Steve,
I'll only discuss with you and I'll ignore Faith because she's incapable of rational discussion.
quote:
Andya, I thonk you'd have a hard time pointing to anything i've said that reflected an irrational or angry or hostile tone. It appears that simply by suggesting that there may be an issue, that constitutes untoward behaviour.
Well I haven't been impressed by your replies at the London bomb thread and the other Islam reformation thread. But I'll overlook that for now.
quote:
I would argue that islamism is only the name of the latest itineration of the movement. There is a reason why Mohammed conquered huge swaths of land, most of it to that point Christian, and some of it Jewish. There is a reason why Islam eventually conquered Spain, and made it to the gates of Vienna in the 1600's. In our present time, Islamists are warring against Hindus in India, against Bhuddists in Thailand and Cambodia, against Christians and Animists in Africa and the Phillipines, and against Muslims in iraq and elsewhere too. This is not about a response to the west.
From what I know about the history of Islam, during the lifetime of Muhammad, expansion was limited to Arabia and parts of the Middle East[up to Syria & Iraq by his death]. I can admit that some is motivated by a lust of conquest. Islam united warlike Arab tribes. Now that they can't fight each other anymore, the only way to channel their aggression is outside. And their immediate neighbours happen to be the Christian Eastern Roman Empire.
The lust to conquest is not exclusive to Arabs. It also appeared among Mongols [see Genghis Khan and his descendants], Romans, exploration-age Europeans. The Qur'an just happen not to curb it. Besides, if you compare it to Christianity, Christianity also borrows the power of conquerors [its association with the Roman Empire helped it spread across the old world]. But since you're Jewish [IIRC] I'm sure that doesn't concern you.
The Qur'an does not say anything about world domination though. It's just this lust for conquest looked for a religious backing from time to time.
I'll leave aside the Israel issue for this moment. I know we see it differently, but the fact is its existence flamed a common cause among modern-day Islamists.
About comparing al-Qaeda with the Wahabbis, the Iran Revolution, and the Ikhwan al-Muslimin, do understand that all three movements are more concerned with local issues [Saudi, Iran, Egypt]. Al-Qaeda & co. is international-oriented and they have no negotiable goals [unlike, say, the Ikhwan or Hizbullah, who has been incorporated into politics in Egypt and Syria].
quote:
I have heard that said, and hope it to be true. But millions upon millions of Muslims disagree with that interpretaion. Indeed, the global islamist movement completely disagrees. They argue that the House of Islam / House of War notion means that any who do not accept Islam have declared war upon it. Therefore, it is defensive for Muslims to attack non Muslims who refuse to accept the faith. Moreover, most the Sword Verses makes no reference to the argument, drowned out by all the other passages that state otherwise.
You're exaggerating the millions upon millions there. If only it's like that, we should see all Muslims will behave like the Islamists. But we don't. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving moderates.
About the Sword verses, do read Jazzns' exposition. It is true that taken out of context they can be used to justify violence but that's selective quoting.
quote:
My view is this: Islam has much that is wonderful, peaceful, spiritual. But the Sword Verses, much of Sharia Law, and much of the Hadith, are calls to war and oppression of Muslims and non Muslims both. And thus, for most of its history, right up to and including today, the faith has been at war with itself. There are those like you, good people, peaceful people, who see it one way. And then there are the Islamists who see it, with solid theological reasoning and historical reference, otherwise. How do we empower those like you, and not only weaken the Islamists now, but into the future? Bear in mind that many good Muslims raise children who are drawn to Islamism. Indeed, the british born London bombers apparently came from good homes. One, at least, was a truly good person, well-liked, great with kids, generous, and, seemingly, totally assimilated in liberal demcoracy. How could such a person have gone so wrong? How scary that such a person could have gone so wrong. How do we prevent that from happening?
FYI, I won't say that Islamist terrorists have 'solid theological reasoning'. How can they be, if they violate the 'no killing innocents' rule? But then again, Islam does not have a central authority so nobody can enforce their interpretation onto the whole body of Muslims [unlike Catholics].
The Islamists, and not just them, many Muslims are outraged by what they see as injustice and exploitation by the US. In recent years, the invasion of Afghanistan [which failed to eradicate Osama] and the illegal invasion of Iraq has put more fuel to the fire. A friend of mine in an informal discussion that GW Bush can be said as Osama's main recruiting lieutenant: GWB's policies has made more people support the terrorists' cause. The 'war on terror' could've been done in a better way. Indonesia managed to handle its own band of al-Qaeda supporters and violent Islamists efficiently: almost all living plotters of the Bali bomb, and many of those involved in latter cases have been captured and jailed. Why didn't the US, say, send teams of intelligence agents and special troops to infiltrate, say, Afghanistan or Pakistan and capture OBL, Mullah Omar, al-Zawahiri, etc. I'm sure the US authorities is capable of doing that operation. But instead of doing that, Bush brought his whole armed forces and destroyed two countries and millions of innocent citizens on the way. And still he failed to catch the culprits.
quote:
I know that the faith says that the Koran is inerrant and perfect, and cannot be altered at all. My suggestion is for there to be a koranic edit. That is much less intrusive than a reformation, which will by definitoon be an impossibility to many, if not most, Muslims. The edit would assume that the Arabic language of Mohammed's time is different than today, and thus easily misunderstood. To ensure that there is no way, absolutely no way, for the Koran to be read as anything but peaceful, for Jihad to mean nothing but spiritual improvement, it would be argued that the koran needs to be updated to today's vernacular, and then so edited. this would meet one prominent Muslim's call for not a reformation, but "Islamic Renaissance."
Unfortunately, I can't see that this proposal will work. Every Muslim knows agrees that there is only one accepted Arabic text of the Qur'an, and it has never been altered since it was revealed to the Messenger. The closest you can get is to teach peaceful interpretations of the Qur'an, and this has been happening all the way, as evidenced by the majority of Muslims who are peaceful.
Yes, we need a reformation. I know that sometimes Muslim religious teachers taught hate and bigotry. These are one part of the problem, which Muslims must address. The other part is on the Westerners' hands, to try to understand issues that concern Muslims. European nations IMO have a better handle on the Muslim issue, but I still don't see wise moves by the US. The need for reformation and change is Westerners' too.
™ Version 4.2