What's the problem with Islam, anyway?

[Tee Kay]

Holycannoli,

1. There are moderate Muslims.
2. They do speak out.
3. They are not heard.
4. Why? Because sensationtal stories about crazies who fly planes into buildings and imams who build scary-sounding mosques sells better. Only once in a blue moon you will hear moderate Muslim stories in Western media because it's easier to pander to people's prejudices.
5. Or, you are just ignoring the opinions of moderate Muslims.
6. I understand you've been fed Western media bullcrap all your life but seriously, do some research. There are a lot of ordinary Muslims and Muslim leaders who speak out against violence and extremism.
7. You don't guess. If you really want to know about jihadism and terrorism and Muslims and Islam you go out and research. Read about it. Talk to some Muslims - there are five million in the United States, I'm sure you can find a few of the moderates and a few of the extremists and compare their views. If you're really stuck, the friggin' Internet is there.
8. What is this, the 1100s? When all Muhammadans are spawns of Satan or all the Franks are infidel barbarians and you can't verify the claims because you don't often get out far from your little hamlet? We are the most privileged generation that ever walked the Earth with regards to access to information and knowledge. Use your privilege damn it.
9. Besides, why must moderate Muslims be hold to account for fringe elements of Islam anyway? It's collective responsibility and I thought the civilized West was supposed to have moved beyond that.
10. Finally, since when do the Muslim minority has to ask permission from the Christian majority to build their mosque on their private property?

 

[Lone Wolf]

From Hc's article
Doesn't the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades' brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world?

I agree with the author here, the only answer to that question in "no".

The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.

Whut? The Crusades failed in their goal - how could they save Christianity?

 

[bhsup]

EDIT: Um, I thought I had clicked on the rants thread. Deleted lack of sleep comment. Sorry.

 

[Verbose]

Holycannoli,

1. There are moderate Muslims.
2. They do speak out.
3. They are not heard.
4. Why? Because sensationtal stories about crazies who fly planes into buildings and imams who build scary-sounding mosques sells better. Only once in a blue moon you will hear moderate Muslim stories in Western media because it's easier to pander to people's prejudices.
5. Or, you are just ignoring the opinions of moderate Muslims.
6. I understand you've been fed Western media bullcrap all your life but seriously, do some research. There are a lot of ordinary Muslims and Muslim leaders who speak out against violence and extremism.
7. You don't guess. If you really want to know about jihadism and terrorism and Muslims and Islam you go out and research. Read about it. Talk to some Muslims - there are five million in the United States, I'm sure you can find a few of the moderates and a few of the extremists and compare their views. If you're really stuck, the friggin' Internet is there.
8. What is this, the 1100s? When all Muhammadans are spawns of Satan or all the Franks are infidel barbarians and you can't verify the claims because you don't often get out far from your little hamlet? We are the most privileged generation that ever walked the Earth with regards to access to information and knowledge. Use your privilege damn it.
9. Besides, why must moderate Muslims be hold to account for fringe elements of Islam anyway? It's collective responsibility and I thought the civilized West was supposed to have moved beyond that.
10. Finally, since when do the Muslim minority has to ask permission from the Christian majority to build their mosque on their private property?

Good points.

About 10 seconds worth of googling turned up this:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

 

[Squonk]

a fact I've already mentioned.

 

[aelf]

Squonk, I really can't be bothered to debate anything with you anymore. I could say something and you would turn around and claim that I said practically the opposite, or you would really reach for something to try and turn my own arguments against what I say, whether or not it makes sense. Either you have some poor English comprehension and writing skills or you're just being obtuse. Either way, it's a huge waste of time.

In any case, since you seem to agree that there is a solution to the problematic verses that makes perfect sense, I can't imagine what issue there is. You can continue to try blaming Islam, or you can actually contribute to the world by focusing on what some people do wrong. The problem doesn't exist outside of people, nor is it strictly speaking the concern of those who have no hand in reprehensible practices. That is all.

 

[Squonk]

Where did I claim you said something practically the opposite? You would profit very much from giving some support to your claims. Verba docent, exempla trahunt... and they are necessary to actually check if the claims are true or not.

It's sad that you resort to ad personam attacks. If you think I do not understand you well, simply correct me. When I misunderstand someone, I am willing to admit it.

One can not separate Al-Qur'an and the life of Muhammad from islam. And they contain nasty bits, which are not essential to islam, but will always be part of it, influencing many muslims, just like nasty bits from OT are part of Judaism and Christianity and will always influence many jews and christians (christians are less likely to, though, because of NT). One has to find ways to decrease the influence of the darker side of these religions. And denying existence of the darker side isn't going to help it. By promoting a false, rainbowy image of any religion, you are not "contributing to the world", you are acting against it.

Why wouldn't I turn your own arguments against what you say? That's what discussion is about.


Once again, I urge you to come up with definition of islam and its essence, and to answer my last question: if a secular ideology can be bad, if adoption of its beliefs would make one morally deficient and probably destroy the prospect of peaceful coexistence with others, why can't that be said about a religious one?

 

[Dachs]

If they were a result of things other than muslim conquests, then they would have happened regardless of whether or not those conquests occured right? Or they were just an excuse to call a crusade, like the pope was just waiting for an opportunity to call a crusade and suddenly got it?

Link to an article written by Thomas Madden about the Crusades. I cannot vouch for the site since I'm unfamiliar with it (it may be one of those wacko fundamentalist sites, I don't know), but it's only the article that matters. If you don't know who Thomas Madden is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Madden

(I doubt many will read the article in that link and even less will agree with it since it goes against the popular myths of the Crusades we've all heard since childhood).

Yeah, I'm not going to read an Internet article about the Crusades when I can read a real history book. Especially when the author insists, within the first few paragraphs, that, as a Crusade historian, the events became "relevant" in the light of the events of September 11th. This is just more "Clash of Civilizations" crap that I don't have time for. Concise and somewhat lulzy blog post in response to a book written on similar premises here; you can ignore it and keep your prejudices if you wish, just like I'm going to ignore your crummy article arguing against strawmen.

History obviously doesn't work the other way around; you can't hold things ceteris paribus and attempt to "prove" them if they didn't actually happen that way. So I can say that centuries of Muslim-Christian warfare didn't directly precipitate formal, institutionalized Christian holy war, whereas same institutionalized holy war followed directly from internal developments in the Church and in Western European states and societies. But you can't say "well that's all well and good for those internal developments, but would the Crusades have happened without dirty mooslims attacking Christendom", because things didn't actually happen that way. Just like I can't say - and have no interest in saying - that the Crusades wouldn't have happened if there weren't historical antagonism between Muslim and Christian states, because things didn't happen that way either. And I have no interest in assigning "blame" to anyone or other, because that just turns into a wonderful ****fest of polemics, one of the things that makes large chunks of historiography incredibly frustrating.

 

[aelf]

if a secular ideology can be bad, if adoption of its beliefs would make one morally deficient and probably destroy the prospect of peaceful coexistence with others, why can't that be said about a religious one?

I do think that it's possible for an idea or an ideology to be bad as in being logically or practically unsound. But that is a very difficult to thing to say about something as complex and as old (hence the complexity) as a religion like Islam.

Strictly speaking, no, I don't think an ideology can be said to be immoral. I think morality requires agency. Of course, Nazism is bad in that the adoption of its beliefs would make one morally deficient and probably destroy the prospect of peaceful coexistence with others.

On an amusing note, those who claim that things like terrorism can be traced back to Islam itself must believe that America's War on Terror is really a War on Islam

 

[Squonk]

I've never claimed that "things like terrorism can be traced back to islam", it's your pure imagination.

///

My mistake indeed, you've stated that it can be "bad", although denied it could be "immoral". I think that these terms are similar, so I've misread this post of yours.

"Immoral" doesn't seem to require agency.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/immoral
Contrary to established moral principles

 

[Berzerker]

immorality ("defilement") begins in the heart, as Jesus said... Hate becomes murder, coveting becomes theft, etc