RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: GoP defends his claim about muslim intergration, Rebuttal as appropriate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,11:00   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2006,16:47)
Blah blah blah.

Hey Ghosty, does it strike you as significant in any way that your statement "X group of people don't assimilate and are incompatible with American society" is exactly the same thing that (1) the Know-Nothings said about the Irish and Italians, (2) the Klan said about the Chinese, the Africans, and the Latinos, and (3) the Nazis (you know, those flaming liberals) said about Jews and Gypsys?


Coincidence?

Lenny, I'm sure GoP's descriptions of Muslims are every bit as accurate and informed by personal experience as his descriptions of liberals.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,12:08   

well, that would mean he was a muslim once, right Arden?

It wouldn't actually surprise me to hear him say as much.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,15:10   

Well, actually, GoP, y'know, he's the kind of cowardly, twisted, vicious shit who would point out that "some of his 'best friends' were muslims.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,15:58   

GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,16:24   

"cowardly, twisted, vicious shit" crosses the line. Paley's comments are not very good, but he's not exactly Ted Bundy, so don't treat him as such.

Anyway.

Quote
don_quixote   Posted on Aug. 26 2006,21:58GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.


Don hits the nail right on the head here. Extremist belief, whether that of muslims like bin Laden, or christians like Eric Rudolph, is what is at odds with modern society. That's not to equate islam with christianity, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that one religion lends itself to dangerous fundamentalism more than the other.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,16:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 26 2006,21:24)
Quote
don_quixote   Posted on Aug. 26 2006,21:58GoP, I'm looking forward to this debate. Personally, I think you may end up having to conclude that groups of people from any faith don't integrate into societies, if they are fundamentalists.

Integration is about compromise. Moderates of any faith are more likely to integrate into any society (and indeed enhance it). Fundamentalists are more likely to want society to change for them, in a way that reflects their world-view, and thus conflicts arise.

As you have decided to look at 'Western societies' in general, I'm interested to see what role the secularism of a country has to play.

Good luck.


Don hits the nail right on the head here. Extremist belief, whether that of muslims like bin Laden, or christians like Eric Rudolph, is what is at odds with modern society. That's not to equate islam with christianity, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that one religion lends itself to dangerous fundamentalism more than the other.

My prediction is that GoP would be much happier with hardcore Christian fundamentalists immigrating to this country than he would be with the most moderate Muslims.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
tiredofthesos



Posts: 59
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2006,17:21   

I stand by my statement, since it is simply my own verdict on GoP's vile and underhanded not-quite-craziness.

 Not Ted Bundy?  Fine.  I still avoid his posts, only chancing upon them at secondhand, and believe he is up there with Dave Scott in the "deformed human" catagory.
 After following his antics for a very long time before arriving at this evaluation, I am certain he deserves nothing but scorn.  Or the most disrespectful type of humor. ???

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:30   

Once again,  here's a comprehensive collection of the "war" suras. I plan to investigate the Koranic attitude towards Christians and Jews, but first here's some history behind the modern "fundamentalist" Islamic movement. Despite what some moderates assert, its roots extend to the 14th Century:

   
Quote
Taqi Ad-din Abu Al-'abbas Ahmad Ibn 'abd As-salam Ibn 'abd Allah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Taymiya (Arabic: ÃÈæ ÚÈÇÓ ÊÞí ÇáÏíä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏ ÇáÓáÇã Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇÈä ÊíãíÉ ÇáÍÑÇäí) (January 22, 1263 - 1328), was an Islamic scholar born in Harran, located in what is now Turkey, close to the Syrian border. He lived during the troubled times of the Mongol invasions. As a member of the Pietist school founded by Ibn Hanbal, he sought the return of Islam to its sources: the Qur'an and the sunnah (the prophetic tradition of Muhammad). He is also a primary intellectual source of the Wahhabi movement.
[...]
Because of Ibn Taymiya's outspokenness, puritanical views, and literalism, he was imprisoned several times for conflicting with the opinions of prominent jurists and theologians of his day.

As early as 1293 Ibn Taymiya came into conflict with local authorities for protesting a religious ruling against a Christian accused of having insulted the Prophet. In 1298 he was accused of anthropomorphism and for having questioned the legitimacy of dogmatic theology (kalam).
[....]
Ibn Taymiya held that much of the Islamic scholarship of his time had declined into modes that were inherently against the proper understanding of the Qur'an and the Prophetic example (sunna). He strove to: (1) revive the Islamic faith's understanding of "true" adherence to "Tawhid" (oneness of God), (2) eradicate beliefs and customs that he held to be foreign to Islam, and (3) to rejuvenate correct Islamic thought and its related sciences.

Ibn Taymiya believed that the first three generations of Islam -- the prophet Muhammad, his Companions, and the children and grandchildren of the first Muslims -- were the best role models for Islamic life. Their Sunnah, or practice, together with the Qur'an, constituted a seemingly infallible guide to life. Any deviation from their practice was viewed as bidah, or innovation, and to be forbidden.


Ibn Taymiya favored an extremely literal interpretation of the Qur'an. His opponents charged that he taught anthropomorphism -- that is, that he took metaphorical reference's to God's hand, foot, shin, and face as being literally true -- even though he insisted that God's "hand" was nothing comparable to hands found in creation. Some of his Islamic critics contend that this violates the Islamic concept of tawhid, divine unity.
[...]
Controversy over his views on Sufism
Ibn Taymiya was a stern critic of antinomian interpretations of Islamic mysticism (Sufism). He believed that Islamic law (sharia) applied to ordinary Muslim and mystic alike.

Some Wahhabi and Salafi scholars believe that he rejected Sufism entirely. Other scholars, however, have contested this point. In 1973, George Makdisi published an article, “Ibn Taymiya: A Sufi of the Qadiriya Order,” in the American Journal of Arabic Studies, which argued that Ibn Taymiya was a Qadiriyyah Sufi himself, and only opposed antinomian versions of Sufism.

In support of their views, these Ibn Taymiya scholars cite his work Sharh Futuh al-Ghayb, which is a commentary on the famous Sufi Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani’s work, Futuh al-Ghayb “Revelations of the Unseen.” Ibn Taymiya is cited in the literature of the Qadiriyyah order as a link in their chain of spiritual transmission. He himself said, in his Al-Mas'ala at-Tabraziyya, "I wore the blessed Sufi cloak of Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani, there being between him and me two Sufi shaikhs."


This is the next major link:
   
Quote
Wahhabism (Arabic: ÇáæåÇÈíÉ, Wahabism, Wahabbism) is a Sunni fundamentalist Islamic movement, named after Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (1703–1792). It is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Many members of the movement object to the term "Wahhabism", preferring the term "Salafism".
[....]
Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as fundamental texts, interpreted upon the understanding of the first three generations of Islam. It also accepts various commentaries including Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's book called Kitab al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328).

Wahhabis do not follow any specific madhhab (method or school of jurisprudence), but claim to interpret the words of the prophet Muhammad directly, using the four maddhab for reference. However, they are often associated with the Hanbali maddhab. Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.

Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

Invoking of any prophet, Sufi saint, or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabists believe these practices are polytheistic in nature)
Celebrating annual feasts for Sufi saints
Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches to seek healing
Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
[edit]
Modern spread of Wahhabism
In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of US dollars to create religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

[edit]
Salafism and Qutbism
Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is said to have been influenced by the Wahhabis. The Muslim Brotherhood also claimed to be purifying and restoring original Islam. When the Muslim Brotherhood was banned in various Middle Eastern countries, Saudi Arabia gave refuge to Brotherhood exiles. Some Wahhabis, or Salafis, rejected what they call Qutbism, as a deviation from true Salafism.


And here's Sayyid Qutb:
   
Quote
Sayyid Qutb (Arabic: ÓíÏ ÞØÈý; 9 October 1906 – 29 August 1966) was an Egyptian intellectual author, and Islamist associated with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He is best known for his theoretical work on redefining the role of Islamic fundamentalism in social and political change, particularly in his book Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). His extensive Quranic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the shade of the Qur'an) has contributed significantly to modern perceptions of Islamic concepts such as jihad, jahiliyyah, and ummah.
[...]
Qutb concluded that major aspects of American life were "primitive" and shocking. His experiences in the U.S. partly formed the impetus for his rejection of Western values and his move towards radicalism upon returning to Egypt. Resigning from the civil service, he joined the Brotherhood in the early 1950s[8] and became perhaps their most effective publicist. The school of thought he inspired has become known as Qutbism.


Qutb was imprisoned for ten years, from 1954-1964Both the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb enjoyed a close relationship with the Free Officers Movement in the time leading up to and following the coup of June 1952. Many members of the Brotherhood expected Nasser to direct the formation of an Islamic government, perhaps even an Islamic democracy. However the cooperation between the Brotherhood and Free Officers which marked the revolution's success soon soured. The Free Officers' refused to hold elections or ban alcohol. It became increasingly clear that the Islamic tenets of the Brotherhood were largely incompatible with the secular ideology of Nasserism.
[...]
Whether he supported dictatorship, or later rule by Sharia law with essentially no government at all, Sayyid Qutb's political views always centered on Islam -- Islam as a complete system of morality, justice and governance, whose Sharia laws and principles should be the sole basis of government. On the issue of Islamic governance, Qutb differed with many modernist and reformist Muslims who claimed democracy was Islamic because the Quranic institution of the Shura supported elections and democracy. Qutb argued instead for a `just dictatorship,` [11] claiming the Shura chapter of the Qur'an calls only for the ruler to consult some of the ruled and makes no reference to elections. [12]
[...]
This idea of the complete freedom of man and the means to bring about this freedom were described in his final work, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones). Qutb envisioned a Muslim vanguard [14] that would fight Jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system by "physical power and Jihaad." The vanguard movement would grow until it formed a truly Islamic community, then spread throughout the Islamic homeland and finally throughout the entire world.

Qutb emphasized this struggle would be anything but easy. True Islam would transform every aspect of society, eliminating everything non-Muslim. Jahili erzatz-Muslims, Jews and Westerners would all fight and conspire against the elimination of Jahiliyyah. True Muslims could look forward to lives of "poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice."

[edit]
Philosophy
Qutb is often identified as a major intellectual contributor to radical Islamism in the 20th century. This is due in part to his many writings on the subject and also his strong connection between religion and politics that mark his later works. In particular, Qutb established complex, controversial views on several traditional Islamic ideas:

[edit]
Jahiliyya
One of Qutb's innovations was applying the term Jahiliyya, which traditionally refers to humanity's state of ignorance before the revelation of Islam, to modern-day Muslim societies. In Qutb's view, the removal of Islamic law and religious values (particularly after the period of European colonization) had left the Muslim world in a condition of debased ignorance, similar to that of the pre-Islamic era (i.e. Jahiliyya). In defining the Muslim world as in a state of Jahiliyya, Qutb concluded that all non-Islamic states were illegitimate, including that of Egypt.

What was most controversial about Qutb's conception of Jahiliyya was his wide application of it. Qutb believed that all societies ruled by a non-Islamic government were not Islamic. Further, based on a Qur'anic interpretation of Jahiliyya, Qutb concluded that Muslims living in such societies were religiously obligated to oppose the ruling government and to challenge its authority. This theory of legitimacy and the advocacy for no less than revolution set Qutb against the majority of political systems in the world, including that of his home country, Egypt. In effect, Qutb's theories paired a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qur'an with a radical, sociopolitical ideology.[15]

[edit]
Criticisms
Qutb has been interpreted, particularly in some parts of the Western media, as an intellectual precursor to various Islamic fundamentalist movements of the 1980s to the present, including the notorious international organization Al-Qaeda. In this view, Qutb is argued to be a theoretical foundation of Islamic extremism. One can find some ideological connections between Qutb's thought and radical fundamentalist groups. These include Qutb's advocacy of an Islamic theocracy as the only legitimate state, his justification of jihad in the conflict against non-Islamic governments, and his uncompromising opposition to Western culture and values.
[...]
The influence of Qutb and his work extends across the whole spectrum of Islamism. Alongside notable Islamists like Maulana Mawdudi and Hasan al-Banna, Qutb is often considered one of the most influential Islamic activists of the modern era. He is recognized for his application of Islamic ideology to current social and political problems, such as Westernization, modernization, and political reform. Qutb's work also expanded many themes now common in Western discourses on Islamism, including the theory of inevitable ideological conflict between "Islam and the West" (see Clash of civilizations), the notion of a transnational umma, and the comprehensive application of jihad in various spiritual, political, and social contexts.

In terms of politics, Qutb left a significant mark on the Muslim Brotherhood, which today still exists and is actively involved in Egyptian politics. His theoretical work on non-violent Islamic advocacy, including emphasis on social justice and education, has become a cornerstone of the contemporary Brotherhood. His interpretation of jihad and its application for societal change has influenced many later Islamist activists, both violent and non-violent. Finally, Qutb's imprisonment and execution has led some to consider him a martyr. Many consider him the most significant new interpreter of Islam in the twentieth century. Some have promoted him as an antecedent of the more extreme aspects of violent Islamist activity today.

Qutb's written works, including his most controversial, are still widely available and have been translated into many Western languages. Qutb's best known work, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq (Milestones), is regarded by some as the beginning of modern political Islam. However, the majority of Qutb's theory can be found in his Qur'anic commentary Fi zilal al-Qur'an (In the Shade of the Quran). This 30-volume work is noteworthy for its innovative method of interpretation, borrowing heavily from the literary analysis of Amin al-Khuli, while retaining some structural features of classical commentaries (for example, the practice of progressing from the first sura to the last).


Here are some excerpts from In the Shade of the Quran.

Here's a source that attempts to debunk Qutb:

 
Quote
Qutb's lack of knowledge in Islam coupled by his jailing led him to change his understanding of Islam according to the circumstances he was faced with. Consequently, his writings became more and more radical as time went by. Eventually, his revolutionary ideology of takfir (excommunication) and setting out against the authorities became ingrained in the minds and hearts of a new generation of youth who were looking for something greater than the failed way of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun. To this day, Qutb is considered to be the head of this ideology for all insurrectionary groups.

His new-fangled way of understanding Islam is evident in his attempt to write a tafsir (explanation) of the Quran called Fi Thilalil-Quran (In the Shade of the Quran). Qutb was not interested in following the traditional approach of explaining the Quran, which is to firstly refer to the Quran itself for other verses which clarify the meaning, then the Haadeeths of the Prophet (may Allah raise his rank and grant him peace) which deal with the meanings of specific verses, or if this does not exist, to refer to the explanations of his companions. Hence, it cannot be referred to as a tafsir in the conventional sense.

Referring to the explanations of the companions is a legislated matter in Islam, because they witnessed the revelation of the Quran and were taught its understanding and application by the one to whom it was revealed. Consequently, they were commissioned to transmit the texts of the Quran and Haadeeths that we read today and were also charged with the responsibility of retaining the explanations of the texts as well as their causes and occasions of revelation. Instead of referring to these important sources, Qutb used his own opinions to explain the Quran - over and above these sources. Consequently, this tafsir contains numerous errors which the Salafi scholars have already clarified for the people.

Because of his ignorance of the orthodox system of Islamic belief, Qutb came up with a hodgepodge of statements collected from all of the various Islamic sects which have sprung up since the earliest years of Islamic civilization. Far from being upon the creed of the "Wahhabis", Qutb was influenced by the Mu'tazili/Sufi philosophical school of thought which prevails in that area of the Middle East. This system of belief runs completely contrary to the so-called "Wahhabi" creed.


And although many Salafis reject violent forms of persuasion, the vast majority adhere to rather antimodern beliefs:

 
Quote
Salafis preach a purified Islamic monotheism, or tawheed that strictly prohibits shirk (a comprehensive term which is commonly translated as polytheism), or bid`a (innovation, i.e. practices not followed by early Muslims). Salafis believe that widespread Muslim practices such as venerating the graves of Islamic prophets and saints are shirk. Photographs of any living being that possesses a soul are forbidden. Celebration of Muhammad's birthday (Mawlid) is bid`a. All these practices are considered shirk or as bidah (innovation). Salafis in general are opposed to both Sufism and Shi'a Islam, which they regard as deviations.

Salafi place great emphasis on ritual not only in prayer but in every activity in life -- three fingers should always be used when eating, water is to be drunk in three pauses with the right hand while sitting [1] -- so as to follow the example of the Prophet (p) and his companions and make religion part of every activity in life. Salafi also discourage many other activities, including music, beard-shaving, that do not follow the example of early Muslims [2] and that distract people's attention from religion. This has been criticized as overly strict or trivial by some. [3]

Salafi differ from the earlier contemporary Islamic revival movement of Islamism of the 1970s and 1980s, in that (at least many) Salafi reject not only Western ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, but also common Western concepts like economics, constitutions, political parties, revolution and social justice. Muslims should not engage in Western activities like politics, "even by giving them an Islamic slant." [4] Instead, Muslims should stick to Islamic activities, particularly dawah. Salafi promote the sharia.

Salafis reject mainstream dogmatic theology (kalam). They consider this to be based on classical Greek philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) and an import foreign to the original practice of Islam.

Salafis are divided on the question of adherence to the four recognized schools of traditional legal interpretation (madhhabs).

Some Salafis wish to base their jurisprudence directly on the Qu'ran and Sunnah. They believe that literal readings of the Qur'an and the hadith (or oral traditions) are sufficient guidance for the believing Muslim. One scholar who supported this position was Albaanee.
Some Salafis follow the teachings of the 14th century Syrian scholar Ibn Taymiya, and his students Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Kathir.
Some Salafis rely on the jurisprudence of one of the four famous madhabs. For example, Ibn Taymiya followed the Hanbali madhhab. Some of his students (such as Ibn Kathir and Al-Dhahabi) followed the Shafi madhhab. Other students (such as Ibn Abu al-Iz) follow the Hanafi madhhab.
Because Salafis see themselves as practicing "pure" Islam, Salafi teachers and adherents will not necessarily identify themselves as Salafi. They can be identified as part of a particular current of contemporary Islam by their characteristic beliefs, by their use of terms like "the Salaf" or "Qur'an and sunnah." They also tend to use a more rigorous style of transliteration of Arabic into English: long vowels are indicated by doubling, emphatic consonants are doubled, and words that end with a ta marbuta in Arabic are rendered with a terminal h.

[edit]
History of Salafism
From the perspective of the Salafis themselves, their history starts with the Prophet himself. They consider themselves direct followers of his teachings, and wish to emulate the piety of the earliest followers of Islam (the salaf al-salih). All later scholars are merely revivers (not 'founders';). Modern scholars may only come to teach (or remind) us of the instructions of the original Salaf.

[edit]
Contemporary Salafis
Salafism is a movement within Sunni Islam. It includes many groups and shades of belief. It is strongest in the Middle East, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, etc. It is also found in most other Muslim-majority countries (see Islam by country and Demographics of Islam). It is increasingly important to diasporic Muslims in Europe, Canada, and the United States.

Salafis tend to differentiate themselves not so much by matters of Islamic practice, such as prescriptions for prayer (salat) or Islamic dress (hijab), but by their attitude towards the state.

Some Salafis urge believers to support or endure the state under which they live. Believers are encouraged to spread Salafism non-violently, by missionary activity, social work, and political organization. Above all, they should help each other lead lives of true Islamic piety. (Rabei Al-Madkhaly)
Some Salafis believe that violent jihad is permissible against foreign, non-Muslim, occupation, but not against governments that claim to be Islamic. Those governments are to be reformed, not violently overthrown. Civil war (fitna) is to be avoided. (Salman Al-Auda)


Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional scriptures.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,04:38   

Quote
Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional "scriptures".


Out of curiosity, why the scare quotes around 'scriptures'?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:16   

By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:21   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:21)
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

'scriptures' is not a christian term, but 'Scriptures' is. Wikipedia:

Quote
The Rigveda of Hinduism was likely composed between roughly 1500–1300 BCE, making it one of the world's oldest religious texts. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE (roughly contemporary to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit).

The first printed scripture for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, printed in the year 868 CE.

In English language, the term scriptures can be used to describe any religion's sacred text as in Hindu scriptures, Jewish scriptures, etc. but when capitalized, in English literature, the word Scriptures generally refers to the sacred texts of the Bible, also referred to as Holy Scripture.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,06:36   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 28 2006,11:27)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:21)
 
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,11:16)
By the way, I'm done with my presentation of the Koranic interpretation of Jihad, so Louis is free to respond to that part. If my formatting (i.e. scare quotes, etc.) seems eccentric, it's because I'm trying to avoid using Christian terms.

'Scriptures' is a Christian term? ?

'scriptures' is not a christian term, but 'Scriptures' is. Wikipedia:

 
Quote
The Rigveda of Hinduism was likely composed between roughly 1500–1300 BCE, making it one of the world's oldest religious texts. The oldest portions of the Zoroastrian Avesta are believed to have been transmitted orally for centuries before they found written form, and although widely differing dates for Gathic Avestan (the language of the oldest texts) have been proposed, scholarly consensus floats at around 1000 BCE (roughly contemporary to the Brahmana period of Vedic Sanskrit).

The first printed scripture for wide distribution to the masses was The Diamond Sutra, a Buddhist scripture, printed in the year 868 CE.

In English language, the term scriptures can be used to describe any religion's sacred text as in Hindu scriptures, Jewish scriptures, etc. but when capitalized, in English literature, the word Scriptures generally refers to the sacred texts of the Bible, also referred to as Holy Scripture.

Understood, but this does not explain GoP's use of scare quotes in the sentence in question:

Quote

Notice that this movement relies on Islam's traditional "scriptures".


I've regularly seen the word 'scriptures' used in reference to the writings of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sihkism, and Jainism. (Without quotes.) It's the standard word.

So 'scriptures' isn't just a Christian term.

So I still don't understand why GoP used the scare quotes on the word.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,07:21   

Arden: I fixed it.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:25   

I found a good -- if heavily biased -- site that compiles several passages from the Koran about Judaism and Christianity.

       
Quote
3.28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

4.157: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

4.171: O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

5.64: And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

5.82: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.


Here are some passages on the Jews. Once again, the source is biased:

     
Quote
The Women
[4.46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say: We have heard and we disobey and: Hear, may you not be made to hear! and: Raina, distorting (the word) with their tongues and taunting about religion; and if they had said (instead): We have heard and we obey, and hearken, and unzurna it would have been better for them and more upright; but Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.

[4.47] O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.

[4.50] See how they forge the lie against Allah, and this is sufficient as a manifest sin.

[4.160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way.

[4.161] And their taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.

[5.32] For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,[ [5.34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. --this is a bit of a quote-mine -- Paley.]


[5.41] O Apostle! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.

[5.42] (They are) listeners of a lie, devourers of what is forbidden; therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; surely Allah loves those who judge equitably.

[5.63] Why do not the learned men [rabbis] and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work.

[5.64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

17.4] And We had made known to the children of Israel in the Book: Most certainly you will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence.

[62.6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.


Of course, there are positive passages, but the overall message is pretty clear. Here's the online Koran again for cross-checking. 5:51 pretty much says it all, no?

Here are tonight's two reading assignments.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:33   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2006,12:36)
Understood, but this does not explain GoP's use of scare quotes in the sentence in question:

I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,11:50   

Quote
I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.


Thanks, Big Daddy. I look forward to you systematically tearing my little beliefs to shreds in front of the entire board, Sir!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:05   

Give me a geocentric model and I will do exactly that.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:16   

since we're talking about GoP, this is appropriate


   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,12:25   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Aug. 28 2006,16:50)
Quote
I wasn't putting in there for GoP's edification, but for everyone else. GoP put scare quotes there because he doesn't know any better.


Thanks, Big Daddy. I look forward to you systematically tearing my little beliefs to shreds in front of the entire board, Sir!

Actually, I don't think the real reason for GoP putting scare quotes around the word 'scripture' ever got mentioned, but never mind.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,13:41   

I'm surprised that the only error that anybody's been able to find is an ill-placed scare quote. Let's hope Louis is more successful.

Those last two links are really good. You'll probably poke fun at Andrew Bostom's specialty (kidney diseases), but the guy has done his homework and he pretty much lays waste to several myths about Islam.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,14:03   

Hey, I just felt a big blast of, um, hot air.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,15:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2006,19:03)
Hey, I just felt a big blast of, um, hot air.

You know, I have this distinct memory of a discussion a couple months ago where Paley was making some Biblical claim or other, and some of the people here started arguing against him using Biblical citations. When this happened, I remember that Paley he got extremely pissed off and snide that some atheists should be so presumptious as to argue using citations from a religion they don't even believe in.

I guess that rule only applies to citing the Bible, and no other religious books.

Quote
I'm surprised that the only error that anybody's been able to find is an ill-placed scare quote


That's my point, I doubt the ill-placed scare quotes were an error, as such.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,19:15   

Quote
Koranic interpretation of Jihad,


shall we post the Fred "felcher" Phelps interpretation of the bible for comparison?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2006,23:58   

Ghosty,

Sorry, and call me stupid if you like, but I STILL don't see the direct relevence of all this.

So the qu'ran and hadith and some muslim scholars and individuals have interpreatations/literal verses that are hostile to integration. Big whoop. Not every self identifying muslim adheres to every literal verse nor to every interpretation. If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!

I'm also sure you realise I can cherry pick the torah or the bible or the guru granth sahib for similar references. I'm especially sure you know this about the bible!  ;)

I can also understand some of the relevance here in terms of "oooh look, if them muslims do all this stuff then they as a group are going to be total pants at integrating into western societies", and on that I would agree, but the direction you're going in does not reflect the plurality of muslim thought or self identifying muslims.

I was hoping for a more fact based statistical type discussion of the actual evidence collected, rather than suppositions based on the horrific sections of millenium old witterings of illiterate sheep herders in the post iron age Middle East.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:28   

Louis:

 
Quote
Ghosty,

Sorry, and call me stupid if you like, but I STILL don't see the direct relevence of all this.


Then why didn't you complain about my outline until I presented a lot of evidence for the first part? It's almost like you were hoping I couldn't establish Part 1....and when you saw I could do it at length, then you came out with this "irrelevancy" charge. But let's put that aside.

Is the "irrelevancy" charge itself relevant? No, and here's why: whenever I find myself debating Muslim immigration, the first line of defense is usually, "Oh, Islam isn't about all that stuff. That's just ignorance about the faith." Here's an example:

 
Quote
Man quotes Koran, is accused of making it up
Undercover Black Man, with whom I’ve had a few dialogs at VFR, was posting at a liberal-leaning blog where his opinions about Islam came under attack. He replied:


Dude … what part of “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them” don’t you understand? Is there any holy book among world religions, EXCEPT the Koran, which advocates the spread of its beliefs through force of arms?”

One of his interlocutors replied:

These are obviously the words of a person who doesn’t know what he is talking about. Who told you that the Koran says this? You obviously have never read it.
You are inventing facts and quoting hearsay to promote your mistaken view of reality.



UBM then did some research on the trusty Web and quoted several English translations of the verse in question as well as of another key verse in Sura 9. We may presume that the person who said UBM was making it all up has now realized that the Koran is not the love-and-tolerance manual he thought it was.
UBM comments, “There is rhetorical power in stacking various English translations of certain Koranic verses one atop the other. The true and essential meaning of the verses stands out in sharp relief when you see them phrased a few different ways.”


Ask Karen Armstrong if this issue's irrelevant, or Mustafa Akyol, or the Bush Administration, or just about any open-borders advocate. But I'm happy that you've admitted that Islam, if taken seriously, is completely at odds with Western Society (if you don't concede this, let me know now.)

This is an important first step. If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:39   

Paley, can you explain why this thread doesn't violate the board rule

Quote
*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:50   

Quote
This is an important first step. If you concede that Islam, if followed literally, is incompatible with the West, I'll immediately move on to the stats.
Just in case you missed it Ill post a quote from the post directly above yours:

Quote
If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,04:58   

Louis:

 
Quote
So the qu'ran and hadith and some muslim scholars and individuals have interpreatations/literal verses that are hostile to integration. Big whoop. Not every self identifying muslim adheres to every literal verse nor to every interpretation. If your arguing that muslim fundamentalists make bad intergrators then you and I agree. But then so do christian fundamentalists and jewish fundamentalists and sikh fundamentalists etc etc etc. In addition, not all muslims are fundamentalists. Hardly a shock I'm sure!


I never said that all Muslims are hostile to the West, just a distressingly high percentage. And I challenge your claim about fundies from other faiths. Orthodox Jews aren't spurring a crime wave, Christian fundamentalists aren't flying planes into skyscrapers, Sikh fundies aren't intimidiating journalists. So these comparisons undercut your case. Consider this: although every scripture has passages that make it look bad to outsiders, you won't find calls to slay the infidels where you find them, cut their fingertips off, etc. The Torah may catalogue the destruction of the Amelekites and Midianites, but God doesn't call for the Jews to practice this in the present. Jesus, as both Deadman and Eric admit, was a relatively peaceful man who instructed Christians to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and "turn the other cheek". Driving the moneychangers from the temple doesn't begin to compare with robbing caravans and slaughtering Qurayza.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2006,05:10   

Ghosty,

1) I did mention the relevance thing early on. Read back. Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal, I'm just trying to focus on the key issues.

2) You're missing my brief point, read the quote that Chris has just made. I'll emphasise the bits you need:

FUNDAMENTALIST.

Nothing to do with orthodoxy, everything to do with fanaticism. Oh and christian fundies are killing abortion doctors and blowing up clinics. It's also fairly trivial to show that literalist adherence to some biblical passages at the expense of others (i.e. just what you are doing with the qu'ran) is directly at odds with modern western society, again as I am sure you are aware. Jewish fundies (or zionists if you like) are bombing merry #### out of Palestinians (rightly or wrongly) and have a foreign policy and a policy on mixed ethnicity that is directly at odds with modern western values.

Oh and look up "Behzti" (sp?) a play that was picketted by Sikhs here in the UK, and the protests turned violent. The intimidation was sufficient to have the play stopped. I believe journos were also targetted, but I might be worng about that. What about "christian voice" an organisation here in the UK dedicated to intimidation camapaigns?

My point is simple, it's the fundamentalism that's the problem. The specific religion is pretty much incidental. In many cases social deprivation or poverty or anger at (foreign) policy is as important in many (if not all) cases of terrorism/rioting etc. The thing you have to do is demonstrate why muslims are special. Since not all muslims adhere to your choice of surahs and interpretations, you have to show why these more "moderate" muslims are worse at integrating than equally moderate sikhs (for example).

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  341 replies since Aug. 23 2006,11:48 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]