Islam - What's your view on it?

[Smurfybug]

For reference, see the "Do you believe in god?" thread.

I left that thread a while ago lol

 

[Dennisch]

Erdogan is slowly but surely modifying secular Turkey into an Islamic state. After winning the latest elections, which aren't without doubt of legitimacy, he now wants to change to constitution so that the President, him, gets more power.

All this on top of his quite successful campaign of moderating the press and media. I wonder how long he's allowed to continue by the army, who usually is quick to pick up the arms to secure the nations secular position.

 

[novcze]

I'm not gonna say anything because it's Haram for me to join in when talking about the Prophet like this

If you say haram instead of forbidden, does it sound less ridiculous to you?

 

[High-Test]

Erdogan is slowly but surely modifying secular Turkey into an Islamic state. After winning the latest elections, which aren't without doubt of legitimacy, he now wants to change to constitution so that the President, him, gets more power.

All this on top of his quite successful campaign of moderating the press and media. I wonder how long he's allowed to continue by the army, who usually is quick to pick up the arms to secure the nations secular position.

Atatürk is spinning in his grave. His 1924 abolition of the Caliphate grates on the mind of every Islamist. I fear it's on Erdogan's mind as well. AK-parti used to seem ok. Now I'm not sure.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you say haram instead of forbidden, does it sound less ridiculous to you?

Or "wrong", which he also is...

 

[High-Test]

I would like to digress from the current argument and throw my two Riyals in on the subject of Muhammad ibn abd Al-Wahhab and Wahhabism.

I must refer to the work of Netana DeLong-Bas, Wahhabi Islam: From reform and revival to Global Jihad The author makes an interesting case through a thorough scientific examination of Muhammad ibn abd Al-Wahhab's own writings to figure out if ibn abd Al-Wahhab was as radical as he is said to be.

Some interesting things were found. The influence of the radical 13th century Hanbali jurist Taqi al-din ibn Taymiyya in ibn abd al Wahhab's worldview is negligible. They were both Hanbali jurists with an emphasis on Tawhid, but the similarities end there. ibn Taymiyya's radicalism was born out of the Mongol conquest of the Umayyad Caliphate, so ibn Taymiyya was prone to reactionary calls of apostasy, for which the penalty is death. Ibn Taymiyya had no qualms about calling for violence, and stressed the need for an individual, offensive Jihad that would be picked up by Sayyid Qutb 680 years later. Wahhabism emerged in the Nejd in the 1750s, an area that had never been under foreign control. ibn abd al-Wahhab's own ism was not a reaction to foreign encroachment.

ibn abd Al-Wahhab displays an aversion to violence in his own writings, dismissing the notion of offensive jihad, and stating that Jihad is only a military action of a defensive nature. ibn abd al-Wahhab issued several restrictions on the "Sword verse" (9:5) because he felt it was too broad and believed that Islam would be better off proselytizing through charm than violence. For him, unbelief was an opportunity rather than a menace.

The Kitab Al-Tawhid, or the book of monotheism, ibn and al-Wahhab's most important work, does not mention the sword verse once. Of 341 citations, ibn Taymiyya is mentioned three times. ibn abd Al-Wahhab disagrees in these instances. This is critical. Tawhid (oneness) and shirk (association) are intimately linked. ibn abd al-Wahhab was staunchly anti-shirk, as was ibn Taymiyya, but there is another important difference here. If someone is guilty of shirk, that person is open to a call of takfir. Ibn abd Al-Wahhab presumed all persons innocent of takfir unless they were properly instructed in the faith. Much of Muhammad ibn abd Al-Wahab's writing is concerned with the preservation of human life and dignity, and ibn abd Al-Wahhab took a special concern to protect the rights and dignity of women. He ruled that men were responsible for their own sexual activities. A man could not blame his lust on a beautiful woman. Ibn abd al-Wahhab argued (paraphrase) "God made her beautiful, it is not her fault for being beautiful". Also, if there was a wedding, the bride and groom were obligated to get down and party so they could share their joy with the community.

Sounds like a decent cat. Where did it go wrong? Well, there's the link with Muhammad ibn Saud, the old arabian alliance between a warlord and an imam to have legitimacy for both sides of the axis. ibn Saud wanted territory. The conquest of Riyadh took two decades, finishing in 1773. It was in this year that a frustrated Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab retreated from public life, upset at the insincerity of his followers and the lust for power of the Saud clan.

In order to legitimize overthrow of a non-muslim (or not muslim enough) leader, the subsequent Wahhabis couldn't rely on ibn abd al-Wahhab alone. They had to look to ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya spent many stretches in jail for calling for the overthrow of "takfir" leaders. To legitimize war against other Arabian rulers, there needed to be a precedent for Takfir. So, for a lust for power and territory, ibn abd Al-Wahhab's reformist, moderate message was warped by later followers to facilitate violence, which ibn abd Al-Wahhab himself couldn't stand. Throw ibn Taymiyya into anything, and there is a precedent in jurisprudence for violence and radicalism.

 

[FoRiZon]

If you say haram instead of forbidden, does it sound less ridiculous to you?

Not really. Its pretty much the same meaning anyways. Just one on Arabic.

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm not gonna say anything because it's Haram for me to join in when talking about the Prophet like this

@Smurfybug I wouldnt say anything at this point if i were you.

Just a friendly reminder.

I found that interaction extremely creepy.


Considering that oddly enough I trust TEO's knowledge......

No it isn't.

..... over that of these actual consumers of the religion......

Then why post?

To show what Islam says about talking about the Prophet in the matter

..... is real world scary.

Pro-activity based on an incorrect interpretation, when inactivity is a completely viable option, sounds a lot like what plagues Islam at the moment. Yes, the outcome here has no directly sinister consequence - but I think we let the low range versions, that share a dangerous principle, slip past at our peril.

If Allah's out there and doesn't respect @ECGadget's contemplative approach over the fear-driven, fingers-in-the-ears and head-in-the-sand approach of some others, then I reckon Allah's too insecure to retain the throne.

 

[FoRiZon]

@LeMansAid

Firstly, dont accuse me whats not.

Secondly, the real reason i was saying that wasnt because i am fear of sin or any doctrine (I am way past that mentality tbh). More because i was thought that at that point, @Smurfybug still doesnt have that mental capacity on dicussing these sort of things. Rather than digging himself hole deeper, i advice to just be more thoughtful about these for a second.

Thirdly, i am not interested at discussing religion. Now yes, i do pray and stuff, but not the kind where i go all out fundamentalist. More of a slight hoping and i am @Imari kind of humanist. I do slightly interested to learn more about Islam. But i have that mental capacity to know the source (so no current Politically motivated ones like ISIS and i can tell if some Imams are wrong) and to be critical about it (yes, i admit its has flaws. Again i am humanist kind of way). Its just need to be discussed by correct, open minded people.

Im also currently busy doing University project and also recently doing intern jobs. So things like religion discussion are way pass off my head and i got many better things to do and think about. Main reason why I'd rather shut up here and the god thread.

If you need more knowledge on Islam, ask @ECGadget.

 

[LeMansAid]

@FrzGT My apologies, it read to me that it was a religious-based warning, in line with @Smurfybug's religious-based comment.

Still, it's not like it would have been a rare scenario, had it been exactly as I had interpreted it. So, my general thoughts stand, but I certainly acknowledge your actual role in this situation. Sorry again.

 

[Com Fox]

To me, Islam is a Religion that most (or at least the most vocal) have yet to come to grips of differing minds and their refusal to accept has gotten them to be very aggressive towards everyone else and Islam looks sort of like a Hate Group in the process.

 

[Epic B]

Here's what I'm going to say about Islam: It's there, I have no ties to it, and I have nothing against it. What I don't like are the people who associate it with "terrorism" and think it's Islam's fault, among similar thoughts. Any group, religious or not, can have extremists.

 

[Castrol96]

A religion of peace; misguided by extremists.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Here's what I'm going to say about Islam: It's there, I have no ties to it, and I have nothing against it. What I don't like are the people who associate it with "terrorism" and think it's Islam's fault, among similar thoughts. Any group, religious or not, can have extremists.

While it's true that anyone can be a terrorist, it's also true that most people dying in the world at the hands of terrorists in the last few years, are dying at the hands of those proclaiming an affiliation with Islam. That's hard to ignore. While most of the attacks are not on Western soil, we still read and hear about them every day.

 

[Lizard]

While it's true that anyone can be a terrorist, it's also true that most people dying in the world at the hands of terrorists in the last few years, are dying at the hands of those proclaiming an affiliation with Islam. That's hard to ignore. While most of the attacks are not on Western soil, we still read and hear about them every day.

Yes but how much truth is there to those proclamations? Personally I think the political objectives of these groups outweigh any religious affiliation.

 

[Epic B]

Yes but how much truth is there to those proclamations? Personally I think the political objectives of these groups outweigh any religious affiliation.

But couldn't their political agendas be tied to their religious affiliation?

 

[Lizard]

But couldn't their political agendas be tied to their religious affiliation?

Yes.

However ISIS for example have their aim set out in their name. They want to establish a state. The religious aspect is just a part of how they want that state to be run.

 

[Epic B]

Yes.

However ISIS for example have their aim set out in their name. They want to establish a state. The religious aspect is just a part of how they want that state to be run.

Yes. Their ideology and agenda is based around an extreme interpretation of Islam, and want people to conform to their ideology.

 

[squadops]

While it's true that anyone can be a terrorist, it's also true that most people dying in the world at the hands of terrorists in the last few years, are dying at the hands of those proclaiming an affiliation with Islam. That's hard to ignore. While most of the attacks are not on Western soil, we still read and hear about them every day.

How many are each other?

 

[Johnnypenso]

How many are each other?

Does it matter?

 

[Imari]

While it's true that anyone can be a terrorist, it's also true that most people dying in the world at the hands of terrorists in the last few years, are dying at the hands of those proclaiming an affiliation with Islam. That's hard to ignore. While most of the attacks are not on Western soil, we still read and hear about them every day.

And at some point in history the biggest killer was Christians, or Confucians, or Olympians.

At any given point in time, somebody has to be the most aggressive religion. It happens to be Islam at the moment. It hasn't always been, and it's a fairly recent thing.

I'm wary of how much of that is attributable to Islam, and how much is attributable to humans doing that human thing that they do where they kill other humans. Just because the part of the world that is most unstable and prone to war at the moment is largely Islam doesn't necessarily tell you much about Islam, any more than the centuries of European wars leading up to the world wars tell you much about Christianity.

It's often as much about power and politics as anything, religion is simply an easy tool to use to build an army sometimes. People get distracted by the red herring of religion, when actually what's going on is far simpler.

 

[TenEightyOne]

While it's true that anyone can be a terrorist, it's also true that most people dying in the world at the hands of terrorists in the last few years, are dying at the hands of those proclaiming an affiliation with Islam. That's hard to ignore. While most of the attacks are not on Western soil, we still read and hear about them every day.

America has one of the highest rates of Christian terrorism in the western world, particularly in religious action against abortion facilities. Fewer than 10% of all terror attacks in the US are perpetrated by Muslims, in fact you're far more likely to be killed by a toddler in the States than you are by a Muslim. You're definitely 60,000 times more likely to be murdered by an American than you are to die in a terror attack. An even lower statistic is true in Europe where Muslim terror attacks account for fewer than 2.5% of all attacks.

Given that 82% of all worldwide terror attacks occur in either Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria or Syria it's fair to say that the people most at risk from Muslim terrorists are Muslims themselves.

What is definitely true is that the majority of terrorists' victims worldwide are Muslim because, as in most faiths/organisations, extremists rarely speak for the average woman, man or child. That's what's hard to ignore.

For now, based on hard evidence, all American toddlers should be rounded up into Guantanamo Bay.

 

[squadops]

Does it matter?

Yes it does.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Yes it does.

Why?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why?

Because your implication seemed to be that Muslims form a great risk, particularly as you lead with "While it's true that anyone can be a terrorist" and include "...that's hard to ignore". Those declamations serve, in my mind, to accentuate a point about the danger that Muslims somehow represent. Perhaps explaining your paragraph more fully would help. The stats I quoted to you are quite interesting, I thought, what did you make of them?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because your implication seemed to be that Muslims form a great risk, particularly as you lead with "While it's true that anyone can be a terrorist" and include "...that's hard to ignore". Those declamations serve, in my mind, to accentuate a point about the danger that Muslims somehow represent. Perhaps explaining your paragraph more fully would help. The stats I quoted to you are quite interesting, I thought, what did you make of them?

My contention is only that people generally associate Islam with terrorism because we are continuously bombarded with news that people are blowing up from roadside bombs or sitting in a cafe and getting killed by a suicide bomber. Around the world, the most deadly terrorists, more often than not, proclaim their affliation with Islam. When you see the vast majority people dying at the hands of terrorists under one banner, intellectual rationalizations don't often overcome the fear and horror that is associated with getting blown up, shot or beheaded.

 

[Imari]

When you see the vast majority people dying at the hands of terrorists under one banner, intellectual rationalizations don't often overcome the fear and horror that is associated with getting blown up, shot or beheaded.

This seems like a media problem more than anything else, given that stats from @TenEightyOne seem to show that wherever you are, you're more likely to be killed by separatist movements than Muslims. Visibility does not equal actual danger, and just because people are scared of Muslim terrorists doesn't mean that they're actually a threat to them.

The people who should actually be scared are those who live in Muslim countries, because then the Muslim terrorists are the separatists.

 

[Sanji Himura]

America has one of the highest rates of Christian terrorism in the western world, particularly in religious action against abortion facilities. Fewer than 10% of all terror attacks in the US are perpetrated by Muslims, in fact you're far more likely to be killed by a toddler in the States than you are by a Muslim. You're definitely 60,000 times more likely to be murdered by an American than you are to die in a terror attack. An even lower statistic is true in Europe where Muslim terror attacks account for fewer than 2.5% of all attacks.

Given that 82% of all worldwide terror attacks occur in either Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria or Syria it's fair to say that the people most at risk from Muslim terrorists are Muslims themselves.

What is definitely true is that the majority of terrorists' victims worldwide are Muslim because, as in most faiths/organisations, extremists rarely speak for the average woman, man or child. That's what's hard to ignore.

For now, based on hard evidence, all American toddlers should be rounded up into Guantanamo Bay.

Low blow. The only reason why that stat is even remotely true is because we, the US, fought a war with Muslim Barbary pirates over 210 years ago (this year, ironically enough marks the end of the Barbary Wars). The pirates were sailing under the flag of the Ottoman Empire, in other words, the caliphate at the time, and we beat them. The caliph then learned not to mess with United States citizens, something that ISIS forgets today.

 

[High-Test]

Low blow.

The truth is only a low blow if it is publicly known that you cannot come to terms with it. I fail to see why @TenEightyOne 's statement is dismissible simply because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

[W3H5]

I'd like a view on another point about Islam - isn't it a bit of a fallacy to claim Islam is peaceful when it's some of it's core values are violent, such as the treatment of sinners or the war on the infidels?
What I mean by this is that even if it is a small minority taking the scripture too far it still allows for a violent outcome to be interpreted.
If a true follower of Bhuddism, for example, was to follow all of the Bhuddist teachings to a word they would be even less violent than they may have been as a moderate Bhuddist.
Because the Qur'an can be interpreted in a way which leads to violence, Islam, the product of it cannot be considered peaceful.

Another example would be that Muslims in the UK make up only 5% of the people, Sihks and Hindus number many more, yet it's not the latter religion's followers who are falling for radical extremism despite living under the same conditions. Is it fair to say their religious scriptures cannot be interpreted in a way that leads to violence ( I honestly don't know anything about their holy texts)? And if that is the case that Qur'anic misinterpretation is the cause for extremism them fault lies with the book and therefore the religion of Islam for having the ability to inspire violence.

I'm not saying that other fantasy books like the Bible cannot also be interpreted into violence but this thread has a specific topic which is Islam.

Anyone care to clear things up?