Islamic jihad: the genocide in the Sudan

Er, not me. Are you sure you're reading my posts carefully?Would it help if I told you that I largely agree with your premise - that Islam is a kind of "war religion", or at least it's religious documents have a strong militaristic theme, and therefore a more peaceful Islam will, of necessity, be a less fundamentalist one? No, I'm saying the exact opposite - if Christianity could enter a period where it departs substantially from the texts- before, as you assert, they returned to them - why can't Islam?Is that clearer? I agree. But you seem to claim that this movement away from the text is not possible. But if it, at one time, happened to Christianity, why couldn't it happen to Islam? Clear as crystal, like it's always been. Do you really think this isn't possible, though? That there's no fighting fundamentalism of any stripe? It might very well be the case that Christianity's departure from fundamentalism (or however you want to describe it) was merely the result of the actual text of the Bible not being avaliable for inspection by most people. Given the internet - hell, given the printing press - that kind of obfuscation isn't likely to take effect in the Muslim world, I guess.

This is what you said in Message 87 Crash: Sounds to me like you are saying why couldn't Islam also move back to its texts? I can't seem to read it any other way.

My intent was to ask the opposite - why can't Islam move away from it's texts?Maybe my sentence structure is a little fuzzy, I guess, but you'll see that the main body of the paragraph you quoted refers to Christianity moving away from its texts, not back towards them, and that's what I'm talking about when I ask if "it" could happen to Islam.

So let's see what we have learned on this thread.- Anyone who interprets the bible as calling for violence is wrong- Anyone who interprets the koran as peaceful is wrong- The NT trumps the OT when it comes to war and peace, but the OT trumps the NT when it comes to hating gays- Osama Bin Laden and Khomeni should be used to judge all muslims- Jesus should be used to judge all christians- The Koran is very violent, but no one can find/quote the violent parts- The violent parts of the bible quoted are being interpreted wrong or don't apply anymore (I'm glad we can just decide which of god's laws to accept)- Even though they have the same god, the islam one is fake and the christian one isn't

That helps a lot, indeed. But departing from the sacred texts is obviously a MISTAKE. How do you bring about a mistake intentionally? Yes, finally, but a very odd idea. You are always going to have the purists who stick with what they consider to be holy zeal to the written word they regard as from God. How are you even going to convince them that a liberal spiritualizing reading of the literal jihad is really the right one? The attempt would just make more Bin Ladens pursuing their holy war with burning zeal and hiding out in caves and feeding fuel to their righteous cause. There are already Muslims calling for reform. But I don't see how that is possible with a book that is regarded as coming from God. I see no solution to this from within Islam. The only solution to terrorism I see is round the clock vigilance on the part of those they are likely to target. I said why above I believe. Psychologically there will always be zealots and unless you burn every last copy of their holy texts and kill all the current generation of zealots, which is obviously neither right nor possible, there will never be an end to the terrorist mentality. Some moderate Muslims speak of changing the text. How can that happen if it is thought to be given by God? There will always be those who refuse, even if many would like to. What makes the majority of Muslims peaceable is just that ordinary human nature can't sustain all that violence and doesn't want a part in it. The sanity in normality comes out when they are able to interpret their sacred texts in peaceable ways. But there are always those who want to follow their idea of God to perfection and if that God tells them to murder infidels they will refuse to shrink from the call. And if the zealots rise to prominence, and teach in many mosques, which is claimed to be the case in American mosques, most being run by Wahabbis, there are likely a lot more of them than anybody thinks exist.That's how I understand this problem.

I dunno, is it? I mean, it would be better for all the rest of us, right? And for them, too. Mistake? Sounds like a great idea to me. Well, there's no shortage of so-called "Christians" who believe all kinds of stuff that isn't in the Bible, right? Pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, all the rest.How did those people get convinced? You must have some idea. Is it scary that we couldn't agree more? But I guess I see this as the problem with just about all religions.

It's a mistake in the sense that the texts are regarded as given by God and therefore inviolable. Departure from them puts human wisdom above God's supposed word. This IS what happened in the Middle Ages to the Roman Church and of course I do believe the Bible is God's word and the Koran is not. But most Muslims believe the Koran is God's word; therefore not adhering to it as final authority is a departure from the religion, or a mistake. Sure, by preferring human wisdom to God's word, departing from it, denying it is truly God's word and so on. I'm sure there are some Muslims who have the same attitude toward the Koran. There are others who read it as God's message but spiritualize the jihadic stuff, and so on. But again, there will always be the purists and in the case of Islam it only takes a small percentage of the whole population to wreak great destruction. You can't force people to change their minds. Well, the more purist the Christian, the more true to the Bible, the less combative, the less violent, the more humble, the more peacemaking, the more compassionate toward all. You can tell I have a long way to go. But that is the direction Christian Biblical fundamentalism takes -- or maybe I should say purism, because fundamentalism has a tendency to stay external. But I don't think the same can be said for Islam. It tends in the direction of taking the world for Allah by whatever means come to hand.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Educational system, communicate of doubts, raise opposing views, debate, etc.Therefore, instead of sending troops to Islamic countries, we should send a multitude of our liberal lawyers, judges, professors, journalists, actors and politicians to sway them, or at least, establish laws to thwart them.

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

We were doing better than that. We were sending them our rock stars, our movies, our internet pornography, and all kinds of other stuff to undermine their culture. And it was working, albeit slowly.This absurd war has ruined it.

So are you saying that the current majority of people that claim they are Christians are adhering more strongly to the Bible than they were centuries ago? I thought you thought the opposite and that in the current world most people have corrupted the meaning of the Bible to suit themselves...ie non-literal interpretation of vastly important sections that you think should be considered literal. Right - oppressive theocracy. It happened with Christianity too, but there were revolutions. That was kind of my point. I also discussed the possibilities (or impossibilities) of successful revolution in the modern era. Check out the post Buz was replying to. OK, so continuing from our previous discussion you have decided to go for the Both option - and have decided to also opt for the 'Non-Muslims are able to understand and interpret what the Qu'ran says and means' option. The question now remains - are you going to special plead for Christianity, or are non-Christians (or those who clearly dislike Christianity) able to understand and interpret what it says? We can use a non-violent section if you'd prefer. How about Genesis? Is an atheist (for example) able to correctly interpret what it means and how it should be read? You've been asked to actually substantiate this by myself, jazzns and jar (in fact jar has asked for a specific reference to a quote you posted several times now). Which parts are not the tolerant parts? I see lots of passages that say retaliate against that that oppress you. Bad people justify killing innocent people because they believe government of these people oppresses them and they reason that in a democracy the government is the people.I'm not sure how they justify killing foreign nationals, children and others not elligible to vote.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I think the point is, that it isn't a literal reading - they (and you) just claim it is. However, even more to the point is this little gem: Does this mean that jar's reading of the Bible is just as valid as yours? Is my reading of the Bible as valid as yours?

...hence, the backlash against Western world in the form of terrorism ... as a means to gain power (via public support) for a dictatorship Islamic theocracy.

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

I am sure an argument can be made that these verses must be interpreted with "context", but you asked about literal words.source: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/Quran/cruelty/short.html

---

'Liberalism is a mental disorder' - Michael Savage

That is not what we are arguing here. I agree that there are a non-insignificant number of Moslems who are interpreting their religion to justify violence. I agree that they are a threat and I agree that we need to be vigilant against that threat.What we are arguing is that such an interpretation is the actual default position of the Koran and that Islam itself is the source of the terrorism and genocide. It simply is not. The source of the terrorism and genocide is extremist fundamentalism and world politics as they have been since the beginning of time. People who hate will use any excuse that they find for that hate. There just so happens to be a minority of Moslems right now who are using their religion to justify their hate. Religion is an easy thing to use because it goes to the heart of so many people. There is nothing more comforting to those people then the idea that somehow God is justifying what they are doing. It is wrong, but it has nothing to do with the religion itself and everything to do with the people claiming it. Where you go south is assuming that those of us who wont accept your rediculous ideas concerning Islam automatically take a weak position concerning the terrorism and genocide. You need to be able to seperate the two issues or else this discussion becomes nonsense. You can rage all day against this idea of a pacificst lefty who things Islam is all flowers and butterflies but you are inventing a position that no one here has expressed. The threat is real and no one here has ever to my knowledge denied that. As long as you want to argue against some fanciful position, you might as well be yelling at your wall.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I certainly wouldn't deny the Koran contains more than it's fair share of violent text. Nor would I deny that this text is used to justify violence.I only argue that the Bible has the same sort of content that has been interpreted in similar ways.