Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Islam need a Reformation?
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 9 of 300 (226884)
07-27-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by CanadianSteve
07-27-2005 5:17 PM


Context of "War" Verses.
From your first link:
Still, the primary meaning of jihad is physical combat. According to Reuven Firestone, professor of medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles
Forgive me if I do not immediatly accept the expert analysis of one man and this one in particular. Not to say that he couldn't be right, but I am highly skeptical given little information here. Personally, when I want to know what a word means in a culture I go ask the people of that culture. Being that I am an Arab and am part of that culture I know that jihad means exactly what it is by definition and, like many words in Arabic, is given more specific meaning given the context in which it is used. Jihad means "struggle". You can go on a jihad against poverty, a jihad against the job market, against the weeds in the backyard. This is how it is used and it is going to take much more than the "expert" opinion of a Hebrew scholar to change my mind.
In yet other places, the Quran seems to command offensive warfare against unbelievers:
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)
Lets take a look at the next two verses:
[2.217] They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from Allah's way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with Allah, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever-- these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter, and they are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide. [2.218] Surely those who believed and those who fled (their home) and strove hard in the way of Allah these hope for the mercy of Allah and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Looks like it is pretty plain to me that it is saying that it is better to fight and die than loose your faith.
Then there is:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
Lets take a look at 9:4 the immediate preceeding verse:
[9.4] Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
And then the immediate following verses:
[9.6] And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.
[9.7] How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Apostle; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
As soon as you put the verse back into its context, it certaily looks less and less about conversion by the sword.
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).
Nowhere here does or in the surrounding verses is there a call to convert the People of the Book by the sword. In fact, if you read ahead you will find that it is talking specifically being assaulted by the "polytheists":
[9.36] Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists alltogether as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
When you read the sura as a whole your position is destroyed. In context it talks about defense of your belief against agression toward both you and your religion. No where is it saying to go out and convert by force.
In the Moderation Procedures thread AdminJar agreed that you need to address the issue of the context of these verses. You when a rebuttal is presented to you in an honest debate it cannot be brushed aside. When holmes brought this to you attention you brushed it off. I will not let you do this via the guidelines of this forum. If you want people to honestly debate with you you must honestly debate as well. Please address the context and how it changes the meaning of the verses from their quote mined listing on the site you sourced which makes them seem like verses condoning conversion by the sword.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-27-2005 5:17 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:05 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 12 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:38 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 13 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:55 AM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 23 of 300 (226990)
07-28-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by CanadianSteve
07-28-2005 1:38 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Please address the issue of the context as it concerns conversion by the sword.
I realize that it does say that infidels must pay a tax but that is very different from 'convert or die'. You get no brownie points for showing that the Koran teaches a dislike of other religions. Dislike and special treatement are worlds different from what you originally suggested.
You are required to address rebuttals. If you expect to be taken seriously you must debate honestly. Show me, using the text of the Koran, how my interpretation that those verses DO NOT mandate conversion by the sword is wrong given the full context in which they are written. You need to address my specific points.
Too many times we forget that this is a moderated debate board. I will not be forgetting that during this discussion.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:38 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 9:48 AM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 25 of 300 (226993)
07-28-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by CanadianSteve
07-28-2005 1:05 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Once again all of you experts on the term 'jihad' are also critics of Islam (yes including the Moslem woman who write that book, you will find many real Christians on this board criticial of Christianity as well).
Have you ever found a real definition of 'jihad' from an Arabic scholar? A Moslem scholar? Someone who is actually part of the culture that uses that term?
Take an analogy. What if I went around saying the the word 'aloha' means hello in Hawaiian? I wouldn't be wrong but I would also not be entirely correct. No if you used my 'expert' analysis of the word 'aloha' in a debate you would be using an invalid source because in actuality the word 'aloha' means many things from hello, goodbye, and various degrees of love depending on the context. Now who would be a better source, me or an actual Polynesian historian or even a native Hawaiian?
How about we find out what 'jihad' means from the Arabs? Why are you so attached to sites with an anti-arab or extreme conservative bias (I particularly loved the image of the woman on the frontpagemag site that had a shirt which said "I neutered my pet and now they are liberal"). Quality sources there CS. Quality sources.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 1:05 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 9:50 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 6:49 AM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 56 of 300 (227039)
07-28-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by CanadianSteve
07-28-2005 9:48 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
The issue is not subjugation. The issue is conversion by the sword being supported by the verses you originally quoted. My rebuttal is that given the context those verses do not encourage 'convert or die' but rather are descriptions of acceptable defensive agression.
Please respond to this specific point or withdrawl your claim. If you continue to avoid the issue I will be asking for moderator intervention.
Thank you.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 9:48 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 2:16 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 57 of 300 (227041)
07-28-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by CanadianSteve
07-28-2005 9:50 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Looking back I could not find a source that you listed nor the quotation from that source that shows jihad means physical struggle by default. If it was missed I appologize. If you could repeat the quote and the source that would be helpful.
Also, please address my Hawaiian analogy. Do you not agree that proper definition of words should be taken from those who use the words? Does "cool" in popular culture mean "something good" or MUST it mean "the quality of being of less temerature than a moderate temperature"? If you were writing about slang in popular culture which definition would you use? Would you be intellectually honest by using the other definition?
Please respond to specific points raised in rebuttal.
Thank You.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 9:50 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 62 of 300 (227054)
07-28-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
07-28-2005 10:52 AM


Re: Christianity is a red herring
There is a grand total of 4 admin posts out of 60 with 1 of them being the topic promotion post.
That being said, this is a moderated debate board. Admins in the interest of fostering discussion have been historically relaxed in how hard they apply their moderation. Sometimes though it is a crime how much they let some people get away with avoiding the topic, changing the topic, and basic disregard of the forum guidelines.
If you don't want to see a thread that is actually moderated correctly, don't participate. I would have no problem with you keeping your input, which I consider both racist and bigoted, out of this discussion. Although I do hope we can keep it friendly in other topics, I will never forget your behavior in the other Islam thread that we first tangled in.
I loathe to relive that. I am content to forgive the hatred displayed in that thread in the spirit of Christian love. For those of you who were not there or do not remember Islam does not hate christianity. The only thing I can do is to pray for those who have so much hate in their heart to say the things that they do and hope that the truth of their corruption is transparent to those who are watching.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 07-28-2005 10:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 2:56 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 07-28-2005 4:12 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 64 of 300 (227126)
07-28-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by CanadianSteve
07-28-2005 2:16 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
I've offered several rebuttals.
We will allow the board moderators to decide if you have done so.
With regards to your continued mischaracterization of the word 'jihad', please address the point in Message 25 and Message 57 with regards do the quality of your sources about the proper definition of words in a culture.
Also, a requst was issued for you to repost the relevant quote and source for which you refered to in Message 36. Kindly honor this request.
Please address specific points in an honest debate.
Thank you.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 2:16 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 3:02 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 68 of 300 (227154)
07-28-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by CanadianSteve
07-28-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
I'll address both of your replies to me in this one post.
It is true that this topic is given to digression...but not entirely. If it is true that islam's war verses are the real root cause of islamist imperialism within Islamic countries, (like Islamist foreigners pouring into iraq and killing Iraqis to thwart their efforts at creating a democracy), then that is a substantial argument for an islamic reformation. If the war verses are also the explanation for why Islamists are killing people of many faiths - including Muslims - in something like 26 nations, then that is an even stronger argument.
There is nothing wrong with the previous statement. I feel though that you are simply asking the abosolute most wrong question you can about the problem. The question should be is the selective quoting from the Koran and the Hadith the primary motivation behind the action of violent fundamental Islamists and what do we do about it?
Selective quote of religious texts happens in all religions when it comes to fundamentalism. Many Christians selectivly quote to justify cult like practices such as newborn baptisms, snake handling, requiring speaking in tounges, etc. Granted that the consequences of the miss used verses in this case are in particular more dire, that does not mean that Islam as a whole needs to change.
If, however, there is simply no way that their actions can be attributable to the War verses, then that is an impeachable argument against the need of a
reformation.
I have not argued that they do not attribute their actions to the war verses. I agree that they probably do. My argument is that they do so outside of mainstream Islam. Your argument seems to be that they do not.
However, if either view can be substantially and rationally argued, then we have a dilemma. Does the faith need a reformation, or does it not? That i see as the major point of this thread. As you know, i argue not for a reformation, beacsuee i don't see that is possible, but for some kind of edit to ensure the faith can only be interpreted by all as you intepret it.
An edit will not happen in the Koran any more than one will happen in the Bible. If it cannot happen then why both suggesting it?
I disagree with you about hate being presented here.
My comment about hate was qualifying the other thread about Islam that was mired it propaganda and decit awhile back. I don't want to do that again with Faith or you for that matter. It is not worth the anxiety to worry about convincing someone that their entire worldview towards a particular culture for which they base negative opinions on has been directed by propaganda rather than fact.
The real haters are the islamists. Hate is preached in their mosques worldwide, even here in our western antions, and practised in their wars. The vile anti-Semitism of all the Arab world, and too much of the Islamic world, is real hate. Even the anti-Americanism in much of the islamic press is hate (ever read MEMRI?).
Anti-semitism is a particular appropriate phrase for your quote because when you really look at that term and then look at how it is used it is quite ironic. It can be said that sentiments of anti-semitism can be attributed to both Arabs and Jews being that many of them do hate each other and they are both Semetic people. The hatred comes from both sides and to ignore that is to make a graver mistake than the one you are worrying about most in this thread. The problem is bigger than just Arabs hating Jews.
I am at a loss for what you want. i have given you about 10 sources for Jihad as martial, all of which deal with verses from the koran as well as deal with it in many other ways. i even sourced a new book by an acclaimed scholar on the history fo Jiahd. That book quotes the koran adn the war verses in mulitple places. I have sourced how islamist through history have interpreted the war verses as martial Jihad.
My problem is exactly with your sources. Please re-read my previous two posts on this issue Message 25 and Message 57. My complaint is that your are choosing the definition of the term given by those who are at best biased and at worst racist toward Arabs. In those two posts I asked you a number of direct questions that were never answered. One tends to get a bit aggrivated when direct questions are ignored.
In particular, I would rather use a definition of a word given to me by the people who use and understand that word. In my examples, I would rather take the definition of the word 'Aloha' from a native Hawaiian or at least someone who is as familiar with the word in its actual cultural context. In popular culture it would be intellectually dishonest of me to attribute the definition as a property of temerature to the word 'cool'.
For 'jihad' I will take the definition of the word as it is used by the culture for which it exists.
An excerpt from Page not found | Institute of Islamic Information and Education:
Islam does not teach nor do Muslims desire conversion of any people for fear, greed, marriage or any other form of coercion.
In conclusion, jihad in Islam is striving in the way of Allah by pen, tongue, hand, media and, if inevitable, with arms. However, jihad in Islam does not include striving for individual or national power, dominance, glory, wealth, prestige or pride.
The article stands as a whole and so I will only offer a bit here. Please follow the link for the rest of it as well as the references used by its author Dr. M. Amir Ali.
I feel like you don't even read what I write. You may feel the same so I am going to try harder to respond appropriatly to your posts. My position on your definition of jihad is clearly with regard to the sources you use to justify your position. Not all sources are created equal and your seem severly lacking in credibility with regards to this and in comparison to those from the culture in which the word is used.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-28-2005 3:02 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 3:27 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 71 of 300 (227158)
07-28-2005 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
07-28-2005 4:12 PM


Re: Emotions vs. objectivity
I find it amazing that someone can both claim objectivity and yet disregard a veritable barrage of sources from a variety of reputable news agencies as biased while clinging onto a particular source that was shown repeatedly to be incorrect.
We will agree on one thing though. (I'll even admit to being emotional at times on that thread and if I recall I even admitted it then.) We will both let our behavior on that thread stand for what it is and somehow both of us will be proud of it.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 07-28-2005 4:12 PM Faith has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 84 of 300 (227292)
07-29-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
07-29-2005 6:49 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
I have never contended that there are some if not many extremists who falsely interpret the Koran and choose a path of active violence over peace. I have never defended the actions of Mohammed or the history of military actions of the Arab nations.
I do however contend the notion that this is somehow a majority view among Moslems and that somehow the moderates are not following the "true" message of the Koran. To even suggest that the only way to fix the problem is to edit the Koran is first of all impossible and second of all absurd. The problem is not the Koran it is the culture and the selective reading of religious text just like many branches of extremist Christianity do.
To come here and push this idea that Islam is inherently violent by definition and to support that assertion with references such as frontpagemag and jihadwatch is so shallow it only seems that someone with a agenda of hatred could even concieve of it.
My issue is not with saying that there is a problem in the middle east. There is no denying that. Areas are a hotbed of aggression and terrorist activity. The problem though is not Islam any more than Christianity was the problem with the foul behavior of Puritans. Just because modern Christianity is a few centuries removed from that evil mindset does not mean that it didn't exist nor that it was Christianity's fault. People will always twist religion to fit their vile need for control, power, influence, and evil. People are the problem not religion as evidenced by the vast millions of Moslems and Christians who practice their faith peacefully in contrast to their extremists counterparts.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 6:49 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 11:51 AM Jazzns has replied
 Message 93 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 3:59 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 89 of 300 (227410)
07-29-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
07-29-2005 11:51 AM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
The contention here is that the violent jihadist interpretation of the Koran is not false but legitimate, and this has been argued with many references.
Yea it has been argued by reference. It always seems to boil down to references dosen't it. For some reason the BBC is an invalid and biased source but frontpagemag and jihadwatch are totally reliable and valid. When it comes to politics you can find references for just about any position no matter how hateful or ignorant.
Also nobody has said that the moderates are not following the true message of the Koran. You don't seem to be reading carefully.
CS's solution is to edit the Koran and the Hadith. What does that suggest if not that there is something wrong with the Koran and the way it is being used its followers. At what point are we going to hold people responsible for their actions rather than the religion.
None of these things has been said here. What has been said is that there are TWO legitimate readings, due to the fact that BOTH a peaceful and violent form of conversion, both peaceful and violent attitudes toward unbelievers, are promoted in the Koran. BOTH are written in the Koran and therefore both are legitimate.
You don't seem to recognize that this is exactly true for almost any religious text out there. That is why so many people are giving you examples of evil uses of Christian doctrine. You claim all day that it is not "true" Christianity yet turn around and call the same argument used in Islam as bunk. I simply do not understand how you cannot see the hypocricy.
Again, there is nothing in the Bible to support aggression against anybody, and absolutely not for the purpose of conversion. Such ideas have never been held by any recognized faction of the church ever. The message and example of Christ are utterly opposed to such actions, and when Christians engage in them they are doing so in opposition to the written religion. This is not to say there haven't been violent periods in Christian history, but they had nothing to do with conversion, whatever else might be said about them.
The Inquisition happened Faith regardless of what you say about how it was not "true" Christianity that was responsible for it. Witches have been burned, people have been killed, maimed, tortured, ostracized, banished, etc all in the name of Jesus Christ for century upon century. To say that these acts can be absolved by the 'no REAL Christian would do X' and not allow moderate Moslems to do the same is perfect hyprocricy.
Again you seem unable to think about the actual facts of the situation as presented, but can only deal with it emotionally. This makes discussing it with you impossible.
You may insert your perception of emotion wherever you like. Your subtle attention to this is a very good distraction tactic.
Again you refuse to address the problem and seek a distraction and to smear Christianity which has nothing in common with Islam.
Why would I seek to smear my own faith? That Christianity has influenced evil deeds perpetrated by its believers throught history is a fact. You deciding not to call them real Christians is arbitrary and hypocritical. These things occurred like them or not. I still feel comfortable in my faith recognizing them for what they are; the corruption that man made organized religion brings to faith in Christ. It is the people who are responsible for the attrocities. Those people used their faith as an excuse to commit despicable acts just like the extremist Moslems today.
Unfortunately you simply refuse to address the facts given on this thread and are simply resorting to the usual accusations and assertions that I thought
were against EvC rules.
I don't trust frontpagemag and jihadwatch any more than I would trust the fanatical Islamists. I am much happier getting my definition of Islam and words like 'jihad' from the average guys and gals who go down to the Mosque every friday. You know, people who actually speak the language and live the life. Forgive me if I do not bow to your 'facts' or your subtle reprehension toward me and my posts.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 11:51 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 2:32 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 95 of 300 (227498)
07-29-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Faith
07-29-2005 2:32 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Sigh. I really do not get your hostility.
I don't know where you are seeing my hostility. This is a debate forum so of course since I am arguing against you I am going to be 'hostile' to your position. I have a feeling that you are carying over some sense of hostility from out other encounters.
There is nothing hateful about any of this except in your own mind and I'm at a loss to explain your attitude.
From my perspective, I see invalid and biased sources being used to promote the idea that not entirely correct. My issue has been with the method of inquiry about this in order to try to resolve it. The primary reason for wanting a reformation of Islam as a whole is being driven by evidence from critics. Yes there are some Moslems that believe Islam needs some changes and I would be happy to talk about their ideas with regards to the reformation of THEIR OWN religion.
Yes, the BBC appears to be biased to the left, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have factual material too. If there are errors in the
material at any of the sources they ought to be correctable by facts from somewhere else. But the sources are pretty well documented. But you are just bitterly complaining and not engaging in discussing
the actual facts in any case.
The problem is that the facts are not the facts. Some people have an 'expert' opinion on what the war verses mean. They also have an 'expert' opinion on what the word 'jihad' means. These are not facts they are analysis done from various degrees of obviously biased persuasion. I choose to get my definitions from the majority of the practitioners and I have been debating that this is a far superior way to address the issue.
You also didn't seem to give the BBC as much merit as you are doing now. Last time sources from there were summarily disregarded without examiniation or comment. What has changed? I feel it because I am using a legitimate form of the argument about source bias in this case. I mean come on. "I neutered my pet and now they are liberal." A site that would purposfully display something like that and you would not have us question motive and bias?
Your hostility and emotionality are scary. I don't hate anybody, but this is a real problem the world is facing right now. It ought to be discussable but obviously it isn't. You're a nice guy. I don't get your total irrationality on this subject.
I feel the same way. I really can't figure how you don't see the hypocrisy in your position. No there is no quote in the Bible of Jesus saying to torture and kill to bring people to God but people have still managed to twist the religion and the text for their martial goals or otherwise. The case with Islam is a little more obvious because of its encouragement of violence in certain cases but the principle is the exactly the same. You have certain people twisting religion for evil purposes. To say now that the majority of Moslems who do not follow the extremist agenda must now reform their religion is ludicrous. The problem is the extremists, not Islam. Many of the comments made in this thread so far, by their motive and or ignorance, have been a direct or indirect assault on faith of millions of peace loving people IMO.
In any case I don't see any point in contributing to this thread further. I'll leave it to you and Canadian Steve.
Sometimes it is hard to see the other side. I admit that sometimes I look back at older posts and think about how I could have handled things better. But I feel the same is true for the opposite side. I have seen no regard in either direction for even a minor point on the other side until some of CS's latest replies which have seemed a bit more thought out. Can't you at least see why I might have issue with the two most cited sources on this thread so far?

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 2:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-29-2005 6:40 PM Jazzns has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 96 of 300 (227504)
07-29-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by CanadianSteve
07-29-2005 3:27 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Hi CS.
The main thrust of my argument thus far has been about the validity of sources. Please read my most recent rely to Faith with this regard. I don't feel the argument is properly being pursued at all due to its foundation primarily in external criticism.
My frustration with you so far has been that I feel you are ignoring my postion and continuing the discussion without addressing the validity of your sources. It is almost like you are talking to me yet are deaf to my most major points. I hope you can understand why that might frustrate me.
Please address the issue of who is better to define both the religion of Islam and the meaning of various components of the religion and culture such as the word 'jihad'. I will patiently wait for you to address this issue and continue to bring it up until it is resolved.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 3:27 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 4:52 PM Jazzns has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 97 of 300 (227509)
07-29-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by crashfrog
07-29-2005 4:16 PM


Re: Synopsis in answer to Questions
I am glad I am not the only one that sees it although you do have a flair for stating things with a little more abrasion. =)
Just because Jesus never said, "Go out and exclude all who don't think like you. Kill, maim, rape, and torture when necessary." does not mean that people have not used the Bible to justify their evil.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2005 4:16 PM crashfrog has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 99 of 300 (227539)
07-29-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by CanadianSteve
07-29-2005 4:52 PM


Re: Context of "War" Verses.
Of the sources you have listed thus far only Cook and Pipes have not been via the articles from frontpagemag and jihad watch. As I asked Faith, can you not see why I would have a problem with those two sites?
I just went to frontpagemag and I see the following:
"I just neutered the cat and now he's a liberal"
"Stick it to Hillary: Secrets of Conservative Millionaires Revealed!"
Articles titled:
"The Anti-American Counter-Liberty Union"
"The Left's New Conspiracy"
Why do you think I would have a problem with sourcing that site? Can you not see the obvious bias of that site?
The same goes for jihadwatch. They have titles to articles such as "The myth of moderate Islam" etc.
All of your sources so far have been via avenues that are critical of Islam rather than from within Islam. If you have a non-biased source that discussion rationally how to reform Islam from the perspective of real Moslems then I would gladly discuss it with you.

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 4:52 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-29-2005 5:44 PM Jazzns has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024