Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

G-Flex, the problem is that what we conveniently label "Radical Islam" is actually Orthodox Islam, if you read the Quran and the Hadiths (I don't recommend this, it's really time consuming and soul destroying) you'll come to understand this. There really aren't two ways about it, the Quran isn't interpreted as an eyewitness account of events written by a potentially flawed human being like the Christian bible or the Torah, it's considered to be a direct, infallible transcription from God himself with very limited room for critique or interpretation.

... You seriously don't think that the same applies to Judaism and Christianity?

Have you read the Bible lately? Especially the Old Testament? Shit gets nasty, and the hardline Orthodox Christian/Jewish line is that THOSE are the infallible word of God as well.


People will use the holy book of a religion to justify all kinds of things, good or bad. Things in the Koran can get interpreted as highly context-specific/outdated/irrelevant/allegorical as things in the Bible or Torah can, and in fact, do. This is what peaceful and tolerant Muslims do.


You refer to reading the Quran/Hadiths as "soul-destroying". I've seen quotes that actually paint it as a fairly tolerant faith, and I could also find quotes that paint it as fairly xenophobic and violent (see above). You can say the same damn thing about the Old Testament, what with the rules for how exactly to sell your daughter into slavery and who to stone for what minor misdeeds.

[John Hopoate]

... You seriously don't think that the same applies to Judaism and Christianity?

Have you read the Bible lately? Especially the Old Testament? Shit gets nasty, and the hardline Orthodox Christian/Jewish line is that THOSE are the infallible word of God as well.

You've obviously not familiar with traditions of scriptural interpretation so I'll try and explain it using a practical example

All four traditional "schools of Islamic thought" along with Salafism mandate death for apostates and heretics, MOST Islamic clergy throughout the world approve of this view. Less than 0.01% of Jews and Christians believe that apostates and heretics should be condemned to death despite the teachings of the Old Testament, this is as I've previously explained, due to the Islamic belief that the Koran is the direct, literal, unchanging word of God that is prescribed not only as a system of belief but as a political system.

You refer to reading the Quran/Hadiths as "soul-destroying". I've seen quotes that actually paint it as a fairly tolerant faith, and I could also find quotes that paint it as fairly xenophobic and violent (see above). You can say the same damn thing about the Old Testament, what with the rules for how exactly to sell your daughter into slavery and who to stone for what minor misdeeds.

People sometimes cherry-pick quotes to make it seem more tolerant but ultimately all Muslims view the Koran governed by the doctrine of supersessionism (not to be confused with the Christian doctrine of supercessionism). Basically this means that if Muhammed said or did something that contradicted what he previously said or did, the later action overrides the previous action. When he didn't have many followers and hung out in Medina, he tried to make peace, to convince everyone that he was a tolerant dude who didn't want to rock the boat. Once he got enough follows to conquer Mecca, he started changing his tune and thus most of the loving tolerant verses of the Koran are actually considered by Muslims to be meaningless as they're contradicted by ultra-violent Muhammad of the later Koran.

[G-Flex]

... You seriously don't think that the same applies to Judaism and Christianity?

Have you read the Bible lately? Especially the Old Testament? Shit gets nasty, and the hardline Orthodox Christian/Jewish line is that THOSE are the infallible word of God as well.

You've obviously not familiar with traditions of scriptural interpretation so I'll try and explain it using a practical example

All four traditional "schools of Islamic thought" along with Salafism mandate death for apostates and heretics, MOST Islamic clergy throughout the world approve of this view. Less than 0.01% of Jews and Christians believe that apostates and heretics should be condemned to death despite the teachings of the Old Testament, this is as I've previously explained, due to the Islamic belief that the Koran is the direct, literal, unchanging word of God that is prescribed not only as a system of belief but as a political system.

Except that, as far as I can tell, the execution of apostates doesn't have a Quranic basis in the first place.


I can't really respond to this more than that; a friend of mine is more well-studied concerning Islam, so I'll probably talk to her later at some point and have more to say one way or the other.

[John Hopoate]

Except that, as far as I can tell, the execution of apostates doesn't have a Quranic basis in the first place.

Are you actually familiar with Islamic Theology or are you simply trying to annoy me by forcing me to track down the original verse that justifies this belief?

If it's the former, do you really think that you know more than forty generations of Islamic scholars? Are you so racist as to suggest that no Arabs, Persians or Turks of merit have been able to challenge that view with any degree of credibility for the past 1300 years despite the lack of scriptural justification? 

[G-Flex]

One thing you seem to forget is that the belief that the Bible is the unerring, divinely-inspired truth isn't exactly uncommon in Christian/Jewish thinking. People cherry-pick from it anyway.

[Dwarf]

Dwarf, you are overly dichotomous. Your side has only the right, and the opposing side can do nothing but wrong. Welcome to the real world, it's gray and slightly lighter gray. If you want to claim that Islamic migration hasn't had a negative effect in Europe, I recommend that you find some sand to bury your head under.

Yes, maybe that's my problem. I generally see the SPP as the scum of this country.

Immigration in overall has resulted in some problems in Switzerland - tracing back to how we treat them in the first place. Switzerland has been rather conservative for the better part of the last century, treating immigrants with a "Bah you're not belonging here" stance. Naturally, that makes immigrants rather hostile, thus resulting in more denial, and so on. It's been pretty perpetual, up to the point of today where in some areas, you're fucked when you're bragging about your Swiss heritage (or look like one) and parties like this can flourish because people like to think that foreigners have an innate hatred of Switzerland and that it's not their fault or that of their country.

[John Hopoate]

One thing you seem to forget is that the belief that the Bible is the unerring, divinely-inspired truth isn't exactly uncommon in Christian/Jewish thinking. People cherry-pick from it anyway.

I made the point that less than 0.01% of Christians and Jews think that apostates and heretics should be killed, I used this as a point to illustrate the differing traditions of scriptural interpretation inspired by the Bible's status as an eyewitness account and the Koran's status as the literal, direct word of God transcribed word for word to an illiterate Arabian warlord. You chose to ignore my point, presumably because it suited your prejudices, if you're going to continue being intellectually dishonest I see no reason to continue discussing this matter any further.

[Tack]

And their cheese got mentioned in an Asterisk comic!

<.<


>.>


. -.- .

I'll be going now.

[Cheeetar]

Switzerland has historically been a fine example of how multiculturalism can work but you'd be deluded to think that some cultures aren't more desirable than others.

Yes, and arbtirarily refusing a religious group to build common structures of theirs (while apparently defying the Swiss constitution and, arguably, international law Switzerland ostensibly abides by) is going to make them so much more tolerant of Western ideals and society, and show the more moderate Muslims so much support.

I never said that the amendment was was a good idea, only that you shouldn't label your countrymen racists or xenophobes just because they're worried about the very obvious negative consequences of Islamic migration to Europe.

but you'd be deluded to think that some cultures aren't more desirable than others.

And by some cultures, you mean your culture, right?

If you bothered to read what I wrote you'd see that I gave a specific example of an ethno-religious immigrant group that doesn't inspire hatred or cause a disproportionate number of social problems. Why doesn't anyone in Australia ever talk about the problems associated with "Buddhist Immigration" or "Hindu Immigration" despite the significant numbers of Buddhists and Hindus in this country?

Sorry, let me refine my statement. And by some cultures, you mean all cultures except 'insert culture you hate completely for irrational reason or overblown reason here'.

[redacted123]

-

[G-Flex]

One thing you seem to forget is that the belief that the Bible is the unerring, divinely-inspired truth isn't exactly uncommon in Christian/Jewish thinking. People cherry-pick from it anyway.

I made the point that less than 0.01% of Christians and Jews think that apostates and heretics should be killed, I used this as a point to illustrate the differing traditions of scriptural interpretation inspired by the Bible's status as an eyewitness account and the Koran's status as the literal, direct word of God transcribed word for word to an illiterate Arabian warlord. You chose to ignore my point, presumably because it suited your prejudices, if you're going to continue being intellectually dishonest I see no reason to continue discussing this matter any further.

I'm not sure what you mean; it seems like you're arguing over petty distinctions here.

I said that Christians and Jews, by and large, do in fact traditionally believe that their holy book is ALSO unerring and unfaltering.

Seriously, if you want to talk about orthodoxy, and what a religion traditionally believes and accepts now as the orthodox truth, Christians and Jews believe that the Bible is infallible. You will find some who disagree with this, just like you'll find plenty of Muslims who don't think apostates should be beheaded or whatever, but the infallibility of the Bible is a fundamental, orthodox truth of Judaism and Christianity; you can't just go saying "well maybe Moses was, you know, wrong". Well, you could, but you'd be very very unorthodox in doing so.

I made the point that less than 0.01% of Christians and Jews think that apostates and heretics should be killed

I know people who have known Muslims and studied Muslims beliefs, and it does not seem that your average moderate Muslim living in Western society believes such a thing. It also seems to me that the "apostates must die" was more of a political than a religious thing anyway, more akin to treason against a government.


You act like there's some sort of intrinsic difference between Islam and other Abrahamic religion such that Islam simply cannot be or become tolerant and peaceful. This is asinine. If you were to look back in history, you'd see Christians doing the same thing, wiping out heretics because they too think that their bible and the words of their leaders (especially the popes) are the unerring word of an unwavering God. There's nothing magical about Christianity that prevented it from moving away from this, and there's nothing magical about Islam in the same regard.


So really, saying that Muslims can't not execute apostates is like saying that Jews can't not sell their kids into slavery or stone people to death for any number of things. They both may be written into holy books that are deemed infallible holy law, but that doesn't mean they actually get followed in practice.

The ONLY question then, is how many Muslims NOW believe that execution of apostates is a good idea. You said that most mullahs believe it is. Can you back that up at all?

Here is an article discussing the subject from another point of view. It seems to agree with me that execution for apostasy has a more political than religious basis in Islam, stemming from when Islam was an emergent political entity, and that those executed by, say, Muhammad, were executed not simply for converting to another religion or anything silly like that, but for doing things actually harmful to that political entity. Governments today still execute for treason.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Switzerland just slid down the scale from anally-retentative xenophobic clockmakers to active mega-racists.

Your irony is showing.

Gah, spotted once again.

[Zangi]

Alienating Islam as a whole isn't going to make things any better in the long run...

Sure, make it out as a bad thing to be, you get the more casual to reevaluate and leave it.  They were never a threat to begin with.

But, for those who 'believe' but arn't radical...  you teach em to be less tolerant in turn and more prone to being radical.  These people were not threats to begin with either... 
Breeding hate brings even more in kind.  A troublesome cycle if you ask me.

[Jude]

The idea that "Islam is a religion of peace" isn't any less sensible than the notion that "Canada is a country of peace." Both PREFER peace but are willing to fight back if attacked (I didn't pick America to use in that example, for reasons that are apparent upon studying the history of the 20th century). Which is pretty much what the Qur'an says about the use of violence.

I've never heard anybody else mention this alleged massacre of Jews, but the violence involved in the early Muslims defending themselves from attack, and even the violence involved in the Islamic empire expanding, is positively tame compared to the shit in the Old Testament, where God explicitly tells the Israelites to murder the women and children of numerous nations that they conquer. The expanding Muslim empire had many forced conversions, sure, but they allowed people of other religions to live in relative peace. By contrast, the Israelites taking over the "promised land" were told to kill everybody who didn't buy into their religion - which at the time, was just another tribal cult among many others. And Jews are able to be peaceful despite that (well, the ones that aren't forcing Palestinians off their land at gunpoint, but that's another story). So why do Muslims have to be any different?

There's plenty of stuff in the Qur'an that doesn't measure up to modern ethical standards, like the 4 wives and chopping off thieves' hands. And yeah, it's supposed to be the eternal and unadulterated word of God. But so are Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and those are just as bad or worse, and that's not even to mention the aforesaid commands to slaughter the innocent. Anything you can say about Islam in that respect applies just as much to Judaism and arguably to Christianity.

Christianity is a different case though; although it supposedly involves the same god as Judaism, they are clearly different deities. The Jewish God gave out all those orders to stone shitloads of people to death and kill women and kids. The Christian God tells people to reject all violence, love their enemies and treat strangers and infidels like beloved family members. It would be the ideal "religion of peace" if it werent for its connection with the bloodthirsty god of the Old Testament.

In any case, what people actually practice is more important than what beliefs they say they hold. You can be a Nazi, billionaire or soldier (all contradict the teachings of Jesus) and call yourself a Christian, but if the life you live doesn't really reflect Christianity, then which is more important? Similarly, you can be a liberal Muslim who believes in women's rights and so forth, and maybe that doesn't reflect orthodox Islam, but does that matter? People buy into religions for many other reasons than that the religion reflects their exact ethical beliefs. Saying that Muslims are bound to cause trouble or that the west and Islam can't get along because of what the Qur'an says is retarded, because of the reasons I've listed in this entire post.

Also, the amount of rabid xenophobia in Europe is frankly terrifying. I guess America has some of the same kind of thing regarding illegal Latino immigrants, but it's nowhere near the point that we'd vote to ban Catholic churches. Then again, I guess that already happened a couple centuries ago before Catholics became established. Maybe Europe will progress to the same place we are at now, although I wouldn't brag about how great America's doing when we arrest people for being Muslim and build walls across the Mexican border.

[G-Flex]

Yeah.

Regardless of what your holy book says is unadulterated and immutable fact, intelligent people are still going to realize that it was written for a certain cultural (and in some cases, political) context and adapt it to their own.


As far as Christianity goes, it's rather interesting. Christians will generally claim that the "New Covenant" supersedes the old Deuteronomy/Leviticus/Numbers/etc law, yet will cherry-pick which ones do and don't still apply, often based on pretty shaky evidence. In the end, it's all up to what the individuals and groups involved want to believe and wish to interpret.


And to generalize from what Jude was saying: The execution of apostates is no more an inherent part of "Orthodox Islam" than the mass murder, stonings, laws regarding slavery and execution, etc. are an inherent part of "Orthodox Judaism". Jews will make interpretive cases for why certain things no longer apply, and so will Muslims. Each case will probably involve a suitable amount of cherry-picking.