Beadalin, I appreciate your sentiment. What you wrote is, of course, perfect common sense and you’re right to advocate reason versus rabble-rousing. However, your coding was slightly screwed up. You meant to say (with coding rearranged):
Jews For Jesus
don’t represent Jewish thought.
Suicide bombers don’t represent http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/IslamAndViolence.htm
Muslim thought.
I think we should do what we did to the japanese after pearl harbor.
I just met with my coworker’s Turkish husband. He smiled at everyone in the office and shook hands with everyone he met. He’s trying his best to be as friendly as possible. He’s scared.
I want everyone to be very careful. Do not misintrepret the actions of others. Do not act without thinking. We need to be united as a nation right now.
Head, meet boot. Boot, meet head.
Take your racist filth to the Pit, where you will get the treatment you deserve before being banned sometime this afternoon.
Jomo Mojo, you rock my ass around the block!
Unless they have an in depth understanding of that religion.
Again - maybe they have, maybe they haven’t. I don’t know. Neither do you.
pulykamell
If indeed you have done university-level studies in Islam and are indeed convinced that those who advocate violence in the name of Islam are misinterpreting their religion, then you are surely entitled to assert that. And I won’t contradict you - I know very little about the subject. My only objection is to people who are equally ignorant as myself (or marginally less so) making definitve statements about such subjects (or any subjects, for that matter). These people are motivated by the goodness of their hearts - to prevent people from thinking that all Muslims condone violence. But they are wrong nonetheless.
Beadalin
Rather then that I challenge you to show one place in any of my posts in which I “confidently assert that Muslims do all condone violence”. If you can’t, your apologies will be expected.
I don’t know anything about Fred Phelps. But I would suggest that the number of adherents does not necessarily have a bearing on the correctness of a view. Furthermore, it is not at all clear to me that these views are as far removed from “mainstream” as you suggest. Though they may be underrepresented in sources that are accessable to you.
looking at his post count, i’d suspect he’s trolling, so skipping that comment…
I just have to step aside and say how proud I am of my fellow Americans, who have by and large, from what I’ve seen on TV, heard from friends back in States, and read on this board, reacted, overall, in a civilized and level-headed manner. Reading the Yahoo message boards had me scared for awhile, seeing the most atrocious racist filth I have experienced in my life; some that sounded on the level of Hitler-era Germany. However, from what I can tell, this is not how mainstream America is reacting. And, I hate to say this, I am surprised, though pleasantly. I just hope my assessment is accurate, and that our response will remain level-headed in the weeks to come.
My prayers remain with you and with all the families that have lost their loved ones in the WTC, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, Zaroastrian, etc. I am not one to express patriotic sentiments, but today I am proud of my people, and I am sorry that I could not be there to help.
That’s all.
Meaning what? It’s impossible to come to different conclusions if you’ve studied your religion (or any subject) in-depth?
Yet you have no problem making this definitive statement about me
without displaying ant real awareness of me or the subjects I may have studied or discussed with others. If you’re ignorant of who/what I am, then you shouldn’t be making such statements.
Actually, I’d like to see you explain where Beadalin is wrong, too, since her impression pretty much matches mine. As for your challenge, how do you explain this sentence?
If people who argue that all Muslims do not condone violence are wrong, does it not follow that therefore all Muslims do condone violence?
So mote it be!
I think you might want to watch making statements like these. In fact, please take them somewhere else.
In response to this original line of yours, I asked you to clarify what you meant because it seemed to indicate the following (my interpretation of that statement):
No one other than an Islamic theologian can reasonably state that Muslims to not advocate violence. Therefore, it is just as reasonable to state that Muslims do advocate violence. And it’s that continuation of what I perceive to be your argument (and you have so far not proved otherwise) that disturbs me.
The point of my other posts and links is to demonstrate that is IS perfectly reasonable to state that extreme terrorists are not representative of Islam as a whole. I have given direct sites from Muslim groups (as have others) as well as drawn parallels to similar groups within other religions. Since you’ve somehow remained blissfully unaware of Fred Phelps, replace his name with abortion clinic bombers, as others have done.
I can state unequivocally that Christianity is a religion of non-violence that has often had violence perpetrated in its name. Since I am also familiar with several Muslims and close friends with one in particular, have visted several mosques, have taken numerous religion and philosophy classes, I also feel quite comfortable saying that there is comprehensive evidence demonstrating that Muslims as a whole do not condone violence. A small fraction of that evidence has already been cited in this very thread. It’s your prerogative to ignore that evidence, claim it’s not representative enough, or that sources inaccessible to you & me might prove otherwise.
(In case there was any misunderstanding, the first part of my last post referred to Megatouch.)
I see what you’re saying, and what I said is that my academic record does cover comparitive religion, but not Islam exclusively. That said, Islam was one of the largest sections of that course. From everything I’ve ever been taught, read and experienced, I can say with the full confidence of my being that mainstream Islam, specifically, Sunni Islam, is emphatically NOT a religion of violence.
The reason I brought up the Jesus example was to simplify the level of discussion, and to have you think down to the core of any belief system. I want you to think common sense here. If you were to base a religion around violence, why on earth would you elevate Jesus to prophet status? It doesn’t compute. Hence, from that simple point I just want you to critically evaluate any suppositions you may or may not have about the religion. I am not saying that Jesus=Prophet means definitively Islam=non-violence, but what I mean is that it should at least raise a red flag in your mind. Something doesn’t seem right with this, so let’s try to temper our suppositions that Islam is a religion that teaches violence, and figure this out.
From what I can tell, you seem to be honest about not knowing much about Islam, but you certainly do seem to be implying, rather conspicuously, that you already have some notions about what Islam is about. Read through some of the links already posted, and then offer up what criticism you have about these explanations of Islam.
(In case there was any misunderstanding, the first part of my last post referred to Megatouch.)
Izzy-
I see what you’re saying, and what I said is that my academic record does cover comparitive religion, but not Islam exclusively. That said, Islam was one of the largest sections of that course. From everything I’ve ever been taught, read and experienced, I can say with the full confidence of my being that mainstream Islam, specifically, Sunni Islam, is emphatically NOT a religion of violence.
The reason I brought up the Jesus example was to simplify the level of discussion, and to have you think down to the core of any belief system. I want you to think common sense here. If you were to base a religion around violence, why on earth would you elevate Jesus to prophet status? It doesn’t compute. Hence, from that simple point I just want you to critically evaluate any suppositions you may or may not have about the religion. I am not saying that Jesus=Prophet means definitively Islam=non-violence, but what I mean is that it should at least raise a red flag in your mind. Something doesn’t seem right with this, so let’s try to temper our suppositions that Islam is a religion that teaches violence, and figure this out.
From what I can tell, you seem to be honest about not knowing much about Islam, but you certainly do seem to be implying, rather conspicuously, that you already have some notions about what Islam is about. Read through some of the links already posted, and then offer up what criticism you have about these explanations of Islam.
Well, it never occurred to me to do so, but ok. 
I can still think bad thoughts about Muslims outside the US, right?
No, but at that point your opinion is valid. Until then it is not worth a whole lot.
I don’t think I am ignorant of who you are. It is not my impression from reading these boards that you are an Islamic theologian. As no one had even claimed that you are one, I felt confident in making that assertion. If it was erroneous then I apologize.
Why would you deliberately leave out the sentence that preceded that one? In full:
They are wrong to be making assertions about subjects about which they are ignorant. They are not necessarily wrong about their actual claims (though they may be in this as well, for all I know).
Please refrain from this type of tactic in the future.
Beadalin
The first sentence is vaguely accurate (change “reasonably” to “definitively”, the second does not follow from the first (the fact that one side of an argument is not conclusive does not imply that each side of the argument is equally likely). More importantly, neither backs up your assertion.
pulykamell
Well I don’t know if Osama bin Laden himself would disagree with that. My understanding is that he feels that he represents the “true” Islam, which has been Westernized and corrupted by others.
Not at all. I am implying that there are quite a few people who know more about Islam then myself and Polycarp et al, who would disagree with the assertion that the principles of the Islamic religion would disaprove of these types of violence. I don’t think I am qualified to decide who is right in this matter and make no assertions about it, and I don’t think others who are equally unqualified should either.
My perspective in this is related to Judaism, about which I know quite a bit. I have seen countless examples of people making claims in about Judaic laws and principles which may seem impressive to the layman, but which are eminently debatable (or downright ignorant) to the scholar. So I am skeptical of anyone who would seek to make definitve claims about Islam based on the sort of reasoning (and sources) being discussed here.
**
Okay, who let Pat Buchanan get an account here?
Let’s see you’ve managed with your plan to violate the:
1st amendment, by banning Islam (and other maniac suicdle religeons)
4th amendment, since I assume we are siezing all their property
5th, by convicting all the Islamic and Arab residents of the US of a capital crime merely by ethnicity
6th, by removing their right to a trial.
8th, mass deportation for an untried crime is cruel and unusual punishment, although I could be fudging
14th, by removing the rights of naturalized citizens…
I guess now it’s just piling on. Please go away, maybe massmurder.com or kkk.com is more your tastes.
Izzy, dude, sure of course Osama bin Laden would agree with my point. My statement specifies MAINSTREAM Islam, and I doubt bin Laden considers himself mainstream. Talebanesque Islam is different from Shiite and Sunni Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are Sunni. Shiites are fundamentalist, although I would not jump to concluding that Sunni=good, and Shiite automatically equals bad. Shiites have gotten a bit of a bad rap, as well, although terrorists would generally spring from this camp. Just like Christian terrorists would generally spring from a fundamentalist camp.
What I don’t quite get is that ANY religious text is eminently debatable. How can you possibily come to a consus about Islam then? Christianity can easily be seen as a call to violence, and has been, many times in history, interpreted in that way. If you want to be a bit cynical, you can say the US was founded on that premise. Remember “manifest destiny” and the loss of an indigenous population?
With so many possible interpretations who then can you believe? Who? I’d go with the people. 99.99% of Christians are not crusading around the world. 99.99% of Muslims are not blowing themselves up in the streets or high-jacking planes. The Koran calls for non-violence and, yes, sometimes it does have passages which can be interpreted as a call to arms against infidels. Just like your Bible. Just like my Bible.
It seems to me you are looking for a 100% definitive answer to whether Islamic texts tacitly approve of this kind of violence. All religious texts will have contridictions. The spirit of the text is non-violence, at least from everything that I have ever read. You will never receive a definitive answer there anymore than you can receive a definitive answer for the exact same question in the Christian or Jewish religion.
scratch my first sentence or so…i misremembered your post.
Any religion is subject to interpretation by the reader/worshiper. Theologists study the original texts in an attempt to more accurately decipher the meanings of mostly dead languages(due to the fact that time erodes/changes all vocalization we call language)and then they discuss the true meaning of the writers intent. Once again, since I don’t know any religious text actually written by the hand of any god, theologists are discussing what a human meant while attempting to interpret what is believed to be devine instruction. All I’m saying is that it’s all in the interpretation and one could theoretically use any religion to justify nearly any action.
There’s no need for a consensus. Anyone who is seriously informed is entitled to an opinion. Those who are not well informed would be wise to refrain from definitive statements in the area.
If the numbers would be so overwhelming as you suggest, I might be inclined to agree. (It’s unlikely - though not impossible - that there could be that degree of consensus unless there was truth on that side) But I don’t think they are of that magnitude. (Note: a distinction must be made between people who are actually “blowing themselves up in the streets or high-jacking planes” and people who merely believe that their religion calls for this). And in the case of Christianity, I would note that there seems to have been a shift in interpretation over the centuries, which may have been guided by influences other than Christianity itself.
Quite the opposite. I am looking for people to refrain from making 100% definitive statements about whether Islamic texts do or do not approve of this kind of violence, unless their knowledge of the subject is great enough for them to do so. It is a principle that I would look to uphold in other areas as well.