It is what they would claim, and it is how it looks to me upon reading it myself, and their particular interpretation, which they believe is the true one, has certainly wreaked havoc in the world now and in the long history of Islam.
Well my first question would be how you square the passages that extoll mercy and peace with your interpretation. Khomenei felt they were necessary to address (which means they exist) so I'd be interested in why you agree with Khomenei over the larger group of mullahs he was addressing who think different.
My second one is what do you know about the long history of Islam? Their early days were no less bloody than that of Jews and Xians at that time. They then shifted into a very long period of protecting Jews and science from Xian persecution. That it changed again does not suggest anything other than that the religion is as much open to cultural movements as Judaism or Xianity which have also gone back and forth over time.
This prissy academic concern about the "correct" interpretation is just a distraction.
I do agree, so why do YOU keep bringing it up? Most people here are clearly put off by your insistence on discussing that issue when the subject is Islamic terrorism. If YOU dropped it, my guess is so would everyone else.
So I'll drop the "literal" already. Let me rewrite the Offending Paragraph:
No my problem was not just with "literal". Can't you read your own writing or is it too meandering for you? Check this sentence out...
You cannot claim that the peaceful interpretations are correct when you see what Khomeini says above
If that does not say I cannot claim peaceful interpretations are correct, you'd better rewrite it. I personally do not claim the Quran is inherently "peaceful" but must point out it has many more peacefull and merciful passages than warlike ones (which apparently is why Khomenei was facing the opposition he was facing). What's more the warlike passages tend to be limited in scope and prohibitive of many types of violent action.
Thus it is like all other religious texts in that there are many viable literal interpretations, and the only thing one must take at face value is what an adherent claims to believe for themself, and not what is "truth"... though as I said I am sort of compelled to note there is a lot more peace and mercy going on in the Quran than in Jewish and Xian texts, so I'm pretty sympathetic to muslims who emphasize those goals as more important.
Where did I say they hold the "true literal interpretation?"
I hope I have cleared that up, but to repeat just in case... You continually describe terrorists as being the literalists as opposed to everyone else, and said that peaceful interpretations CANNOT be said to be true because of what people like Khomenei say. That pretty much limits the options on who holds the only true literal interpretation.
I believe that it is open and shut that the literalists' interpretations are thoroughly supported by the Koran and backed up by other Islamic writings and history
And yet you then proceed to do it again. Do you not know what "thoroughly" means? If you mean to say that there is material within the Quran which allows people to form a warlike interpretation, then there is no argument.
Clearly people have done so. Just as Catholics and Abortion clinic bombers have formed interpretations based on the Bible many other Xians do not agree with. It would be incorrect for me to claim that their interpretation is throroughly supported by the Bible, right? After all there are plenty of people who disagree and can point to inconsistencies which by definition makes the alternate interpretation less than thoroughly supported.
You have a different view about what the facts are about what Islam teaches, different from many others who have no doubt studied Islam more than you have, not just the terrorists themselves but many ex-Muslims, who are not afraid to say that those readings about a violent jihad are quite legitimate, and others who have spent time studying it.
And yet you persist in making this insinuation that the terrorists have the valid interpretation. Look Faith I have known muslims and they hold different interpretations and I have read the Quran and come up with a different read. I also can find many groups that do not agree with the warlike interpretation.
I find your comment here bizarre as that also means I am not allowed to decide that Catholicism is not the valid form of Xianity, using the exact same criteria. Heck, I can turn around and claim that YOU can't decide what is a valid form of Xianity too.
There are plenty of "experts" in all religions. The end result is that there are a lot of different valid interpretations, it all depends on personal choice regarding emphasis of certain passages... even from a literal perspective.
When things were going well he preached a peaceful religion; when people refused to accept his teaching he started imposing it on them by force, and killing some for refusing. Khomeini is simply commenting on his view that it's cowardice that embraces only the merciful side of Islam and ignores what he makes only too clear is an out and out murderous side.
Gee I wonder where I keep getting the impression that you are delivering a biased view which claims Islam involves and inherent promotion of violence? Yes, clearly Khomenei is preaching something along those lines (though I'm sure he'd call it justified killing, just like the Abortion clinic bombers). What you have yet to show is what justification he has for any of his claims?
That he claims to be a true and inerrant scholar of Islam does not make him either.
Killing someone you consider to be a "criminal" without due process you would equate with that argument. That's unbelievably absurd. The whole tone of Khomeini's speech is to encourage wanton killing, slitting throats and cutting off hands and so on, the opposite of legally conducted executions and war or any humane system of jurisprudence on the earth for that matter.
1) I was including those Xians that advocate the "execution" of people like gays, blacks, jews, and abortion doctors (and everyone in their vicinity).
2) I find this particularly interesting, especially in your insistence on due process in an earlier sentence. In our current war on terrorism Bush himself has enacted a scheme of no trial and no due process as a form of legitimate warfare against criminals. Many evangelists have backed this up. Are you now taking a stand against Bush and the fundies defending his treatment of "unlawful combatants"? They may call it "rendering" but that is a euphemism for torture... just as bad as neck slitting and all else.
I guess you just dismiss everything that has been shown about Islam's mistreatment of "infidels" throughout its long history, its enslavement of Christians, its subjudgation of Christians and Jews.
No, but I also recognize that there have also been long stretches where they protected both Xians and Jews, most specifically Jews from Xians. Also there has been mistreatment by Xians and Jews of muslims and many other religions and cultures. If taken in total, all three of you are like a macabre three stooges episode.
That you choose to emphasize the bloody aspects of certain sections of Islam, and downplay the same aspects of certain sections of Xianity and Judaism is telling.
I suppose you interpret all the killing of Christians going on in the world now as political.
Muslims are also being killed. So are Jews. So are Bhuddists. So are atheists. I care that all of these people are being killed. They all have many different factors because there are so many different perpetrators. I'm just not sure why you insist on lumping varieties of people into one group with one aim, and show a disproportionate concern for Jews and Xians getting killed when others are currently suffering much greater casualties.
Oh and you are qualified to determine what is a factual error
All your source did was state facts with no sources. You apparently believe their claim solely on the fact that they are ex-muslim? I will point out one factual error right now, the made the same fallacious claim you did above, by not recognizing that not all of Islam's history is filled with persecution of jews and indeed acted as protectors of them against Xian aggression. They also skipped over the fact that most greek knowledge was preserved by them against Xian attempts to destroy it. You show one factual source for their version of history and I'll show mine.
I do not care what legitimate grievances there may be, and I won't say there aren't any. The point is that NONE OF IT JUSTIFIES the way the Muslims have been dealing with Israel.
Ahem, the same can be said for Israeli treatment of muslims (and Xians by the way).
YOu cannot justify Hezbollah's insane shelling of Israel on any rational grounds whatever.
I didn't.
They put their civilians in harm's way so that israel will be held responsible
The Hezbollah does not have "their civilians", as they are a group and not a nation. You probably mean to say that they engage in activities such that military engagement against them is likely to result in civilian casualties (that is they blend in). Well it sure as hell is Israel's responsibility (and stupidity) if they fall for that trap then.
There are many ways to engage an enemy. The proper choice is the one that results in few civilian casualties, and only when necessary. There have been too many instances where this was clearly NOT the case in the recent invasion of Lebanon for you to claim they are making proper or legal military decisions.
Or let me pass this to you... can you show me why they must bomb Lebanon in the manner they have to achieve their aims, especially in light of the fact that they aren't achieving their aims and instead inflicting massive civilian casualties?
And above all you will not even touch the question of the Koran and religious motivations in all this murder and bad faith.
What is the relevance, particularly when you say you have no interest in discussing valid interpretations? How does addressing the Quran and religious motivation lead us to any possible solution to the problem?
I agree with Buzsaw that the UN resolutions are biased against them and permissive toward islamic terrorism.
Really? Give your reason for this. Use any resolution you want. Buz was so clueless about the UN he didn't even know Israel was a member, so I'm not sure why you think he'd be more knowledgable about the nature of UN resolutions or what they even address.
The reason force is necessary -- absolutely necessary
Note that you are responding to a statement of mine that explicitly agreed force is likely to be necessary, but its nature would have to be bounded... that is not all military action becomes legitimate just because force is required.
The whole western world, that is cowed by them, is taking this suicidal line
That didn't answer my question. You claim my position is suicidal. How will I be killed?
Israel would not be obliged to retaliate.
Why is Israel obliged to retaliate in a way that kills ten times more civilians than their enemy and indeed is barely making a dent in their enemy's forces?
I mean let's look at facts. Hezbollah has managed to kill almost as many Israeli soldiers as Israel has killed Hezbollah militants. I'm no super expert in military strategy but that is not called a winning strategy. That Israel is managing to hit 10 times the number of innocent people in the process as those they are aiming at makes it a pretty wreckless and stupid strategy.
Perhaps you can discuss your ideas on military strategy where that makes some sort of sense.
Their tactics should be condemned ABSOLUTELY
I absolutely condemned the illegitmate tactics used by Hezbollah. I am now consistently applying my criteria regarding legitimate conduct of military operations to Israel as well. Explain why that should not be done.
I realize Hezbollah targets civilians and Israel may not. There are more rules to warfare than no targeting of civilians. One might note again of course that in this case Hezbollah did not start by attacking civilians.
but Israel is simply defending itself.
I using grenades on a crowded street to defend yourself against an attacker justified? Explain.
crafty designs to make Israel look bad and kill as many Israelis as possible.
1) Many more times nonIsraelis have been killed than Israelis. If their goal was simply to kill Israelis Hezbollah is losing.
2) Why is Israel being so stupid as to fall for their trap? Why could they not be clever and employ methods which target their enemies better and avoid so many atrocities. If their intention is NOT to kill civilians, and defeat Hezbollah, they are losing.
I have tried to stay short and to the point. There were many to be addressed.
If you want to slim down the reply concentrate on why discussing the Quran and religion is important when you believe "true interpretation" doesn't matter, why we should believe religion is the guiding factor when there are diverse terrorist organizations with many different backgrounds and agendas, and why Israel is justified in using the FORM of force it has chosen when it appears so counterproductive and is in violation of int'l law regarding armed conflict.
That last one is pretty important. If terrorist group's tactics are what make them condemnable in an absolute sense, why does Israel get off the hook when their tactics are equally illegitimate?
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2
