Islam: for Ray

[_dartagnan]

This is where I think you're wrong. How do you know that the "majority" of Muslims believe the "fringies" are right, or even support them?

Well we will have to tackle this on a case by case basis, depending on what the issue is. Islamic law is accepted by most Muslims. Most Muslims, therefore, agree with the judgment that Muslims who leave the faith, should be killed. Many of the Muslims dan Peterson would love to quote, were likely banished from their own Muslim homelands because of their fringy ideas. Fazlur Rahman from the University of Chicago, for example. He is brought up all the time when an apologist wants to argue the Quran really doesn't say what it says. How was he treated at hime when he expressed his reforming ideas? He was exiled from Pakistan.

Sunni Islam represents roughly 80% of Islam. Dan Peterson and David Waltz like to push for a spiritual, Sufi type Islam, without indicating to their audience that this represents a tiny minority of Muslims. For most Muslims,there is no room for interpreting the Quran because the ahadith were created for that purpose, and they serve as the authoritative interpreter of the Quran.

This is another problem I have with Dan Peterson, Toronto and Brian Hauglid. They downplay the ahadith in ways most Muslims would despise; even the ahadith which have been deemed authoritative by most Islamic authorities. But then they turn around and rely on obscure, even non-authoritative hadiths in order to make Muhammad appear just and noble. And they never clue their audience in on the double-standard game they are playing.

Dan Peterson sees in Islamic texts, and bunch of material for him to use in order to reconstruct Islam to his own personal flavor. He isn't interested in the fact that most Muslims would reject his interpretation of the Quran (i.e. no compulsion in religion).

In my experience with many Australian Muslims, almost all think the "fringies" are total kooks. But there's an element of Australians who want to rid Australia of Islam

And there is a larger element in Austrailia that wants to rid Australia of non-Muslims.

some of them Christians (nay, many), and they hang on to the extremist statements while ignoring what mainstream Muslims are saying.

I would guess that much of what you think is mainstream, really isn't. Again, you're going to have to provide examples.

And what makes a Muslim mainstream anyway?

Charity, to back out of this is the only smart thing you've done in months. You're in over your head on this subject. You can't even keep up.

[_Ray A]

And there is a larger element in Austrailia that wants to rid Australia of non-Muslims.

Most Muslims in Australia certainly don't want to rid the country of non-Muslims. There are, however, some enthusiastic Christians who do want to rid Australia of Muslims. I correspond with one! He frequently sends me anti-Muslim emails.
I'll get his opinion on this later, in more detail. The two of you will probably be in strong agreement on many things. I don't think he has any close association with Muslims, because if he did, he would not rely on media reports and stereotypes to form his views, which he often does.

I would guess that much of what you think is mainstream, really isn't. Again, you're going to have to provide examples.

And what makes a Muslim mainstream anyway?

I'll provide some sources later, but you must understand that most of my knowledge is from direct contact with Muslims, practising, and non-practising. Scores of them, and from directly speaking to them about Islam. Most of them are Lebanese Muslims, who have a bad reputation in Australia, but their personal views about this are very interesting. My boss and his wife are also practising Lebanese Muslims, and from these associations many of my own former stereotypes have been wiped away. I am under no illusion that Islam is always benign, but the extremists would be extremists even if they were Christians, and not Muslims.

[_dartagnan]

Well just let me know what specifics you want to address. I'm pretty confident I am right in my views. Just let me know which ones to take exception to.

[_Ray A]

Well just let me know what specifics you want to address. I'm pretty confident I am right in my views. Just let me know which ones to take exception to.

I'll go back to your board and review some of the discussions there. Remember I have been very open-minded about this, and seriously considered both viewpoints, but in the past year I've gained, I believe, a better understanding of real life Muslims.

[Guest]

Where is your evidence that Islam is worse than Christianity, as far as crimes against humanity are concerned?

A proper understanding of history, my friend. My measure is by taking the religions from each side and comparing the teachings. But first of all we must avoid making the common mistake of identifying Christianity. Christian theology is Christianity while the Roman Empire, which used Christianity as a symbol, is called Christendom. There is a subtle difference that people like Dan Peterson refuse to acknowledge. When European kings killed in the name of Christianity, this was mostly contrary to what the Church condoned.

Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking the same thing can be said about Islam and poilitica Islam. This is the mistake most relativists make. You see there is no such division in Islam. Islam is political through and through. Islam is seeks to establish theocratic rule just as its founder did. Sharia law cannot be divorced from what makes Islam, Islam. UCLA's most notable alumnist expert (Khalid El Fadl (sp?)) is a Muslim who made this assertion clear.

Whereas Christianity's founder insisted government and religion be separate and treated separately, the founder of Islam insisted Islam must govern, and worse of all, take over all other governments. This was done my slaughter, even by Muhammad himself.

Whereas Christ taught us to love our enemies, Muhammad taught that we should kill our enemies. This is a perfect example of two extreme opposites. Only an apologist can make these two seem compatible with one another.

Extremists today are only following the example Muhammad set for them. These people are not ignorant, but tend to be among the most educated in Islam. Dan Peterson ocne admitted that the majority of Islam is illiterate and ignorant. He also said the majority do not go on suicide missions. Both statements are true, but they are related in a way Dan wouldn't care toa dmit. There is a reason the Muslims who engage in jihad, tend to be those who are more educated in Islam. They can actually read the Quran, the traditional sayings and the biography of Muhammad. They know true Islam. They know about the Islamic principle that says the world is divided in two realms: 1) The abode of Islam and 2) the abode of war.

The idea here is that all areas of the earth not under Islam rule, should be engaged until they submit (Islam means submission). Since they are called the abode of war, this pretty much tells us what method they consider valid. ANy Muslim can legally take upon himself a jihad and wage war in these areas. There is nothing that Osama bin Ladin has done that is contrary to Islam, except perhaps the murder of innocents.

I say "perhaps" because even this is a moot point. Many, and I mean MANY Islamic jurists support bin Ladin, whereas those who condemn him usually do so with two tongues. THey condemn him to the cameras and then support him behind closed doors.

[_Ray A]

Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking the same thing can be said about Islam and poilitica Islam. This is the mistake most relativists make. You see there is no such division in Islam. Islam is political through and through. Islam is seeks to establish theocratic rule just as its founder did. Sharia law cannot be divorced from what makes Islam, Islam. UCLA's most notable alumnist expert (Khalid El Fadl (sp?)) is a Muslim who made this assertion clear.

Whereas Christianity's founder insisted government and religion be separate and treated separately, the founder of Islam insisted Islam must govern, and worse of all, take over all other governments. This was done my slaughter, even by Muhammad himself.

I do see a division between moderates and extremists. What I think you're arguing is that the distinction is hazy, that even moderates really take the Koran literally, that there is no real distinction. Would that be correct? That even moderates seek political power.

[_dartagnan]

Well the question as to whether a Muslim is moderate or not, is something altogether different.

How would you define a moderate Muslim?

Also, the problem with the Quran is not whether it is taken literally. The problem is whether it is properly understood. You see, the Quran was not compiled in chronological order. It is compiled according to the length of the surahs. It is void of any context so it is virtually impossible to know what the hell it is talking about unless you are using the ahadith as an interpreter. That is what it is there for. WIthout it you're just pissing in the wind.

So when people like DCP throw out a quick verse like "no compulsion in religion" they are really just pulling a fast one and expecting us to accept it as if it were a biblical passage wrapped in its proper context.

A proper understanding of this verse would reveal it doesn't mean anything like what Dan and others suggest it means. One needs the corresponding hadith to understand the context in which this "saying" was given. But Dan just calls the ahadith "folklore" and treats it with a grain of salt. This attitutde insults most Muslims because the ahadith are authoritative.

[_mledbetter]

This is a bit of a silly debate. It's like debating who was worse, Hitler or Stalin? OK, so one religion has the blood of 100,000,000 on its hands and the other has the blood of 175,000,000 on its hands, or whatever the real figures are. Both have killed, tortured, oppressed, etc. millions upon millions over the millenia.

Islamic extremism represents the biggest threat to world peace today IMHO. This may change one day. There's no reason to believe that Christian fundies have any more respect for civil liberties, freedoms, or human dignity than Muslim fundies, despite the liberal traditions of the countries in which they are predominantly found, they just happen to be, thankfully, restained by the rule of law for the present. The dominionist movement is the US, for example, is downright scary. Though a fringe movement for the moment, its aims are decidely ill-liberal. Fringe today, mainstream tomorrow, perhaps? I do not put it outside the realm of the possible at some point down the road.

I think that you are misrepresenting what the real debate is. It isn't about which theocracies have killed the most people.

Christianity certainly doesn't teach anyone that they should kill nonbelievers. Now, governments and totalitarians have used religion and the prejudices of their ignorant serfs to expand their power. Christianity vs. Pegans was a convenient prejudice for Monarchs to feed upon during their time because of the general superstitions of their people. It's a case where religion wasn't to blame, but perhaps religion fed the superstitions that became to tool of the murdering monarchs later on.

In the case of Islam, you have a completely different story and anyone who denies the history of Islam or Muhammad are fooling themselves. I'm sorry, but there just isn't a moral equivalence between the teachings of Islam and Christianity. There is obviously a general belief amongst its followers that Islam will take over the world, with extreme violence if necessary, and the founder of that faith did all he could to carry out that plan. Christ certainly did nothing to even come close.

[_Ray A]

Well the question as to whether a Muslim is moderate or not, is something altogether different.

How would you define a moderate Muslim?

I define a moderate Muslim no different than I do a moderate Christian, or a moderate Jew. I lived among the Irish for a year, and was exposed to the political propaganda of the IRA, and even invited to join them, which I declined naturally. This occurred at a Christian seminar organised by my Christian high school. I saw and observed how extremists work firsthand. They use "Christian propaganda", and selected verses from the Bible. Whetever you may think, Kevin, their purposes were political, and they were Christians. I refer to another excerpt, about the Rev. Ian Paisley:

Several founding members and early leaders of the Ulster Defense Association were close confidants and workers for Paisley. Between 1971 and 1976 alone, the UDA [Ulster Defense Association] and its cover organizations murdered 600 Catholics. Freddie Parkinson, a leader of the UDA, stated in 1984, that Paisley was "a tarantula who spreads the venom of further conflict and has been a major contributor to our prolonged tragedy."

This is the "other side" of Christianity. And here is more of Paisley's rhetoric:

"The Unionist party are boasting he [Harold Smith] is a Jew. As a Jew, he rejects our Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament, Protestant principles, the Glorious Reformation and the sanctity of the Lord's day. The Protestant throne and the Protestant constitution are nothing to him."

We could match quote for quote, source for source, and there would be no end to this. Paisley is not alone. Does he define "true Christianity"? In my opinion, the only way to define true Christianity, or true Islam, is to "relativise" both foundational scriptures. I know this sounds odd, but it is essentially what Spong is doing. I wouldn't go as far as he does, but I think that in the evolution of religion, some unpleasant teachings are going to have to be watered down, and basically religion will evolve, while adopting or keeping the precepts which matter. This is exactly what I see moderate Muslims doing. They do not abide by all the Quran. They do think some of it ridiculous and rhetorical, and in real life they do not literally apply these teachings. I have read the Quran by the way, but a long time ago, and I once pointed out, in a letter to the local paper, verses in the Quran which "exposed" this religion for what it really is. My later extensive interaction with Muslims made me feel ashamed, and how out of touch with social reality I was. It was like crying "wolf", when it was only a chihuahua.

My boss is an honest and honourable man, but he's no extremist, though an observing Muslim. I speak to many Muslims who say that they can't believe all of it, just like some Christians can't believe all of the Bible, but the traditions rub off strongly. Many won't drink, even though they don't believe. Others won't attend weddings where alcohol is served, but smoke like chimneys. The majority observe Ramadan, even the non-believers, because of the tradition. I know an atheist Muslim who observes Ramadan. Now if you took a blanket stereotyped picture of these "Lebanese Muslims", and branded them all by your view of the extremists, you'd have a very distorted and unrealistic picture, and the nuances would completely escape you. When someone says Muslims are a real threat, I seriously believe they are the first ones to laugh. I once asked a Muslim friend of mine what they do in Mosques, he replied "plan how to blow up buildings". They are completely aware of the stereotypes, and think them rather ridiculous.

I don't want to downplay the real threat of extremists, nor the fact that they exist here in Australia, and America, but I do not believe they will have the backing of the majority of Muslims. I do not believe, on the whole, that Islam is a threat, except where the extremists are concerned. I know that bin Laden support was strong, and Australian boxer and Muslim, Anthony Mundine, is reported to have said: "they deserved it". But do you think Mundine is behind a Muslim take over of Australia? Look more closely at his comments in a media interview:

Julia Baird:

And what does it mean to you in your daily life to be a Muslim?

Anthony Mundine:

Well it means a lot, I mean you know it keeps you in line you know. it makes you appreciate God and what he's done for you as far as simple things go, food, , my house, my children, just this world that's me, my living, it's all on loan to you, do you know what I mean?

Julia Baird:

Of course when you made those remarks in the wake of the world trade disaster in 2001, you were said to have accused the US government of bringing the September 11th terrorist attacks on itself, is this what you said?

Anthony Mundine:

Yes.

Julia Baird:

Do you still believe that?

Anthony Mundine:

Yes.

Julia Baird:

And why?

Anthony Mundine:

Because you've just got to look at their foreign policies and what they do to other countries and what they're doing right now.

Everything that I said was true but at the time it was very raw and a very touchy subject and then they try to make out, that's what I mean, the media dictate, then they try to make out big headlines in the papers and on the radios that, "Mundine - they had it coming to them." Like, to the average reader they're going think like the people had it coming to them, that died, so putting them in the state that Mundine's a sicko. I mean a psycho. I'm talking about the government, hey put their own people in danger, you know.


Julia Baird:

Did you get any reactions in terms of mail or people coming up to you in the street after you said that?

Anthony Mundine:

No, not really, I mean I'm strong headed but if they lay their hands on me, then I'm going to have to do something about it. I'm not going to sit there and cop, I don't mind getting abused, if they want to abuse you, that's their prerogative but don't touch me, don't lay your hands on me.

Julia Baird:

You're not going to muck around with a boxer, probably.

Anthony Mundine:

Not just that, people have knives and guns and what not. I can handle myself, uyou know what I mean.


Julia Baird:

So was what's happened like politically or like across the world over the past few years, has that made you even more determined about your faith, has it changed your, the way that you view being a Muslim at all?

Anthony Mundine:

No, like I said, the press write a lot of propaganda, just like as an aboriginal, they always want to downgrade the aboriginal, you talk to any stereotype upper-class, middle class Caucasian or what not, they're going to think aboriginals are no goods. They're going to think aboriginals are alcoholics; they're going to think aboriginals are druggos or petrol sniffers, and that's the same mental message they're trying to send about Islam: That it's evil, that it's the worst thing that you could ever be involved in, how could people be that savage or barbaric, but you learn about Islam you are the only and you seek out your own truth and you'll see Islam is nothing but peaceful. In Islam you're never allowed to be aggressor, you know, you're never allowed to be aggressor.

Julia Baird:

Well as you were saying earlier you haven't been outspoken just in terms of Islam, you've also been outspoken your own community and your father grew up in asbestos mining town of Baryulgil in northern New South Wales.

Anthony Mundine:

My Pop he worked in the mine, all my Dad's brothers, all my Dad's uncles worked in the mine. You know the asbestos is crazy man, it's just ripped the whole community up there in northern New South Wales, in Baryulgil apart and you know you have a lot of my cousins and aunties and uncles dieing at a young age and that's another rape, you know out life expectancy is the average is about, I don't know I think 66 or something like that, ours is like you know I think just close to fifty.

http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/sto ... 643220.htm

Regardless of literal interpretations, or even "what we learn from history", I think the majority of Muslims think like Mundine. Most of the problems in Sydney's west are now water under the bridge. The world heard about the "Cronulla riots", and how Lebanese Muslims were behind this. The truth is that Cronulla is probably the most racist suburb in Sydney, and inflamed people with anti-Muslim ideas, and the "threat of Islam". The then Sheik didn't help matters, but he has been removed. Many Muslim groups objected to his inflamatory rhetoric and extremist views. And I'm yet to meet a single Muslim who supported him, at least in my area. They thought he was no better than a Do-Do bird, and probably in the same class as Paisley.

[_guy sajer]

This is a bit of a silly debate. It's like debating who was worse, Hitler or Stalin? OK, so one religion has the blood of 100,000,000 on its hands and the other has the blood of 175,000,000 on its hands, or whatever the real figures are. Both have killed, tortured, oppressed, etc. millions upon millions over the millenia.

Islamic extremism represents the biggest threat to world peace today IMHO. This may change one day. There's no reason to believe that Christian fundies have any more respect for civil liberties, freedoms, or human dignity than Muslim fundies, despite the liberal traditions of the countries in which they are predominantly found, they just happen to be, thankfully, restained by the rule of law for the present. The dominionist movement is the US, for example, is downright scary. Though a fringe movement for the moment, its aims are decidely ill-liberal. Fringe today, mainstream tomorrow, perhaps? I do not put it outside the realm of the possible at some point down the road.

I think that you are misrepresenting what the real debate is. It isn't about which theocracies have killed the most people.

Christianity certainly doesn't teach anyone that they should kill nonbelievers. Now, governments and totalitarians have used religion and the prejudices of their ignorant serfs to expand their power. Christianity vs. Pegans was a convenient prejudice for Monarchs to feed upon during their time because of the general superstitions of their people. It's a case where religion wasn't to blame, but perhaps religion fed the superstitions that became to tool of the murdering monarchs later on.

In the case of Islam, you have a completely different story and anyone who denies the history of Islam or Muhammad are fooling themselves. I'm sorry, but there just isn't a moral equivalence between the teachings of Islam and Christianity. There is obviously a general belief amongst its followers that Islam will take over the world, with extreme violence if necessary, and the founder of that faith did all he could to carry out that plan. Christ certainly did nothing to even come close.

I am no big fan of Islam, let the record be clear. I note the differences you mention, and I am not inclined to dispute them. I question, however, their relevance in the sense that I am not convinced that the noted differences have resulted in a markedly less tendency for Christian true believers to engage in murderous and oppressive behaviors than Muslim true believers. At present, perhaps, but this is but a relatively brief moment in time and a function, in part, of the political systems in which the believers of the two faiths are concentrated. I have no doubt whatsover that were the Evangelicals to gain civil authority and the coercive power of the state that they would rapidly move to eliminate civil liberties and rights resorting to prisons and force or threat of force to impose their will on society.