|
the trump tutelage posted:Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was an actual Muslim. Anwar al-Awlaki was an actual Muslim. Nasir al-Fahd is an actual scholar. Mohammed Omar carried the title Mullah. Religious fanatics aren't heretics and apostates just because they make you uncomfortable or reflect poorly on your source material. I believe you 100% that I could find a lot of readings and interpretations that could be used as the foundation of a moderate, Western Islam, but that doesn't magically invalidate the theology of jihadists and Islamists. Those readings aren't any more valid just because they jive with my values. You repeating things do not make them right. ISIS are Muslims, to be sure. Their sins do not undo this association. And their understanding of Islam is not invalid. But in the sense that you would understand, it is. ISIS acts are a twisted reading of the Koran. I understand that you and with you many Europeans and Americans think that ISIS represent literal Islam. But it is not so. Not only do all Islamic organizations and states, from moderate to conservative to the Saudis, denounce ISIS, but the fact is that each Muslim has the responsibility to read the Koran and understand it individually. Doing that, it is immediately obvious that a whole list of official ISIS actions are simply and plainly disallowed, at least they seem to be from literal reading. To reach the conclusion that one should do as ISIS does, requires frankly an insurmountable amount of interpretation and handwaving, at least from our perspective. ISIS are doing exactly what you think moderates are doing. It goes a bit further. I can see you never fully read the Koran because you do not know this. The Koran is not a book like the Bible. Understanding the Koran indeed follows something like Occams Law, for moderates as well as conservatives. You do not have people here taking parts non-literal like in the Bible. The issue is that even with hermeneutic principles given in the book itself, there simply are several options of understanding. This is even moreso because the words in the Koran have to be interpreted by their usage within the Koran, as they defined the Arabic language as we now know it. There is no such thing as a literal understanding, the difficulties of interpretation are present even though one wants to take it literal. I believe that is the intention of the book. In a sense, its understanding reveals the heart of the reader. It also makes the Koran adaptable to any time in history, unlike the Bible. Bringing in your own understanding of the Koran (given of course objective knowledge of language, history etc) is indeed basic to the religion. For example, it is not defined in the Koran who is addressed in many passages of war that ISIS uses. It is not said if these passages are meant for the young Umma at time of Mohammed or himself, and if they deal with specific tribes, or if they are general commands. Both things are present in the Koran so both is possible. Furthermore, it would seem (to almost anyone) that they relate to a certain kind of oathbreaking and attacking perpetrator against Muslims and not non-Muslims as such (if one reads the whole paragraph). So to get at what ISIS does, you have to assume that the meaning of the word suddenly changes mid-paragraph and now the general non-Muslim population is meant. Even if this is the case, however, this passage does not allow terrorism and it even requires mildness when enemies turn away. So to get to terror, ISIS does the following: we know from stories about the Prophet (so this is not even in the Koran), that he used catapults in besieging cities. ISIS now says that since catapults might also hit non-soldiers, Islam therefore allows to attack innocents (even with Koran passages stating explicitly otherwise, where now they claim these no longer apply for... reasons). So if you think this is the "straightfoward" and literal reading of Koran, then I dunno. And note that some things ISIS does is nowhere allowed in the Koran or Sunna at all. I am convinced a casual but honest reading of the Koran (not a selective one of the favorite passages) would convince you that at best it advocates rigorous self defense, and "at worst" disallowes war and judgment altogether as it is Allah's responsibility. This is because you have a modern understanding and this is the natural conclusion you would get. ISIS actions do not fall on any spectrum of what could reasonably interpreted, which is why it ISN'T, not by the council of senior scholars in Saudi Arabia, scholars in Iran, the leaders of the Gulf States, universities in Egypt... whatever else conservative Islam has to offer. Indeed ISIS and its less extreme streams are NOT AT ALL movements for a more literal Islam. Indeed a more literal Islam tends to be LESS extremist, not only because of the issues offered above, but also because if taken more literal, less of the Sunna and Hadiths will be incorporated in the understanding. But it's more than that. While the most literal interpretation tends to be Quranist, ie solely on the book, ISIS is a rehash from Islamic medieval period and it stresses consensus of Islamic scholars (in this case, the imperialist, warlike or extreme scholars from that time because it was a state matter) to give interpretation but also new rules for the body of Muslim believers. A lot if interpretation for ISIS is that "a scholar guy from 500 years ago found it convenient to burn people so it is allowed, Mashallah". It does not invalidate that it is a stream of Islam, but it is wrong to assume it is some sort of "back to the roots" affair. Then and now, ISIS is political. Another point is that ISIS harms Islam as such and civilization as a whole. The principle of progress of the people of God and their betterment is also a principle of Islam. Basically in all senses that YOU would understand as "valid", ISIS is not a valid way of Islam the religion. That is the important point. What YOU want to do is invalidate not only liberal Islam, but also the Islam practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world because you only understand literal and non-literal interpretation as per Bible, which is much less important in Islam. That you try to make this foolish debate about who is most literal, shows that you fell headfirst into the trap of ISIS and right-wing. If it were about taking the Koran literally, we would be talking about a whole different Islamic practice than what we see today. What you are doing is self defeating. I know exactly where you wanna go with your trolling, but the discussion about the Islamicness of ISIS is dishonest and so are you. I fully think you are aware of the facts above and you are just trolling. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Nov 6, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:You repeating things do not make them right. ISIS are Muslims, to be sure. Their sins do not undo this association. And their understanding of Islam is not invalid. But in the sense that you would understand, it is. The important thing to recognize is that trump tutelage suffers from the terminal stages of liberalism poisoning. In his mind, act of believing something- indeed, anything- is inherently suspect. He does not fear the religious because he thinks what they believe is wrong, he fears them because they believe at all. When he accuses ISIS of being literalist, he does not mean it in the religious sense, I.E. "derived directly from a book." He doesn't know the first thing about ISIS' theology, and he doesn't know the first thing about the Quran. He couldn't defend that assertion for a hot second! No, he means it in the language of the tumblr teens he so despises: that they literally believe the things they say. For someone who believes nothing but their own inchoate fears, that is the ultimate insult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
I'll grant you total capitulation on the point of "literalness", then, which was a stupid red herring to pursue on my part. Thank you for taking the time to write that. To return to the point I was making before this sidetrack, you cannot sort these groups -- not just ISIS, but Islamists generally -- into "real" and "fake" Muslims, or their interpretations into "true" and "false." I know that this is true because there isn't actually a God to legitimize any one reading; it's literary criticism made revelation. This: caps on caps on caps posted:What YOU want to do is invalidate not only liberal [religion], but also the [religion] practiced by the overwhelming majority of [adherents] in the world So to get back to the point of this thread -- we all know that the security concerns are overblown and chances of being harmed in a terrorist attack are astonishingly small. I don't see how European governments can openly support the growth of a moderate Islam without delegitimizing the entire project among those already suspicious of the West. It is extremely difficult to talk honestly about the problems in ("some forms of" / however you want to qualify it) contemporary European Islam, as to do so is to be branded a bigot, or to be attacked from both sides if you're Muslim as you've said. The Left in particular seems unwilling to accept that Europe's Muslim populations might be complicit in their own marginalization. Your claim that "It doesn't matter where the values come from" pretty well sums the disagreement -- if you earnestly believe in secular, liberal, humanist values, then it is extremely important that people understand that those values come out of specific historical and social contexts, and not from God. So why should Europe embark on a project of reforming Islam when it could, say, attempt to implement policies that more effectively assimilate Muslims? The vague threat of conflict and tears? Actively supporting a reformation project could very well blow up in Europe's face, especially if it's an aborted effort that entrenches regressive interpretations of Islam in Western Europe. Ze Pollack posted:The important thing to recognize is that trump tutelage suffers from the terminal stages of liberalism poisoning. In his mind, act of believing something- indeed, anything- is inherently suspect. He does not fear the religious because he thinks what they believe is wrong, he fears them because they believe at all. Except that I do believe that ISIS earnestly and wholly believes its theology (and isn't just using it cynically), though that wasn't what I meant when I accused them of being literalist. And I do hate tumblr teens it's true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Why do you think that the majority of Muslims listen to extremists? One of the top Sunni authorities has just recently issued the advice that hijabs/scarfs are optional because they are customary and not based on scripture. Nothing of what ISIS says is considered meaningful by like almost any Muslim in the world. Yes, world Islam is too little liberal and too conservative. But the mean is not an extremist position. The majority of Muslims doesn't listen to extremists, so whoever or whatever they listen to should be acceptable and there is no need to create a state-backed European Islam. The alternative already exists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Yeah im gonna say this is a bad idea because taking a Lesson from history Both the usa and Brasil t ook catholicism and Christian beliefs and made up a bunch of cults that "fitted better" and those have seriously hosed up Both countries. Also technically theres already a european islam unless you dont count ex-youguslavian countries as european and uh thats also been slightly problematic. Muslims should Just get a move on an elect a supreme pope-ayatolah,i mean goddamn every Major religion has a figure head who outsiders can specifically hate,this is Just shody organisational skills.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:You seem naive if you think that there's such a thing as a "top Sunni authority" who can speak authoritatively for the faith as a whole, or that "nothing of what ISIS says is considered meaningful" when support for the group is as high as 8% in Turkey (with another 19% in the 'dont know' column, as though the jury is still out). 19% of US Muslims believe suicide bombing is sometimes justified. 52% of UK Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal and a third think polygamy should be legalized. You keep talking as though as though if people only read the books properly then we would have a moderate and progressive Islam perfectly in step with Western culture and mores. The truth that all moderates refuse to internalize is that if God exists, and his books are divinely inspired, then the extreme literalists like ISIS are front of the queue for seats in heaven while moderates like yourself are spending eternity in a lake of fire -- and just as well for everyone else that moderates remain delusional on this point. "Believes suicide bombing is sometimes justified" is a really weird belief to believe is the root of some kind of social ill because if you phrased that very slightly differently you would find that belief not limited to Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:19% of US Muslims believe suicide bombing is sometimes justified. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQzkvUzgEmo
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Yeah im gonna say this is a bad idea because taking a Lesson from history Both the usa and Brasil t ook catholicism and Christian beliefs and made up a bunch of cults that "fitted better" and those have seriously hosed up Both countries. Also technically theres already a european islam unless you dont count ex-youguslavian countries as european and uh thats also been slightly problematic. Muslims should Just get a move on an elect a supreme pope-ayatolah,i mean goddamn every Major religion has a figure head who outsiders can specifically hate,this is Just shody organisational skills. But seriously; is that even true? There's the Pope and the Dalai Lama, who else?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Muslims should Just get a move on an elect a supreme pope-ayatolah,i mean goddamn every Major religion has a figure head who outsiders can specifically hate,this is Just shody organisational skills. No...? It's pretty much just Catholicism and some branches of Buddhism. A Buttery Pastry posted:"I don't hate Muslims; I just hate every single one of them as the supreme religious authority of their own personal faith." It's pretty admirable to talk smack about other religions when he apparently doesn't even know the core tenants of our protestantism. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:No...? It's pretty much just Catholicism and some branches of Buddhism. Yeah. Outside of those two groups, having an ultimate religious authority is generally a good sign that something's a crazy fly-by-night cult.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Crazy cults? You mean like the church of england , the ortodox church (granted by comitee) or the anglicans/episcopals with the archbishop of canterbury? The Dalai lama isnt even the leader of its own sect! Im being glib,because this is a extremely complicated issue,but when muslims where killing each other over religious and etnic diferences no one (in the west) gave a poo poo,much in the same way nobody gives a poo poo about w hats happening in indonesia. Which just go to show that if you keep your murdering in house you should be a-ok!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Nobody gives a flying god drat poo poo if Muslims want to be Muslims and not kill\rape\oppress people. To the extent that somebody is a Muslim and otherwise holds universal human rights ideals, nobody has a problem with them! I and basically every other human being on earth, besides cartoonishly evil redneck republican conservatives, don't give a poo poo what religion somebody wants to practice as long as doing so doesn't involve gigantic, flagrant abuses of other people's rights. This is literally the only thing I've ever tried to argue for here and look at my dumbass title. Liberals dropped the ball so loving hard on Islam. Hot take and stuff, I know, but why do you think people keep saying it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Liberals dropped the ball so loving hard on Islam. Hot take and stuff, I know, but why do you think people keep saying it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Nobody gives a flying god drat poo poo if Muslims want to be Muslims and not kill\rape\oppress people. To the extent that somebody is a Muslim and otherwise holds universal human rights ideals, nobody has a problem with them! I and basically every other human being on earth, besides cartoonishly evil redneck republican conservatives, don't give a poo poo what religion somebody wants to practice as long as doing so doesn't involve gigantic, flagrant abuses of other people's rights. This is literally the only thing I've ever tried to argue for here and look at my dumbass title. Except for the whole "won't let women dress how they want to because what if they're oppressed?" thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Why would we need a new European Islam? I am defeated by this. There are many "Islams" already and some of them are pretty great, take for example the Ahmadiyya bunch (and you can also bet no matter how many Muslims say "ISIS does not represent the true Islam" ISIS would say the same out of them - it's their true Islam). One of my friends from Pakistan practicses this particular version and I couldn't find a Muslim man or any other religious man who is easier to seamlessly fit into the individual rights first, individualism first, democracy first, egalitarian first Nordic country without issues. Ahmadi ".. believed his objective was to defend and propagate Islam globally through peaceful means, to revive the forgotten Islamic values of peace, forgiveness and sympathy for all mankind, and to establish peace in the world through the teachings of Islam. He believed that his message had special relevance for the Western world, which, he believed, had descended into materialism". (Of course, Ahmadiyya Muslims are often oppressed and hounded by Shia or Sunni Muslims where they exist, but that isn't a religious thing IMO.) gently caress, sounds about right if you need to believe in a high being, a prophet or a ghost spirit to act decent. I don't personally think the day to day practices and cultural behaviour patterns the OP mentioned are really restricted or limited to Islam. There are Muslim migrants who do not behave quite (to put it mildly) by the cultural norms nor do they accept the values of Western Europeans and who probably do identify themselves more as "Muslims" instead of new citizens of their new host country, eager to inregrate or assimialte or both, but does it really have that much to do with religion in the end?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Most younger Muslims I know trend towards what's basically Quranism. The Quran itself is pretty light on the more culturally odious poo poo, so they trend more to what I guess the OP is looking for. The legitimacy of the Hadith, particularly mainstream Sunni interpretations of it, basically relies entirely on a cultural attachment to it, and it's pretty much the first thing to go. Even many Imams defacto abandon it due to having flocks from several different traditions they try to minister to because they don't have the numbers/wealth to all have separate mosques.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
ChainsawCharlie posted:Crazy cults? You mean like the church of england , the ortodox church (granted by comitee) or the anglicans/episcopals with the archbishop of canterbury? You are aware these are the same thing right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Not recently, the CoE/Anglican Communion disowned the Episcopalians over same sex marriage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
The idea of a more "European" Islam is something for Muslims to work out amongst themselves as far as I'm concerned and I think your idea of a "State-sponsored Islam" is disastrous and utterly antithetical to the very concept of good government. Government should be entirely and absolutely secular as it's the only way to be fair to everyone, believers and unbelievers alike. Even the very mild and mostly ceremonial status the Church of England has here in the UK is monstrous in my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Why would we need a new European Islam? I am defeated by this. There are many "Islams" already and some of them are pretty great, take for example the Ahmadiyya bunch (and you can also bet no matter how many Muslims say "ISIS does not represent the true Islam" ISIS would say the same out of them - it's their true Islam). One of my friends from Pakistan practicses this particular version and I couldn't find a Muslim man or any other religious man who is easier to seamlessly fit into the individual rights first, individualism first, democracy first, egalitarian first Nordic country without issues. So two things. In no way I want to poo poo on Ahmadiyya or anything, and the thing you quoted and other things they do are right on the money, but for several reasons I don't think it would work as a European branch of Islam as such (in the same way that more-sane Mormons would not work for Protestants). Then again, it seems to be somehow the most successful non-traditionalist branch in Europe already anyway. Secondly and more importantly, one of my main point is to have the scholarship based on European universities, ideally done by people firmly rooted in our moral, "secular" etc. institutions. As long as we don't all become Quoranist, this type of scholarship remains important and (as I have pointed out above), it is very important from which perspective this is undertaken. Schizotek posted:Most younger Muslims I know trend towards what's basically Quranism. The Quran itself is pretty light on the more culturally odious poo poo, so they trend more to what I guess the OP is looking for. The legitimacy of the Hadith, particularly mainstream Sunni interpretations of it, basically relies entirely on a cultural attachment to it, and it's pretty much the first thing to go. Even many Imams defacto abandon it due to having flocks from several different traditions they try to minister to because they don't have the numbers/wealth to all have separate mosques. I tend towards this as well as one can probably figure out from my writings here. Again, for people without the cultural background of traditionalism it seems to be a more natural reading of the Koran. Then, however, I ask, why is there no organization in Europe? It is because conservative organizations are actively marginalizing and surpressing this line of thought. And those are the organizations the state interacts with. Captain Fargle posted:The idea of a more "European" Islam is something for Muslims to work out amongst themselves as far as I'm concerned and I think your idea of a "State-sponsored Islam" is disastrous and utterly antithetical to the very concept of good government. I think it depends on the country you live in. The idea that German, for example, is a secular state is entirely laughable. Many people somehow think it's the case, but it is not. There is SIGNIFICANT and consequential interaction of state and religious authorities (building, planning, consultations&representation and even direct funding etc.). Not only state, also public media, universities and schools and many things as well. And in this interaction, the state legitimizes and strengthens these religious organizations, both directly and indirectly. From my perspective, the state should not only be free but even be required to bias or even limit this interaction to organizations and projects which support European values. And I am sorry, the "head" organization created to "represent" Muslims in these matters is controlled entirely by 1. Turkish State, 2. Turkish Islamists and 3. Arab Islamists. Notably, the liberal Muslim organization and Ahmadiyya are NOT part of this organization claiming to represent all Muslims in Germany. So because of this, the liberal Muslims for example literally do not get permission&support to build a Mosque in Berlin. I know many of you are American where state and church are entirely separated. And you might even assume this is legally somehow similar here. But in practical terms it is not. We have literally church people sitting on boards of public media and universities and such. This stuff matters. Haramstufe Rot fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
So would you prefer the secularization of the German state, or giving state sponsored Islam equal representation to Christianity? It of course would be only fair that all religions get on these boards, but wouldn't it be even better to entirely separate religion from the state?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:05 |
|
|
doverhog posted:So would you prefer the secularization of the German state, or giving state sponsored Islam equal representation to Christianity? It of course would be only fair that all religions get on these boards, but wouldn't it be even better to entirely separate religion from the state? Secularism? What are you, some kind of r/atheist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 21:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!