NationStates Jolt Archive

After hearing from various posters such as Keru, who say that certain Muslims are not really Muslims, especially those who advocate certain ideas that we find strange or abhorrent in the West, I wonder what their answer is to this event:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1701299,00.html

Muslim women should not work with men or go shopping in areas where they could mix with strangers of the opposite sex, according to an edict issued by the influential All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which claims to represent the nation's 140 million Muslims.

Maulana Syed Nizamuddin, the board's general secretary, said the decision to ask Muslim women not to work in call centres and avoid any kind of job which involves interacting with men was part of a package of "social reforms we advocate".

He said that women were also dressing in western clothes, especially in the country's new shopping malls, and these often were "too revealing". "Men will gaze on them if they visit the market. It is extremely essential to cover their entire body. Better such errands are left to the men in the family," said Mr Nizamuddin.

The comments provoked anger among Muslim liberals, who say such pronouncements are an anachronism and will undermine the authority of the clergy.

This is apparently the action of the entire board, not just one man making a statement of policy. Makes you wonder if there are going to be many liberal Muslims after a while, if the reactionaries are in complete control.

After hearing from various posters such as Keru, who say that certain Muslims are not really Muslims, especially those who advocate certain ideas that we find strange or abhorrent in the West, I wonder what their answer is to this event:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,1701299,00.html



This is apparently the action of the entire board, not just one man making a statement of policy. Makes you wonder if there are going to be many liberal Muslims after a while, if the reactionaries are in complete control.

If the Pope says women can't be priests, are you going to ask all Christians if liberalism in their ranks is dead?
If an Amish community decides not to have a telephone in their village, do you brand Christians as anti-science and opposed to progress?

Your article states that this board "claims" to represent Muslims, a claim that Keruvalia might make with as much justification. And the article mentions as well that this policy was immediately criticised by another group of Muslims. How do you know this group isn't the really representative one?

hey Kimchi, I got an interesting people for you to research on: The Tuareg.

Search how they are ruled. Yes, they are mainly muslims.

more justification as to why organised religion is just stupid :rolleyes:

more justification as to why organised religion is just stupid :rolleyes:
Amen. :p

If the Pope says women can't be priests, are you going to ask all Christians if liberalism in their ranks is dead?
If an Amish community decides not to have a telephone in their village, do you brand Christians as anti-science and opposed to progress?

Your article states that this board "claims" to represent Muslims, a claim that Keruvalia might make with as much justification. And the article mentions as well that this policy was immediately criticised by another group of Muslims. How do you know this group isn't the really representative one?


In India, this board appears to be officially in charge.

The Pope, although he is supposedly in charge of all Catholics, is certainly not officially in charge of all Christians, so your comparison falls flat.

It's pretty obvious that no liberal thinking Muslim is in charge in any official capacity there.

What I'm waiting for is for someone to say, "well, the people on that board are not real Muslims..."

In India, this board appears to be officially in charge.

The Pope, although he is supposedly in charge of all Catholics, is certainly not officially in charge of all Christians, so your comparison falls flat.

It's pretty obvious that no liberal thinking Muslim is in charge in any official capacity there.

What I'm waiting for is for someone to say, "well, the people on that board are not real Muslims..."

The Pope is more in charge of all catholics than this board is in charge of Indian Muslims. Your own article states that advice from this board "carries considerable weight. Almost every mosque in the country takes its advice.", whereas the decisions of the Pope are church law. It's an advisory function, nothing more.
You, however did make it sound as if the one board in charge of all Muslims worldwide had passed a law on the subject. It's only India, and it's nothing more than spiritual advice.

Of course they are real Muslim, same as Jehova's Witnesses and Amish are Christians...

more justification as to why organised religion is just stupid :rolleyes:

*nods

The Pope can't give legal, enforceable orders.

This board can.

The Pope is more in charge of all catholics than this board is in charge of Indian Muslims. Your own article states that advice from this board "carries considerable weight. Almost every mosque in the country takes its advice.", whereas the decisions of the Pope are church law. It's an advisory function, nothing more.
You, however did make it sound as if the one board in charge of all Muslims worldwide had passed a law on the subject. It's only India, and it's nothing more than spiritual advice.

Of course they are real Muslim, same as Jehova's Witnesses and Amish are Christians...


No, it's just Indian Muslims, I've already said that in the first post.

The problem I have is that some posters here enjoy saying that certain Muslims are not really Muslims because they do or advocate certain ideas anathema to Western thinking. There is a definite attempt by Keruvalia, for instance, to try and paint a rosy picture of an Islam without heterodoxy, where the people who advocate oppression of women, etc., are "not really Muslims".

The Pope can't give legal, enforceable orders.

This board can.

Neither can give legal, enforceable orders.

The Pope can decree the correct behaviour of Catholics, and decides what is a sin (spiritually wrong) and what isn't with absolute authority.
This board is giving advice.... unless you know more than we do and can provide sources for the boards authority, I'll take the words of the article for granted that they don't have any power to give orders of any kind.

The Pope can't give legal, enforceable orders.

This board can.

Oh really? were is it stated on the article that it can give legal, enforceable orders?

No, it's just Indian Muslims, I've already said that in the first post.

The problem I have is that some posters here enjoy saying that certain Muslims are not really Muslims because they do or advocate certain ideas anathema to Western thinking. There is a definite attempt by Keruvalia, for instance, to try and paint a rosy picture of an Islam without heterodoxy, where the people who advocate oppression of women, etc., are "not really Muslims".

Would you say Adolf Hitler was a real Christian like yourself?

No, it's just Indian Muslims, I've already said that in the first post.

The problem I have is that some posters here enjoy saying that certain Muslims are not really Muslims because they do or advocate certain ideas anathema to Western thinking. There is a definite attempt by Keruvalia, for instance, to try and paint a rosy picture of an Islam without heterodoxy, where the people who advocate oppression of women, etc., are "not really Muslims".
In the end most major religions have sects that declare each other “not real ____” how is this spectacularly different then anything else? And why would you be surprised that some members of a religion find that others that claim to be of the same religions choices to be so different as to seemingly not be of the same religion anymore

Oh really? were is it stated on the article that it can give legal, enforceable orders?


Look up the Muslim Personal Law.
It's part of the body of Indian Constitutional Laws...

Just having a bad day - or being a pro-islamic apologist?

Just tossing in a few comments on recent events in India.

Well, today, there's more yet to bring on the worms: On June 24, The Hindu published a report on the recently concluded meeting of The All India Muslim Personal Law Board held in Hyderabad; I'm reproducing the entire item here since it wasn't carried by other publications, and, strangely, "AIMPLB wants exemption from Child Marriage Act" isn't to be found in the online edition of The Hindu anymore:

"The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has decided to intervene before the Supreme Court on extension of the Child Marriage Restraint Act to Muslims. The Board felt Muslims should be exempted from the purview of the Act. Briefing newsmen about the final day's deliberations of the 16th session of the Board, Secretary Muhammad Rahim Quraishi said that as per the Shariat, a girl could marry after reaching puberty.

"He said the Board President would constitute a committee comprising ulemas and legal experts to analyse the recent judgement of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding a divorce case and examine whether it had infringed on the Muslim Personal Law. The Board urged the Andhra Pradesh Government to exempt Muslims from compulsorily registering their marriages. The State Assembly has recently passed a legislation in this regard."

No, it's just Indian Muslims, I've already said that in the first post.

The problem I have is that some posters here enjoy saying that certain Muslims are not really Muslims because they do or advocate certain ideas anathema to Western thinking. There is a definite attempt by Keruvalia, for instance, to try and paint a rosy picture of an Islam without heterodoxy, where the people who advocate oppression of women, etc., are "not really Muslims".

"Not really Muslims", I can't say. Not good Muslims by what Keruvalia understands to be a good Muslim, possbily. One of the reasons why I gave up Christianity and Catholicism was that, after leaving the community I grew up in, I found that most Christians were conservative, spiteful, bigot, arrogant, repressive and unwilling to think for themselves. I had so far been under the impression that this was a thing of the past and that the majority had learned to see the message, not just the letters. I'm going out on a limb here saying that quite possibly Keruvalia feels the same about Muslims, the wish being the father of the thought as it were.

Would you say Adolf Hitler was a real Christian like yourself?
He created his own faith, the German Faith Movement IIRC, a mixture of ancient germanic pagan rituals with some Christian ideals. He wasn't Christian.

Would you say Adolf Hitler was a real Christian like yourself?

Yes, as are abortion clinic bombers, etc.

If they said that they were Christians, and believe in Christ, then they're Christians.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes in their heart that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet, then they are Muslims - regardless of whatever other claptrap they hang on the religion.

Keru's attempt to say that "those are not Muslims" is an attempt to distance himself from a problem.

Denying that some aspect of the nature of your faith somehow was used to mislead or corrupt people into doing bad things is part of the problem with people today - they never want to admit that they are Christian, Muslim, or even Communist (those aren't real Communists!) if it means they have to deal with the fact that their ideology has some problems.

He created his own faith, the German Faith Movement IIRC, a mixture of ancient germanic pagan rituals with some Christian ideals. He wasn't Christian.

For all I know, Goebbels and Himmler were largely responsible for that particular movement. Although I agree that Christian faith may not have played the largest part in Hitler's life...

Looking on the net

There's the All India Muslim Personal Law Board which is basically Sunni dominated. Now the All-India Shia Personal Law Board has been formed.

There's also the All-India Shia Muslim Women Personal Law Board and the All-India Muslim Women Personal Law Board.

http://www.islaminterfaith.org/Nov2005/article2.htm

He created his own faith, the German Faith Movement IIRC, a mixture of ancient germanic pagan rituals with some Christian ideals. He wasn't Christian.

He was born and raised a roman catholic. And still, as you said, had christian ideals.

For all I know, Goebbels and Himmler were largely responsible for that particular movement. Although I agree that Christian faith may not have played the largest part in Hitler's life...
I wouldn't think so, especially since he opposed many of its primary beliefs. Survival of the fittest (although Christianity does defend this, covertly) is not an explicit Christian belief.

He was born and raised a roman catholic. And still, as you said, had christian ideals.
Even that is questionable, seeing as how he put them into practice.

Yes, as are abortion clinic bombers, etc.

If they said that they were Christians, and believe in Christ, then they're Christians.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes in their heart that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet, then they are Muslims - regardless of whatever other claptrap they hang on the religion.

Keru's attempt to say that "those are not Muslims" is an attempt to distance himself from a problem.

Denying that some aspect of the nature of your faith somehow was used to mislead or corrupt people into doing bad things is part of the problem with people today - they never want to admit that they are Christian, Muslim, or even Communist (those aren't real Communists!) if it means they have to deal with the fact that their ideology has some problems.


I can't believe I'm saying this but don't blame the book for the actions of the reader.
I've yet to see a real Communist leader (a paradox in itself) on this planet, so far they all corrupted the philosophy to meet their own needs. And the same goes for organised religions, all of them. The ideas are brilliant, but they inevitably get used to justify actions of those in power, be that a Pope or a Mufti.

For all I know, Goebbels and Himmler were largely responsible for that particular movement. Although I agree that Christian faith may not have played the largest part in Hitler's life...


http://answers.org/history/hitquote.html

I can't believe I'm saying this but don't blame the book for the actions of the reader.
I've yet to see a real Communist leader (a paradox in itself) on this planet, so far they all corrupted the philosophy to meet their own needs. And the same goes for organised religions, all of them. The ideas are brilliant, but they inevitably get used to justify actions of those in power, be that a Pope or a Mufti.

Then deal with the corruption instead of denying that your <pick your ideology or religion> is a source of corruption.

http://answers.org/history/hitquote.html

Sorry, but quoting a book without giving the name of its author nor the history how he might have gotten access to this "table talk" doesn't quite convince me...
Although I really could care less if Hitler was Christian or not.

Then deal with the corruption instead of denying that your <pick your ideology or religion> is a source of corruption.

It's not so much the source as the means, though.

Almost every kind of ideology and religion can obviously be used to justify crimes against humanity, be that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, nationalism, Communism... the list is endless.

I can't believe I'm saying this but don't blame the book for the actions of the reader.
I've yet to see a real Communist leader (a paradox in itself) on this planet, so far they all corrupted the philosophy to meet their own needs. And the same goes for organised religions, all of them. The ideas are brilliant, but they inevitably get used to justify actions of those in power, be that a Pope or a Mufti.
The ideas tend to neglect the human factor. That is why.

Sorry, but quoting a book without giving the name of its author nor the history how he might have gotten access to this "table talk" doesn't quite convince me...
Although I really could care less if Hitler was Christian or not.


Then I find it odd that you bring it up.

A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History)

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

(Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)

Sorry, but quoting a book without giving the name of its author nor the history how he might have gotten access to this "table talk" doesn't quite convince me...
Although I really could care less if Hitler was Christian or not.
Look into Ian Kershaw or Alan Bullock's works. They might convince you.

Then I find it odd that you bring it up.

A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History)

We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

(Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)

Interesting... where did you find that? This is the version my grandfather taught us:



Horst Wessel Lied

Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen
S. A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam'raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit

Die Strasse frei den braunen Batallionen
Die Strasse frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann
Es schau'n auf's Hackenkreuz voll Hoffung schon Millionen
Der Tag fur Freiheit und fur Brot bricht an

Zum letzen Mal wird nun Appell geblasen
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit
Bald flattern Hitler-fahnen Uber allen Strassen
Die Knechtschaft dauert nur mehr kurze Zeit

Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen
S. A. marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt
Kam'raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen
Marschier'n im Geist in unsern Reihen mit


Translation

Flag high, ranks closed,
The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot by the red front and reaction
march in spirit with us in our ranks.

The street free for the brown battalions,
The street free for the Storm Troopers.
Millions, full of hope, look up at the swastika;
The day breaks for freedom and for bread.

For the last time the call will now be blown;
For the struggle now we all stand ready.
Soon will fly Hitler-flags over every street;
Slavery will last only a short time longer.

Flag high, ranks closed,
The S.A. marches with silent solid steps.
Comrades shot by the red front and reaction
march in spirit with us in our ranks.

Look into Ian Kershaw or Alan Bullock's works. They might convince you.

I will, but.... are we hijacking???

I will, but.... are we hijacking???
Not really...a parallel was attempted in drawing a comparison between Hitler and modern Islamist extremists. The thing is, Hitler is not even a Christian to begin with.

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

The Nazi's had quite a lot of songs.

Studying them can be a bit tricky in the real world.
I did once get accused for being a nazi after singing a spoof version of 'wir fahren gegen England'. I would have thought that the added 'pluns! pluns!' ( plunge/plunge) would be a bit of a give-away.

Well, thus are the perils of parody, I guess.

Not really...a parallel was attempted in drawing a comparison between Hitler and modern Islamist extremists. The thing is, Hitler is not even a Christian to begin with.

A comparisson between modern Islamist extremists and, say, Cortez or Pope Urban II might be more fitting...

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

The Nazi's had quite a lot of songs.

Studying them can be a bit tricky in the real world.
I did once get accused for being a nazi after singing a spoof version of 'wir fahren gegen England'. I would have thought that the added 'pluns! pluns!' ( plunge/plunge) would be a bit of a give-away.

Well, thus are the perils of parody, I guess.

You tell me. Growing up with my grandfather was no fun... especially not once I started kindergarden ... *shudders

btw.... "pluns"???

pluns. plons. plonger. plunge in english. Yeah, I know steinkohledeutsch isnt proper german.

Sowwy... crosscultural things can be tricky. So much that I often despair at the very possibility of crosscultural understanding as a concept in the first place.

The problem I have is that some posters here enjoy saying that certain Muslims are not really Muslims because they do or advocate certain ideas anathema to Western thinking. There is a definite attempt by Keruvalia, for instance, to try and paint a rosy picture of an Islam without heterodoxy, where the people who advocate oppression of women, etc., are "not really Muslims".
Indeed. It's the old "no True Scotsman" thing.

The Quran, like the Bible and Torah, contains explicitly anti-woman statements. There are passages describing women as the possessions of men, as well as a very clear instruction for men to scourge a woman who is disobedient. Of course, Islam also introduced many improvements for women, including a prohibition against murdering female infants and a clear ruling that women should be allowed to own property that is their own. Islam, like most religions, is a mixed bag. Plenty of "real Muslims" can find ample religious support for their anti-women attitudes, but just as many can find ample religious support for their pro-equality attitudes.

The solution is the same as ever: sort out what you believe is right and what you believe is wrong. If, for whatever reason, you need to believe that a God or a religion supports your choices, then you will find plenty of material to work with.

If, for whatever reason, you need to believe that a God or a religion supports your choices, then you will find plenty of material to work with.

As an a propos I would add something I said in the questions about islam thread.
The impact of religion on culture is usually rather shallow.
However, that seldom stops followers of a religion from supposing that their cultural practises that precede their religion are mandated by their religion.

more justification as to why organised religion is just stupid :rolleyes:
Thank you; I'm glad someone else thinks so.

As an a propos I would add something I said in the questions about islam thread.
The impact of religion on culture is usually rather shallow.
However, that seldom stops followers of a religion from supposing that their cultural practises that precede their religion are mandated by their religion.

That's very well put. I have to remember that for the next "Don't allow those immoral gays to marry" thread. ;)

The Pope is more in charge of all catholics than this board is in charge of Indian Muslims. Your own article states that advice from this board "carries considerable weight. Almost every mosque in the country takes its advice.", whereas the decisions of the Pope are church law. It's an advisory function, nothing more.
You, however did make it sound as if the one board in charge of all Muslims worldwide had passed a law on the subject. It's only India, and it's nothing more than spiritual advice.

Of course they are real Muslim, same as Jehova's Witnesses and Amish are Christians...
Aren't you being just a TAD disengenuous about this???

That's very well put. I have to remember that for the next "Don't allow those immoral gays to marry" thread. ;)
But it still won't stop that mentality...

That's very well put. I have to remember that for the next "Don't allow those immoral gays to marry" thread. ;)


Thank you :)

That's very well put. I have to remember that for the next "Don't allow those immoral gays to marry" thread. ;)
It's one of the most basic tennets of religious psychology: religious people figure out their values the same way that non-religious people do (by incorporating societal and cultural messages with their own personal idiosyncracies), but religious people then attribute their decisions to a diety or dieties. The religious people have their own core values, and they base their view of God off of those values--not the other way around.

You can test this by simply asking a religious person, "If your God spoke to you, directly, and you had no doubt whatsoever that it was your God speaking to you, and your God told you to go drown a kitten, would you do it? Remember, you KNOW, you are absolutely positive, that your diety has told you to do this. Would you? Ok, now what if we replace the word 'kitten' with 'child'? Would you do it?"

Most will first try to insist that their God would never ask such a thing of them, but if you press them on it they generally admit that they believe drowning a child is wrong no matter who is asking them to do it. This is because they have a concept of Good that exists independent of their God-belief. Most of other beliefs follow this pattern as well; religious people who hate women are woman-haters who found a religion that would back up their feelings. Religious people who hate gays are homophobes who found religious passages that happen to agree with their hate. The beliefs precede the religion.

But it still won't stop that mentality...

It's a great argument nonetheless. I don't aim to change mentalities, I'm happy enough if I can get people thinking.

It's one of the most basic tennets of religious psychology: religious people figure out their values the same way that non-religious people do (by incorporating societal and cultural messages with their own personal idiosyncracies), but religious people then attribute their decisions to a diety or dieties. The religious people have their own core values, and they base their view of God off of those values--not the other way around.

You can test this by simply asking a religious person, "If your God spoke to you, directly, and you had no doubt whatsoever that it was your God speaking to you, and your God told you to go drown a kitten, would you do it? Remember, you KNOW, you are absolutely positive, that your diety has told you to do this. Would you? Ok, now what if we replace the word 'kitten' with 'child'? Would you do it?"

Didn't Abraham nearly sacrifice his son?

Aren't you being just a TAD disengenuous about this???

In what way?

Didn't Abraham nearly sacrifice his son?
How should I know? I know there's a story about a guy named Abraham nearly gutting his kid because God told him to, but that story is in a book about magical zombies and talking snakes.

How should I know? I know there's a story about a guy named Abraham nearly gutting his kid because God told him to, but that story is in a book about magical zombies and talking snakes.
That would be the same Abraham. :p

How should I know? I know there's a story about a guy named Abraham nearly gutting his kid because God told him to, but that story is in a book about magical zombies and talking snakes.
Uh-oh... better be careful; there are VERY sensitive Christians out there who'll take offence to that. Nice job! :D

Uh-oh... better be careful; there are VERY sensitive Christians out there who'll take offence to that. Nice job! :D
The snake bit was still too much of a give away though :p

The snake bit was still too much of a give away though :p
But....but... there is a snake in Genesis! Oh wait, it's a serpant!

Even that is questionable, seeing as how he put them into practice.
Given the anti-semitism of the catholic church at the time, I wouldn't say it's questionable.

Didn't Abraham nearly sacrifice his son?


Yep -- but then God provided a lamb for sacrifice instead. The point was not to murder a child, apparently, but to see how much trust and loyalty Abraham had.

I always found that a little tough to swallow, myself -- even if we allow for God allowing man free will to decide to follow or not -- you'd think an omniscient God would know what his follower would do without testing him.

But....but... there is a snake in Genesis! Oh wait, it's a serpant!
Serpent has french origins, and it means a crawler...still a snake :p

I always found that a little tough to swallow, myself -- even if we allow for God allowing man free will to decide to follow or not -- you'd think an omniscient God would know what his follower would do without testing him.
Indeed. I see no reason for such a test other than to freak the hell out of the kid.

Indeed. I see no reason for such a test other than to freak the hell out of the kid.
I'm surprised that Abraham was actually willing to do it.

I'm surprised that Abraham was actually willing to do it.
It's not really surprising when you consider other things people have done because they claimed that god told them to...

It's not really surprising when you consider other things people have done because they claimed that god told them to...
It just made me wonder about Bottle's earlier post, that a religious person would refuse to kill because it doesn't fit in with their concept of good. To me, it would seem that many would be very willing to. Especially if to presuppose the condition that God asked them to directly was in existence.

Given the anti-semitism of the catholic church at the time, I wouldn't say it's questionable.

Huh?

To you have any proof of endemic anti-semitism in the Catholic Church at the time?

Especially given that Catholics, bith laymen and clergy, were sometimes very outspoken critics of the Nazis and many helped get Jews to safety.

Dr. Raphael Cantoni praised the Catholic Church for its actions during the war stating that "The Church and the papacy have saved Jews as much and in as far as they could save Christians.... Six million of my co-religionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there could have been many more victims, had it not been for the efficacious intervention of Pius XII." Cantoni was not the only Jew with this view, Einstein and Golda Meir amoung others also praised the Church.

Huh?

To you have any proof of endemic anti-semitism in the Catholic Church at the time?

Especially given that Catholics, bith laymen and clergy, were sometimes very outspoken critics of the Nazis and many helped get Jews to safety.

Dr. Raphael Cantoni praised the Catholic Church for its actions during the war stating that "The Church and the papacy have saved Jews as much and in as far as they could save Christians.... Six million of my co-religionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there could have been many more victims, had it not been for the efficacious intervention of Pius XII." Cantoni was not the only Jew with this view, Einstein and Golda Meir amoung others also praised the Church.
Indeed. The Catholic Church, as well as the Pastor's League in Germany (a protestant group) were very wary of Nazism, and even fought it back. True, Christianity was at a time very anti-semitic, and even during WWII there were Nazy clerics, but that hardly expresses the mainstream attitudes.

I'm surprised that Abraham was actually willing to do it.
That was the point of the story, that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, with a very heavy heart. God was just testing his loyalty.

The moral interpretation varies, of course. Whether God will ask sacrifice from you but will also provide the means to fulfill it, to how one must unquestionable follow God, etc.

After hearing from various posters such as Keru, who say that certain Muslims are not really Muslims, especially those who advocate certain ideas that we find strange or abhorrent in the West, I wonder what their answer is to this event:

The people I say aren't Muslim are not those who have ideas strange and abhorrent to the West's (apparently) delicate sensibilities, but rather those who would kill the innocent. Anyone who disobeys Allah and blatantly goes against Qur'an is not, and cannot be, Muslim by any stretch of the imagination.

Qur'an calls for women AND MEN to be modest outside the home. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't say anything about men and women not working together, etc, hence that is a new prohibition and anything that man prohibits that Allah did not prohibit is innovation and, thus, is open to debate, skepticism, and can be completely ignored. The trick is not to pay attention to what some crusty old Cleric says, but to watch how - and by whom - it is followed. You'd be surprised how many of India's Muslims will ignore this guy just like they ignore the idiot in Egypt who said not to be naked with your wife. We give our will to Allah, not to some jack-ass in a dress.

I never said there weren't conservative Muslims. There are. I can't tell you the number of arguments I've been in with some of them - in person, mind you, not over the comfort and anonymity of the internet - concerning just such things.

Indeed. The Catholic Church, as well as the Pastor's League in Germany (a protestant group) were very wary of Nazism, and even fought it back. True, Christianity was at a time very anti-semitic, and even during WWII there were Nazy clerics, but that hardly expresses the mainstream attitudes.

True. However, this was not the case in Croatia. Many of the Catholic clergy (including Bishops) were very strong supporters of the fascist Ustaša regime. Priests would apparently personally help commit murder and provide aid for the persuit of genocidal policies (not just against Jews, but also Gypsies and Othodox Christians) as well as perform forced mass conversions.

Live free or die, that's what I say.

Why do people continue to need a "board" or "clergy" or other such holy person or persons to interpret their scared text? I can understand that being useful when books were a lifetime of effort, but seriously why can people not think for themselves. Even in impoverished India, the Quran is readily available. There should be no need for other persons to interpret it.


-my 2 cents.

Why do people continue to need a "board" or "clergy" or other such holy person or persons to interpret their scared text? I can understand that being useful when books were a lifetime of effort, but seriously why can people not think for themselves. Even in impoverished India, the Quran is readily available. There should be no need for other persons to interpret it.


1] Not everybody in the world can read.
2] Not everybody in the world can read Arabic.
3] Not everybody can afford the luxury of thought, but rather work 14 hours a day.
4] Not everybody isn't afraid of their priest.
5] Intelligence - even perceived intelligence - can be very intimidating.

It's a brave new world ... but only in the land of air conditioning and labor laws.

Yes, as are abortion clinic bombers, etc.

If they said that they were Christians, and believe in Christ, then they're Christians.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes in their heart that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet, then they are Muslims - regardless of whatever other claptrap they hang on the religion.

Keru's attempt to say that "those are not Muslims" is an attempt to distance himself from a problem.

Denying that some aspect of the nature of your faith somehow was used to mislead or corrupt people into doing bad things is part of the problem with people today - they never want to admit that they are Christian, Muslim, or even Communist (those aren't real Communists!) if it means they have to deal with the fact that their ideology has some problems.

Okay.

The next time Pinhead Pat Robertson or Jerry "Look Out It's Tinky-Winky" Falwell makes an asshat statement proclaiming God smited a gay/lesbian/liberal person or place because of so and so, you need to tell Christians to stop distancing themselves from the problem and confront it as well.

Okay.

The next time Pinhead Pat Robertson or Jerry "Look Out It's Tinky-Winky" Falwell makes an asshat statement proclaiming God smited a gay/lesbian/liberal person or place because of so and so, you need to tell Christians to stop distancing themselves from the problem and confront it as well.

I already do.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes in their heart that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet, then they are Muslims - regardless of whatever other claptrap they hang on the religion.

Then you have no idea what it means to be Muslim. Believing that isn't enough. Every Muslim knows that.

Keru's attempt to say that "those are not Muslims" is an attempt to distance himself from a problem.

I never said Islam wasn't a heterodoxy. I've readily admitted there are conservative, moderate, and liberal Muslims. The ones I say aren't Muslim are the jihadists. A conservative Muslim is simply wrong ... Muslim, yes, but wrong.

You are the only person I know - Muslim or non - who believes the Jihadists are Muslim. Yours is a singular and very, very alone voice.

You are the only person I know - Muslim or non - who believes the Jihadists are Muslim. Yours is a singular and very, very alone voice.


I think that is a bit strange.
While there are a lot of muslims that are not jihadi's, there aren't much jihadi's who are not muslim.

I already do.

Bullshit.

If some obscure Cleric somewhere who 5 whole people listen to says something stupid, you're all over like stink on shit. Sometimes making 2, 3, or 4 threads about it and constantly browbeating it into this forum as the absolute Muslim gospel truth.

When was the last time you mentioned Fred Phelps? Remember: There's a search function.

I think that is a bit strange.
While there are a lot of muslims that are not jihadi's, there aren't much jihadi's who are not muslim.

No Jihadist is Muslim. They only claim to be.

No Jihadist is Muslim. They only claim to be.

I think I see what you mean. But he who said so was no exactly one single dissenting lone voice.

Anyway, if we accept your argument, we are left with 2 interesting questions:
A] how does a muslim decide who is muslim or not?
B] how does an outsider decide that?

Unless such questions can be answered, the differentiation between those who are muslim and those who merely claim so is too.... fuzzy.. to have any operational meaning to an outsider.

( take your time. You're someone I rather expect to come up with a good or at least utterly honest answer )

Anyway, if we accept your argument, we are left with 2 interesting questions:
A] how does a muslim decide who is muslim or not?

The definition is clearly laid out in Qur'an.

B] how does an outsider decide that?

The same way an outsider decides anything about any group: study. You were once an outsider to the scientific community, but then you got the opportunity to study, say, physics. Same principle.

Very simple logic here:

Qur'an, the Muslim holy book and considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of God, says quite clearly: Allah hates aggressors. Allah hates those who kill the innocent. Allah hates those who spread mischeif in the world. Allah condemns suicide.

Now, you tell me ... just how is blowing up yourself along with a bus full of children in any way Islamic?

The definition is clearly laid out in Qur'an.



The same way an outsider decides anything about any group: study. You were once an outsider to the scientific community, but then you got the opportunity to study, say, physics. Same principle.

Very simple logic here:

Qur'an, the Muslim holy book and considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of God, says quite clearly: Allah hates aggressors. Allah hates those who kill the innocent. Allah hates those who spread mischeif in the world. Allah condemns suicide.

Now, you tell me ... just how is blowing up yourself along with a bus full of children in any way Islamic?

The answer is: f!ck if I know.
My problem is that I am very sceptical about the possibility of understanding/comprehending the motivation of outsiders ( people with a different frame or reference ).

The 'operational' issue remains to me, unsolved.
I can't delegate it to a private and tell him which one of two people claiming to be muslim to arrest, with any decent chance of minimising 'colateral damage'. ( so much for euphemisms )

I know there are islamic clerics in the ME who take sincerely the same stance... but it doesn't really solve much. I wish it did... but it does not. I don't think it is useful - but I think it is honest.

It just made me wonder about Bottle's earlier post, that a religious person would refuse to kill because it doesn't fit in with their concept of good. To me, it would seem that many would be very willing to. Especially if to presuppose the condition that God asked them to directly was in existence.
I certainly don't deny that there are people who do horrible things because they believe God told them to. However, I think such people are roughly as common as people who do horrible things because they believe their talking dog told them to do so. In my opinion, most people who do awful things and then attribute their actions to God's will are actually doing awful things for their own reasons, and then giving God the credit for what they themselves decided to do.

I know there are islamic clerics in the ME who take sincerely the same stance... but it doesn't really solve much. I wish it did... but it does not. I don't think it is useful - but I think it is honest.

Aye ... and therein lies the problem. Education.

I mentioned study, but unfortunately, not everyone has the opportunity to do so. Not even in the ME. So, some uneducated kid gets involved with the wrong cleric and all of a sudden *boom* he thinks he's some big martyr by wearing a C-4 vest into a restaurant and is pleased because the Cleric promised to give his wife $50,000 if he did it. To a very poor family, this means a lot.

He's never read Qur'an. He's never been reminded that we give ourselves to Allah, not - as I said above - some jack-ass in a dress.

I find it as sad as I find the people that religious leaders like Fred Phelps brainwashes, but made all the more extreme by the loss of innocent life.

I don't have a solution. I can't go around the ME and find all these clerics and correct them. I suppose I could try, but the entire US Military can't find them either, so what chance do I have without training or gear or a tank division backing me up?

Besides ... those people hate me as much as they hate you, but for a very different reason: If I can get to their bomb wearing teenager before he pushes that button, *I* can tell him why he shouldn't, why the money doesn't matter, and why what he's doing will keep him out of Paradise. Unfortunately, I don't know any of them either and have never met one who is on the verge.

All I can do is educated non-Muslims to realise that what these people are doing is not Islamic, has nothing to do with Islam, and is not sanctioned by Qur'an, the Prophet, or any Muslim sensibilities. It is the powerful exploiting the weak ... nothing more.

Very simple logic here:

Qur'an, the Muslim holy book and considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of God, says quite clearly: Allah hates aggressors. Allah hates those who kill the innocent. Allah hates those who spread mischeif in the world. Allah condemns suicide.

That is your interpretation of the meaning of the koran. Many others might, legitimately, have a completely different view of its meaning. You simply cannot make absolute statements about what it means except for yourself.

Now, you tell me ... just how is blowing up yourself along with a bus full of children in any way Islamic?

If the folowing the tenets of the Koran is actually the litmus test of what makes a muslim - which I doubt - I would imagine whether or not you should go out and blow up a bus full of school children would depend upon your reading of the text.

Which of course why anyone who blindly follows religious texts should be treated with suspicion. Indicates a lack of internal moral compass in my opinion.

I already do.
Which is one of the things I really respect about you, by the way. When Christians do rotten things, you don't focus on explaining how those people aren't Real Christians(tm).

It annoys me to no end that so many people waste their time with that kind of thing. Instead of explaining how your religion can't possibly be connected to rotten actions, maybe try looking at the reasons why people use your religion to support rotten actions! Maybe try looking at reasons why people who want to do particular rotten things are likely to use your religion as a spring-board for their personal rottenness. It doesn't mean your religion is the SOURCE of those rotten things, or that you must be a bad person for having the same religion as some rotten people, but it does mean that your religion may be used to facilitate rottenness in ways that you (and your fellow believers) might want to address.

That is your interpretation of the meaning of the koran. Many others might, legitimately, have a completely different view of its meaning. You simply cannot make absolute statements about what it means except for yourself.

No ... actually it isn't my interpretation.

Let me try this again.

Qur'an says: Don't kill children.

There is no way to misinterpret that. None whatsoever. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

If the folowing the tenets of the Koran is actually the litmus test of what makes a muslim - which I doubt

Ummm ... following the tenets of Qur'an is the *only* way to be Muslim. There is no other way.

Neither can give legal, enforceable orders.

The Pope can decree the correct behaviour of Catholics, and decides what is a sin (spiritually wrong) and what isn't with absolute authority.
This board is giving advice.... unless you know more than we do and can provide sources for the boards authority, I'll take the words of the article for granted that they don't have any power to give orders of any kind.

No, the AMPLB has jurisdiction over muslims in personal laws. Muslims have the option of choosing the Indian civil code or muslim personal laws.

But, this has resulted in a parallel legal system with illegal sharia courts mushrooming all over the place and no politician has the guts to take them on. Especially not the congress led UPA govt currently in power, because it has always depended on the muslim vote bank to get the edge in elections.

AFAIK, if a pope/shankaracharya gives out similar edicts people will laugh their asses off. The problem is that there are many zealots who take these edicts seriously.

Aye ... and therein lies the problem. Education.

<snip>



Dude, I know.
( with the caveat that even the best and most extensive education can produce 'unexpected' results ).

I don't buy the widely held argument that religion causes or attributes to terrorism. The problem is culture.

Without wishing to mince words over definitons, let me merely state that asymetrical warfare was regular in the ME before the first muslim was born, and would still continue if there were no more muslims there.

And I appreciate your point about us both being VMT' to certain folks.
They'd properly hate you more ( which is a compliment in a sense ) for 'heretics' are hated more than 'infidels' in most philosophical systems.

Anyway, if we accept your argument, we are left with 2 interesting questions:
A] how does a muslim decide who is muslim or not?
B] how does an outsider decide that?

A) Accusing a believer as non-believer is a big sin in Islam. Wrongfully accusing makes you a non-believer. So muslims (in general) don't bandy "you are a non-muslim" accusation that lightly.

Much of this is due to the close mindedness following the fall of Baghdad and the loss of the ability to militarily conquer and expand. The faith as a whole closed in and a kind of siege mentality exists.

B) We can't. We have no locus standi in deciding who is a muslim and who isn't. All we can do is make sure that they understand what the law is and ensure rule of law.

No ... actually it isn't my interpretation.

Let me try this again.

Qur'an says: Don't kill children.

There is no way to misinterpret that. None whatsoever. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.



Ummm ... following the tenets of Qur'an is the *only* way to be Muslim. There is no other way.
What about the sunnah? From what I understand (via a Muslim coworker) belief in the the sunnah is the second source in Islam. I may be getting terms garbled here (and might be mangling spellings due to the language conversion) but I believe that the sunnah is made up of reports about the teachings of Mohammed as related by his wives, relatives, and companions (called "hadiths"?). My coworker told me that belief in the sunnah is a basic Islamic belief.

Maybe try looking at reasons why people who want to do particular rotten things are likely to use your religion as a spring-board for their personal rottenness.

An issue I've already addressed, but people seem to think I merely separate myself rather than examine.

Let me readdress it here for the record:

People use Islam because of the clear and obvious global ignorance about Islam. It's like saying "the Jedi way" or whatever or the hilarity of being Jewish and making up some Jewish holiday sounding name to get out of work. Nobody questions it because of the global ignorance.

For that I have only one solution: Education. *That* is what I try to do ... educate people about Islam. If people were educated about it, they'd be able to realise that there is no way to interpret Qur'an in such a way that makes it ok to blow up women and children.

What about the sunnah? From what I understand (via a Muslim coworker) belief in the the sunnah is the second source in Islam. I may be getting terms garbled here (and might be mangling spellings due to the language conversion) but I believe that the sunnah is made up of reports about the teachings of Mohammed as related by his wives, relatives, and companions (called "hadiths"?). My coworker told me that belief in the sunnah is a basic Islamic belief.

The Sunnah, yes, are a valid source of Islamic information. It is, basically, the life of the Prophet and how he acted, treated others, and lived his life. However, one of the fascinating key points is the way Allah publicly chastised Muhammed when he did something that wasn't in Qur'an. Specifically, Muhammed tried to say something was prohibited when it wasn't and got spanked for it.

Some hadith, specifically the ones written in Muhammed's lifetime, are also acceptable. However, any hadith that contradicts Qur'an is a false hadith. Any hadith that makes it ok to blow up children contradicts Qur'an.

Qur'an is the final word in all things.

Qur'an is the final word in all things.


As an aside: are you sunni or shi'a? ( or ahmadiyya for that matter )

The Sunnah, yes, are a valid source of Islamic information. It is, basically, the life of the Prophet and how he acted, treated others, and lived his life. However, one of the fascinating key points is the way Allah publicly chastised Muhammed when he did something that wasn't in Qur'an. Specifically, Muhammed tried to say something was prohibited when it wasn't and got spanked for it.

Some hadith, specifically the ones written in Muhammed's lifetime, are also acceptable. However, any hadith that contradicts Qur'an is a false hadith. Any hadith that makes it ok to blow up children contradicts Qur'an.

Qur'an is the final word in all things.
Well, what about hadith that aren't directly contradictory? Or what about situations where one interpretation might lead to a contradiction, but another won't? In those cases, who gets to be the final arbiter of what is and is not Real Islam(tm)?

No, the AMPLB has jurisdiction over muslims in personal laws. Muslims have the option of choosing the Indian civil code or muslim personal laws.

But, this has resulted in a parallel legal system with illegal sharia courts mushrooming all over the place and no politician has the guts to take them on. Especially not the congress led UPA govt currently in power, because it has always depended on the muslim vote bank to get the edge in elections.

You said it yourself, Indian Muslims have the option of choosing...


AFAIK, if a pope/shankaracharya gives out similar edicts people will laugh their asses off. The problem is that there are many zealots who take these edicts seriously.

I take it you've never met my grandfather. The word of the Pope is the law. Not enforceable by any secular authority, but that is a job my grandfather is always happy enough to do himself.

I take it you've never met my grandfather. The word of the Pope is the law. Not enforceable by any secular authority, but that is a job my grandfather is always happy enough to do himself.
Ooh, and here we could get into a really interesting side discussion! The power of a law rests with the common (cultural/societal) agreement to follow it, and in the potential punishment or penalty that can be enforced on those who choose not to follow the law. In that respect, religious laws could be seen to have greater power than civil laws to those who follow the religions, because the "agreement" part has equal weight to civil law while the "enforcement" part has even more weight (because there's an omnipotent judge enforcing the penalties, as opposed to a finite human system).

Ooh, and here we could get into a really interesting side discussion! The power of a law rests with the common (cultural/societal) agreement to follow it, and in the potential punishment or penalty that can be enforced on those who choose not to follow the law. In that respect, religious laws could be seen to have greater power than civil laws to those who follow the religions, because the "agreement" part has equal weight to civil law while the "enforcement" part has even more weight (because there's an omnipotent judge enforcing the penalties, as opposed to a finite human system).

The thing about the legal system is "if there's no plaintif, there's no judge". Many cases that ought to be decided by the courts never make it there.
Religious/social law will be enforced by the communities, and there's no way of avoiding that once the case is know. You can always rely on zealots trying to ease god's workload by punishing the sinners themselves.

You said it yourself, Indian Muslims have the option of choosing...

The problem is that there is friction between muslims who don't and muslims who do.

The muslims who follow the deobandi school evoke all sort of religious guilt trip for those who ignore these archaic antediluvian thinking and an attack on them becomes an attack on Islam.


I take it you've never met my grandfather. The word of the Pope is the law. Not enforceable by any secular authority, but that is a job my grandfather is always happy enough to do himself.

Meh, my grandfather was even worse. Did not allow my mom to study beyond high school saying that schooling is bad for girls quoting some religious nonsense. But my parents had my sister study and go to work. She is now a working mom.

The point is that there is a visible progress in each generation in other communities whilst most of the muslim community in India (specially in north) is stuck at the same level or have indeed regressed. It is no surprise that the muslim community is at the bottom of many socio-economic indicators whilst every other community have picked themselves up and are now participating in the improving economy.

Recently deobandi mullahs protested against installing condom vending machines at public places because (according to them) it would encourage promiscuity. But that fact that people do have sex regardless of what mullahs think and that there is a risk of STD/HIV due to unprotected sex (not to mention population control) is not their concern.

Originally Posted by Pure Metal
more justification as to why organised religion is just stupid

Amen.

No.

Just STUPID interpretations of religions as practiced by STUPID people.

-Iakeo

The Pope can't give legal, enforceable orders.

This board can.


The Pope can't give orders to non-Catholics.

He can and does "give orders" to Catholics. He can say that women can't be priests and that priests can't marry. He is the duly elected (By the College of Cardinals) head of the Church. What he says, goes.

It's weird how many religious people are against the survival of their people by reproduction.


That statement may seem odd now, but you can see the idea show up a lot thoughout history, but I'm too lazy to say examples.

As an aside: are you sunni or shi'a? ( or ahmadiyya for that matter )

I don't know. Those are all political differences that I couldn't be more indifferent to.

I am Muslim. The brothers seem to think I lean toward Sufi, but I tend not to self-classify.