signatory countries will have constitutions and resulting legal structures that adhere to Islamic jurisprudence.

Now, and this is for all faiths, how much from the Bible (both old and new), the Koran and so on would you like to see form the basis of your country's constitution?

Which bits would you add, and which would you omit?

That is the fundamental problem today with Islam (and any other religion should their ugly heads rear themselves) and modern free world countries.

They simply do not match and nor should any attempt be made to amend any enlightened country's democratic constitutions to suit the beliefs of one group of people because they have special religious needs and sensitivities.

Religion be gone - and mocked (without fear of death).

 

[mijopaalmc]

However, from what I read from your recent input, you do not accept or fully agree that the Koran (Islam) could lead to Islamic terrorism yet the Bible (Christianity) and The Tipitaka (Buddhist) can lead to their respective terrorist forms.

Evidence?

Keep Calm and Deny

Saying that the problem of terrorism is neither unique nor inherent to Islam is not the same thing as saying that Islam cannot be interpreted in ways that lead to terrorism. There is therefore no denial that Islam can be the source of terrorism but I fail to see how "Islam itself is the problem".

 

[Belgian thought]

The question even specified "misread".

Yes - I noted the use of that word earlier - clever but he/she fell in their own sophistry.

Misread these:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/cruelty/long.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

 

[A'isha]

And not mention anything to authorities so that such mosques (some had been around since the 1980s) can be nipped in the bud rather than fester in society.

I could tell what kind of terrible **** is probably promoted at the mosques in question just by looking at them (and in one case, Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, just by looking at its name). The UKIM, for instance, is an offshoot of the Jamaat-e-Islami and follows the teachings of its founder, Abul Ala Maududi (one of the two godfathers of the Islamist movement, along with the Muslim Brotherhood's founder Hassan al-Banna). And they were pretty open about it, too.

If the UK's authorities couldn't also figure this out, then I kind of wonder just what their counterterrorist unit is doing.

 

[Belgian thought]

I could tell what kind of terrible **** is probably promoted at the mosques in question just by looking at them (and in one case, Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith, just by looking at its name). The UKIM, for instance, is an offshoot of the Jamaat-e-Islami and follows the teachings of its founder, Abul Ala Maududi (one of the two godfathers of the Islamist movement, along with the Muslim Brotherhood's founder Hassan al-Banna). And they were pretty open about it, too.

If the UK's authorities couldn't also figure this out, then I kind of wonder just what their counterterrorist unit is doing.

Yes - maybe you are right.

Maybe, we should have adopted a much more STASI like approach to the problem earlier on since we were not to know that this self evident problem was not highlighted by members of that community.

Hang on, that is a horrible thought...

 

[Belgian thought]

Evidence?



Saying that the problem of terrorism is neither unique nor inherent to Islam is not the same thing as saying that Islam cannot be interpreted in ways that lead to terrorism. There is therefore no denial that Islam can be the source of terrorism but I fail to see how "Islam itself is the problem".

Who here has said "Islam is the problem" without referring it to some current event. Without a reference, the statement makes no sense.

I have never met anyone who could not get their favourite Ben & Jerry ice cream because it has sold out conclude that "Islam is the problem".

 

[A'isha]

Yes - maybe you are right.

Maybe, we should have adopted a much more STASI like approach to the problem earlier on since we were not to know that this self evident problem was not highlighted by members of that community.

Hang on, that is a horrible thought...

If it's such a horrible STASI-like thing for the authorities to be monitoring these mosques, then why are Muslims being excoriated for not reporting these mosques to the authorities so they can be monitored?

 

[A'isha]

I have never met anyone who could not get their favourite Ben & Jerry ice cream because it has sold out conclude that "Islam is the problem".

Pamela Geller, probably.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Who here has said "Islam is the problem" without referring it to some current event. Without a reference, the statement makes no sense.

Did you read the thread?

 

[McHrozni]

You need to get together with yourself and reconcile these. As I pointed out in the part you snipped from my post, your proposed solution that doesn't involve the destruction of Islam has already happened for most Muslims in the west. If you don't deny it, then stop denying it.

Not in the slightest. Muslims are accepted and respected members of the community, London has a Muslim mayor. As the documentary quoted above shows, this is in spite of supremacist hatred taught in top London mosques. Muslims are also allowed to freely enter and exist the West in the same manner as anyone else. If there is to be stable coexistence between Muslims who follow Islam as written in their holy books and human civilization as we need it today, the separation must be significantly more severe to the point it makes Trumps' proposals look like that of a no-borders one humanity hippie. In terms of isolation, think North Korea where both sides of the fence take extreme effort to keep a certain group isolated from the rest of the world.

I neither like nor advocate that solution, in fact I think it's a horrible prospect. But if Muslims believe Islam is unchangeable, unalterable and must be practiced in the manner described this solution is still preferable to destroying Islam the only way an outsider can destroy it (gas chambers et.al.). This is why I propose that Muslims get their feces in order and make Islam compatible with modern human civilization. Many claim to have done so already, if that's indeed true I'm not asking of anything that's beyond their abilities.

Stop calling me an apologist. Your name calling is silly. I've never denied ISIS or other extremist threats, nor even pulled punches with criticisms of Saudi Arabia or even Islam in general. That I don't agree with your criticisms is not being an apologist. Get better arguments.

Calling ISIS extremist is no different to calling Nazis evil or the sky blue. It's not something that's up for debate, an axiom, and we aren't debating that at all. We're debating the role and significance Islam played in creating the monsters like ISIS, Boko Haram and other groups. If you claim the role of Islam in them isn't significant and don't either offer substantial evidence for that (of which there was none presented yet) or else credibly counter all evidence presented for it (I haven't seen one credible counter to one shred of evidence, just a lot of hand-waving, obfuscation and misdirection), you are an apologist.

Your argument is self-contradictory in many ways, so don't be surprised with a critical thinking forum keeps pointing it out. Again, the very example in this thread speaks against your argument.

No, it doesn't. An actual critical thinker would figure that out by now.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

You regularly abandon threads where I point out your nonsense, and yet I go one day without responding to your genocidal ******** and you're already claiming victory?

I was actually referring to the fact you dropped all pretense of having any points at all and resorted to changing the subject. Now that you mention it, your refusal to engage me in the debate while engaging others was indeed a bit weird. I haven't noticed it before, thanks

You're going to have to rectify the giant gaping holes in your knowledge of Islam before you attain credibility as an Imam. Case in point:

Which gaping holes are those? The ones that are obviously there, but you can't name for reasons you can't speak either?

Because "jihad" simply means to strive, and needs a modifier about what to strive for.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Until you realize that the sick and the lame are excused from it, that women have a different role in it and that one is reasonably expected to die in it and enter paradise, or if not, end up significantly richer than before the "striving". Please list me the ways you strive for something that usually excludes the women, sick and the lame and that is also likely to end in your death, but if you survive you end up much richer than you went in. All of these are listed as features of this "striving".
A medieval war effort is one thing that fits all the criteria. I'm waiting for your alternative options. Support them with Islamic holy sources as to what those were, I won't accept wild theories that have no backing in your holy sources or were technologically impossible at the time. Furthermore, I expect it to fit all the criteria, just like a medieval war effort does. Good luck.

Quran 4:95: Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;

In any case, the passage you quoted doesn't even mention jihad. It talks about infirū (to rush forth, related to nafara), modifying fī sabīli llāhi (for the sake of Allah). The passage has to specify, since (like the word jihad itself), fī sabīli llāhi can apply to a whole bunch of things Muslims can do which don't involve warfare, such as in the common phrase uhibuk fī sabīli llāhi, "I love you for Allah's sake", originally from Abu Dawud 5125:

"A man was with the Prophet and a man passed by him and said: Messenger of Allah! I love this man. The Messenger of Allah then asked: Have you informed him? He replied: No. He said: Inform him. He then went to him and said: I love you for Allah's sake. He replied: May He for Whose sake you love me love you!"

The passage I quoted was meant for you in this thread, not as a yet another example of problems with Islam. If you give up on this fight you're bound for some rough time in Hell. Nice faith you have there, really.

Incidentally, your interpretation makes the passage logical only if it's a call for a full-blown homosexual orgy with Mohamed as "locomotive", Abu Bakr as "tender" and the remaining Muslims as "wagons". While it might be a word or two taken out of context could fit from a linguistic perspective, I doubt that reading it like that gives an accurate intent behind the verses. It does explain why they were afraid of being harmed and needed Allah to be with them though. It also explains the cave and why they needed "hardness".

Well, you managed to give me a laugh, at least
Keep it up!

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

It's as relevant as bringing up the US Civil War and a call to arms as motivation for current bigotry against blacks. In other words - not relevant at all. If you have to go back to something that happened 500 years ago to complain about, modern Islam is doing pretty well.

Read the title of the thread and check how long ago it happened. Then scold yourself for writing something this silly.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

There is therefore no denial that Islam can be the source of terrorism but I fail to see how "Islam itself is the problem".

So, um, you agree that Islam can be a source of terrorism, but that doesn't make it a problem in itself?

In that case please answer what would make it a problem in itself, according to you? Is there anything at all?

McHrozni

 

[mijopaalmc]

So, um, you agree that Islam can be a source of terrorism, but that doesn't make it a problem in itself?

In that case please answer what would make it a problem in itself, according to you? Is there anything at all?

McHrozni

Do you not understand what the phrase "Islam itself" means?

 

[McHrozni]

Do you not understand what the phrase "Islam itself" means?

I'm fairly certain I do, yes.

Why don't you try explaining it to me regardless?

McHrozni

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm fairly certain I do, yes.

Why don't you try explaining it to me regardless?

McHrozni

You're the one debating its standard meaning so you explain what it means to you.

 

[A'isha]

I was actually referring to the fact you dropped all pretense of having any points at all and resorted to changing the subject.

At about the point where your argument in this thread went from "Jihadist terror is the biggest terror threat in Europe and these numbers prove it!" to "Why are you looking at numbers from Europe to try and determine whether jihadist terror is a threat? You have to look at other places where jihadist terror is actually prevalent and dangerous!", I figured you didn't need my help any more in undercutting your own position regarding that, and decided to move on to the rest of your Gish gallop of genocidal ********.

Which gaping holes are those? The ones that are obviously there, but you can't name for reasons you can't speak either?

Apparently you don't understand what "case in point" means.

I'm waiting for your alternative options. Support them with Islamic holy sources as to what those were, I won't accept wild theories that have no backing in your holy sources or were technologically impossible at the time.

Since the passage doesn't specify the nature of the striving, there have been a number of interpretations.

According to Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (d. 767 AD), Q 4:95 was referring to the hijrah from Mecca, saying that those who gave up everything and accompanied Muhammad to Medina will be rewarded in the next world more than those who couldn't make the migration due to disability.

9th Century exegete Hūd ibn Muḥakkam thought it referred to a military jihad, but was revealed after the military jihad was declared to be voluntary (tatawwu'an) instead of obligatory, and was meant to tell the sedentary that they, too, would receive rewards in paradise.

al-Tabāri (d. 923 AD) believed it referred to a military jihad, though he gave much attention to the "spending their wealth" part, considering the passage to refer to people who are actively doing something or risking something, with the military jihad just a part of that.

al-Qummi (d. 919 AD) and al-Wāhidī (d. 1075 AD) focused on the relative rewards granted in paradise to the "strivers" versus the "sitters", but unlike al-Tabāri didn't specifically say Q 4:95 referred to a military jihad, and didn't specify what the "striving" in the passage was.

al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144 AD) agrees with al-Tabāri, though adds the note that ibn Abbas thought it referred specifically to the Battle of Badr.

al-Rāzī (d. 1209 AD) thought that Q 4:95 was exempting the infirm from the military jihad, but considered it to be saying that the military jihad was less meritorious than striving to invite people to Islam, contrasting the physical fighting jihad of Alī bin Abī Ṭālib‎ with the jihad of Abū Bakr, who verbally summoned people to Islam (bi 'l-da'wā ilā al-dīn), saying that the latter type of jihad was the type practiced by the Prophet and therefore superior.

al-Qurtubī (d. 1273 AD) quoted the same opinion of Ibn Abbas cited by al-Zamakhshari that Q 4:95 was about the battle of Badr, and so referred to a military jihad.

The passage I quoted was meant for you in this thread, not as a yet another example of problems with Islam. If you give up on this fight you're bound for some rough time in Hell. Nice faith you have there, really.

I think it's cute that you're still trying to scare me by telling me I'm going to go to hell because you think I'm some kind of bad Muslim for not accepting your ISIS-lite interpretation of Islam.

Incidentally, your interpretation makes the passage logical only if it's a call for a full-blown homosexual orgy with Mohamed as "locomotive", Abu Bakr as "tender" and the remaining Muslims as "wagons". While it might be a word or two taken out of context could fit from a linguistic perspective, I doubt that reading it like that gives an accurate intent behind the verses. It does explain why they were afraid of being harmed and needed Allah to be with them though. It also explains the cave and why they needed "hardness".

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.