Is Islam The Problem?

[classical_hero]

Dammit CH I was hoping you wouldn't show up. Now I have to retract the first sentence in my last post.

http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-human-rights/sunni-shia-divide/p33176#!/
Read this article about the historical and modern conflict between the Shias and the Sunnis.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Babble. Which "whole regions" in the Muslim world is the West occupying? Where has the West suppressed free development? If anything, the West is interested in sane partners and economical collaborators in the region. Have there been mistakes and missteps in Western history? Of course,many. The Vietnam War was one of these mistakes. Are the Vietnamese committing acts of terror on a daily basis and mistreating their women?

The Vietnamies has kicked the US out. The Cambodians on the other hand have commited genocide with the help of US.
What regions are occupied? US has some 30! military bases just on the Arabian penisula and around Iran. Those wahabies seem pretty save no matter what...

As if the few thousand witches burnt over a couple of centuries is anywhere close to how Muslim women are suffering today by the hundreds of millions. As if the crusades weren't a justified response to centuries of brutal jihad in which Islam expanded from Spain to India, from Somalia to Afghanistan, costing an estimated 200 million lives.

Muslim women are suffering mainly becouse wahabis are best allies of the West. Why? Becouse the most radical form of islam is the one who controls its population most.
Latest estimation I have heard is that up to 40% saudis people live near or below poverty line. I guess thats something good for women...

Crusades? All the christian pilgrims had a free pasage to holy places I suppose thats an act of hostility which should be punished with landgrab.

Do you know what would allow Middle Eastern societies free course of development?Getting rid of the unhealthy, unprogressive, ******ing elements of Islam. Getting rid of sharia for starters. Allowing women to participate in public life. Replacing theocracy by democracy. Introducing freedom of speech. Becoming secular, modern societies.

For that you need self-confident civil society which doesnt live in constant fear and exploitation from its ruling elite richly corruppted supported by the Western interests.

The poor and the weak? Is this really your perception of Saudi Arabia? Iran? Egypt? Kuwait? Turkey? And could you elaborate on how the West is "controlling" these nations?

Saudi Arabia: wahabi islam imposed on all of the society becouse of US support of its wahabi elite
Iran: country for decades under western sanctions in almost permanent state near to war
Egypt: military regimes supported by US, disfunctional civic society
Kuwait: the rulling elite supported by west takes and decides all

Really problem itsn the Islam as Turkeys example shows but the respective rulling of these countries heavily influenced by the "democratic" world.

 

[Funky]

There are two primary types of jihad (struggle) in Islam:
1) The Greater Jihad; which represents the personal, internal struggle for faith.
2) The Lesser Jihad; which is the external struggle for faith against external pressures.
Out of the Lesser Jihad comes the concept of a violent, military response to attempts to defend Islam from external pressure.

Jihad in an Islamic context is not just a general struggle, it's the struggle to spread and intensify the following of the rules of Allah's supposed laws. You are right about the originally two main distinctions, though in our time I'd actually distinguish between six forms of jihad. We can talk about that if you are interested.

More relevant to this conversation is the second part of your post:

As far as I am aware, the overwhelming number of Islamic scholars and religious leaders do not consider the 'jihads' going on now to be following Islamic tradition.

The word "jihad" and its verbal form appear 35 times in the Koran. 29 of these refer to violent, military means of spreading the faith (and only in few cases, by the way, for defensive purposes). Only 2 times does jihad refer to an internal struggle. The emphasis is rather clearcut.
Unfortunately, some of the most influential Islamic figures of the last century, like Al Banna, Qutb, Maududi or Chomeini, have underlined this emphasis and promoted the violent form of jihad. This influence lasts till today, where scholars and Imams throughout the Muslim world speak in favour of this interpretation and in many cases get fervent support. Of course there are also those who reject violent jihad. But they they seem to be in a minority, at least in Muslim countries. They certainly haven't had the influence one would hope for in light of the never ending stream of daily terror attacks.

Thats a lot of incitations to violence. I can't see how "religion of peace" could be anything but PR. And its not like the believers didn't take these admonishions seriously considering the history of the spread of Islam.

Well, in Islam the concept is that once Islam has been spread around the globe, everyone has submitted to Islam and sharia is in place everywhere, there will be eternal peace. Neither crime nor strife will remain. So in a sense, Islam is a religion of peace, only not as we would think of it. The concept of taqiyya justifies this use of propagandistic deception. According to taqiyya, Muslims may deceive and lie to unbelievers if it serves the purpose of spreading their faith.

Thats an interesting question, maybe one worthy of its own thread. How much of a religion can one ignore and still consider oneself a member of that religion?

I agree with this being an interesting question. To what point does the term "Christian" become meaningless as a defining description of a person? If he doesn't believe the bible literally? If he doesn't believe in an afterlife? If he doesn't believe that Jesus was really resurrected? If he goes to church but doesn't believe in God?
We could just as well ask what relevance the term "Muslim" has for someone who doesn't believe in the fight against non-believers, in the superiority of men over women, or the superiority of Muslims over everyone else, given that these are the central messages of the Koran. At what point does it become misleading to characterize such a person as a Muslim? Of course everyone is free to call himself what he wants, but it's an interesting thought.

 

[classical_hero]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14132#.VdjFOt-83xA

Ali and Muawiya, the fourth and fifth caliphs from the middle of the seventh century, have been in their graves for some time, but the struggle between them for the rule of Islam continues to claim casualties among their supporters and adherents, who are all, every single one, Muslims.

 

[Funky]

@Mechanicalsalvation:

I'm not up to arguing against this obscure narrative that everything is the fault of the West regardless of the circumstances. Read a book about Islamic history.
Let me just point out your double standard in one example:

Crusades? All the christian pilgrims had a free pasage to holy places I suppose thats an act of hostility which should be punished with landgrab.

Why do you think the holy places were under Islamic jurisdiction? Because of the century-long jihad by the Arabs against the Byzantine Empire, which ultimately got annihilated. What acts of hostility did the Byzantinians commit to be punished by this "landgrab", not only around Jerusalem, but also in Egypt, Syria and Turkey?

The crusades started when the Byzantine emperor desperately called the Catholics for help, as Constantinople, the capital and last bastion against the invaders was threatened to be besieged. This obviously does not absolve the crusaders from the horrible acts they committed. But as in all cases, we need some perspective.

 

[Antilogic]

Are you seriously asking why the land-grabbing Romans were punished with more land-grabbing?

 

[brennan]

No he isn't.

 

[Borachio]

I guess Islam's not a problem if you're not a real hardcore Muslim, kind of like religion in general isn't a problem if you're some lukewarm Unitarian Universalist, but if you throw out the bad parts & only keep the nicey-nice sounding ones can you really call yourself a believer?

Well, I consider myself something of a Universalist.

I wouldn't describe myself as anything other than a radical, fundamentalist, literalist Universalist, though. I really don't know where you get the idea that I'm lukewarm about it at all.

As for the throwing out of the "bad parts", can you really call yourself a believer if you don't throw them out?

 

[JollyRoger]

"And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

@Mechanicalsalvation:

I'm not up to arguing against this obscure narrative that everything is the fault of the West regardless of the circumstances.

What I am rather saying that West is to a large extent part of the problem rather then part of the solution. I am not saying everything is the Wests fault. I can see there are elements of society and activities coming from the West who want to genuinely help.

What I am seeing is that just like in early medieval era when islamic civilization has gained great momentum of its expansion and development to which backward Christian Europeans had managed to react at least partialy succesfully through crusades but mainly through establisment of trade and sharing of knowledge, so simmilarly when this new civilization-momentum lies on the side of the West it seems due to circumstances even harder for the muslim world to put up with it.

To some extent its a competition among the different civilization circles but with little wisdom one can see that what we really need is globaly establish stability and harmonious development everywhere. To have "democracy" in one place and support dictators or radical orhodox ideology recruiting terrorist elswhere cant be a winning strategy in long run.
Just like itsnt about Christianity although its core values and ideals are indispensible so itsnt about Islam which means in its highest form the same value for muslims.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This influence lasts till today, where scholars and Imams throughout the Muslim world speak in favour of this interpretation and in many cases get fervent support.

Speaking of "scholars", I'm sure you can provide the name of prominent religious scholar who is considered to be an expert in Islam, and who shares these Islamophobic interpretations which you are getting from some unspecified source(s).

But they they seem to be in a minority, at least in Muslim countries. They certainly haven't had the influence one would hope for in light of the never ending stream of daily terror attacks.

Yet not a single Muslim country is engaging in "violent jihad" against "infidels".

And once again, "terror attacks" are specifically prohibited in Islam.

Are you seriously asking why the land-grabbing Romans were punished with more land-grabbing?

Yep. Ironic isn't it?

"And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Well, OT "jihad" is perfectly acceptable. (That was sarcasm for those who can't seem to distinguish it from actual statements of opinion in this matter.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

As for the throwing out of the "bad parts", can you really call yourself a believer if you don't throw them out?

This is the aspect which seems to be consistently ignored. Most Christians and Jews think fundamentalists represent their religion as much as Muslims living in Western society think their own fundamentalists do. In other words, not at all.

Yet ever since 9/11 that hasn't stopped a fairly large segment of the population in the US from trying to demonize Islam, even though 9/11 was clearly not religiously inspired at all. Of course, a similar effort had already been going on in Europe merely due to having more Muslims immigrating to their countries. An effort they ironically continue to make largely to escape the very same fanaticism. They just want to practice their own religion as they wish in peace and harmony.

 

[brennan]

9/11 was blatantly religiously inspired.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sure if you are trying to use it as an excuse to hate Islam and Muslims.

But for anybody who objectively evaluates it, there isn't anything in the religion of Islam which states that US troops shouldn't be deployed in the Middle East in predominately Muslim countries. Now is there?'

And, yet again, Islam specifically prohibits any acts of terrorism.

 

[jackelgull]

I feel like pointing out that a lot of the violent verses came out in times of war, when the Muslim Umma was under attack, and address those contemporary situations. I suppose you could argue that is misleading, but I think God prefered to motivate his people to survive the struggles their faith was putting them through, including torture, murder and starvation, and leave them to squabble over how much still applies to their day, than not guide them and have them fall. But that is just me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It obviously isn't just you.

Just like similar passages in the OT, it doesn't take much excuse for fanatics to use them to rationalize atrocities which are clearly contrary to the modern precepts of the religion. Similarly, it doesn't take much excuse for others to use them as a pretext to vilify and hate an entire religion.

What is different, though, is that if you tried to do that with Judaism, you would be labeled as being antisemitic. And if you tried to do it with Christianity, you would be accused of fomenting the persecution of Christians.

9/11 changed all that for Muslims even living in the US. They went from being Americans just like anybody else to being a group who condone, and possibly even support, terrorism overnight.

 

[bhavv]

I feel like pointing out that a lot of the violent verses came out in times of war, when the Muslim Umma was under attack, and address those contemporary situations. I suppose you could argue that is misleading, but I think God prefered to motivate his people to survive the struggles their faith was putting them through, including torture, murder and starvation, and leave them to squabble over how much still applies to their day, than not guide them and have them fall. But that is just me.

I so often hear this same reasoning often repeated.

Could you explain to me how the passages which translate to 'Kill the infidels / non believers wherever you find them and show them harshness' is relating to a war?

Also what about the passages that translate to killing apostates?

 

[Antilogic]

Yep. Ironic isn't it?

I mean, I'm not saying the Romans or any other civilization "deserved" to be conquered here, nor do I want to overuse a term like landgrab because it's sort of a gaming term and divorced from historical context.

But the right of conquest is the way international politics worked for millennia. It's not unique to the Caliphate, other Islamic states, any other faith, etc.

 

[jackelgull]

I so often hear this same reasoning often repeated.

Could you explain to me how the passages which translate to 'Kill the infidels / non believers wherever you find them and show them harshness' is relating to a war?

Also what about the passages that translate to killing apostates?

I believe a lot of those passages were released during the time after the migration to Medina and before the treaty of Hudaybiyyah when the Muslims were engaged in a vicious clash of arms with Mecca and its allies. The thing to understand was that Mecca was hugely influential, and that Islam's position was precarious. The distinction between unbeliever and believer matters more then than it does now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I mean, I'm not saying the Romans or any other civilization "deserved" to be conquered here, nor do I want to overuse a term like landgrab because it's sort of a gaming term and divorced from historical context.

But the right of conquest is the way international politics worked for millennia. It's not unique to the Caliphate, other Islamic states, any other faith, etc.

That is essentially the entire point of this thread and all the similar ones. Muslims and Islam are obviously judged vastly differently than other groups by many people, especially since 9/11. They wouldn't even think of using the same criteria as they now do.

What we are seeing here is the basically the unsanctioned second holy Crusades for many Christians, with a few Jews, atheists, and agnostics thrown in to the mix for good measure. And it is largely all due to the criminal acts of 19 individuals and their tiny group of terrorists.