Naw, you glossed over my contribution, in which I show you that hate is not limited to Islam, nor to the Netherlands, so I’ll just start glossing over your’s.
But think of the CHILDREN! :rolleyes:
Originally posted by DMC
See post # 65.
Don’t forget your glasses, dear.
Oh and: Do think of the children. When you’re an old granny, they might wanna hear how it was in the good old days. Before they threw gays of off buildings and when auntie Emma still had her clitoris. :rolleyes:
My point is exactly that terrorists, who change AQ to make it fit their use of it for defending their methods, do not fit the description you come up with at all.
They change not only the meaning of the texts, they change while they are at it the whole set of principles that are the foundation of Islam.
Show me for example one verse where killing innocent civilians is a command, is condoned, is required.
The same with sects and individuals who do this to defend oppression of women or to defend whatever fits their particular agenda or worldview.
Salaam. A
Braintree,
I ask you ince again to come up with proof that paedophiles are out on having sex with camels when there are no children available to rape.
While you are at it you can then also come up with your proof that especially Afghani peadophiles have developed a habit to replace having sex with children with having sex with camels.
If you cannot give proof of this then I think it is only normal to expect that you explain yourself about why you come up with this story.
Salaam. A
It does, however, fit the frickin’ dictionary definition of the term. Here it is again.
Let’s go through this slowly. You tell me what part of it doesn’t apply to Al Qaeda.
“A usually religious movement or point of view” - self-evident, I think.
“characterized by a return to fundamental principles,” - not ‘characterized by an accurate interpretation of the Qu’ran that is not twisted to suit their ends.’ Just fundamental principles.
“by rigid adherence to those principles,” - again, the principles do not have to be based on perfect understanding of the Qu’ran. Their adherence to their principles is certainly rigid enough.
“and often by intolerance of other views” - a huge understatement.
“and opposition to secularism.” - ditto.
Yes, I get that.
Did I ever say it was? No. I think you’re resorting to the ‘you hate Muslims’ tactic you use so often. Please don’t bother.
I would guess the reason you don’t see too many Muslims challenging the Quran publicly is because they’ve grown attached to their heads.
Salmon Rushdie wrote a fictional book and was sentenced to death because it was deemed insulting. Falwell stuck his foot in his mouth and started a deadly riot half way around the world that killed 5 people. His apology was accepted by some but he still faces Sheik Zuheir Jaaed’s opinion (deputy head of the Islamic Ulama Gathering) who said: “one cannot insult the prophet, then apologize.”
The closest thing I’ve seen to a challenge of the faith was an interview of a Lesbian Muslim (yes, they exist). I doubt she would be popular in very many Middle Eastern Countries.
When we get to statements saying “Most Muslims are fundamentalists,” it’s time for caution about the slipperiness of terms we apply to people.
One meaning of “fundamentalist” that’s been invoked in this thread is “someone who believes in their scripture being the infallible word of God.”
Another meaning invoked here is “someone who preaches hatred and intolerance toward others, and wants to impose this interpretation of religion by force.”
I hope it’s clear that these two definitions are not at all the same, that they are so different as to stretch the word they share in common to the breaking point. The danger is that by applying the first definition as almost a blanket description of the majority of Muslims wordwide, one will imply that the second definition likewise holds for the majority. So I think it’s necessary to sound the caution and ask whether anyone really wants to imply this. Caution about a possible logical fallacy in extending a description of a small minority of a community to cover the community as a whole. Since the second definition of “fundamentalist” describes a condition abhorrent to liberal secular folks like the majority of Dopers, it could be used to incite feelings of disgust toward the Muslims of the world at large, which I think they do not deserve.
If anyone would take the time to talk to a wide range of real Muslim people, and peruse the lively internal discussions and debates on the future of the religion going on among Muslims worldwide, you would observe (as I have observed) that the activities of al-Qa‘idah are widely abhorred and a great many Muslims are seeking ways to not have this kind of sickness infesting Islam. The example of the ugly imam in the Netherlands being connected to al-Qa‘idah being a case in point. Even Saudi Arabian officialdom, which has been sponsoring Wahhabi indoctrination around the world, rejects such loathesome teachings. Saudi Arabia has a lot to answer for about its role in spreading Wahhabism, but there are signs that this internal debate has even reached Saudis, forcing them to question their former attitudes and actions.
Just want to note that when Wahhabism first appeared in the 18th century, it was roundly rejected and denounced by all mainstream Islamic scholars, clerics, and imams as a vile heresy. Wahhabism has no valid claim on being mainstream Islam. However, it was promoted enthusiastically by many Europeans at the time because it attacked the Ottoman Empire. What did they care if some extremist Muslim crazies in the Arabian desert killed other Muslims? It was no skin off their white backs. Similar logic led the Reagan administration to provide arms and funds to Hikmatyar, Usamah bin Ladin, and other extremist crazies fighting the Soviets in the 1980s. When will people learn that what goes around comes around?
Going even further back in history, many medieval Europeans believed the Mongols were the Christian forces of Prester John, sent by God to smite the evil Muslims. Tell that to the Christians in places like Kraków, Poland, who found out firsthand what the Mongols were really like.
My point is that Wahhabism is bad for Muslims, bad for westerners, bad for everybody, no matter who they are, and it does not represent any mainstream or traditional interpretation of Islam, no matter how many petrodollars the Saudis have spent to promote it.
You’re probably correct. I’m sure that parents who send their kids to the “Sunday School of Hate and Death to Gays (and Jews and who knows who else)” once a week probably teach them love and tolerance the other six days.
The point you seem to miss is that hatred is not a Muslim thing. You can find it (including the type that wishes death upon homosexuals) in many religions. There are likely even some atheists that are just as hateful.
Yes, most Muslims denounce homosexuality as a sin, even the non-fanatics, but the same is true for most Christians. If you wish to denounce those who are intolerant of homosexuals, I’m right there with you. If you wish to tar Islam as being the one true religion of evil, I’m not.
I don’t think so, unless you accept that they indeed crated their own very personal and deviating version of an existing religion which has in its by them invented new fundamental principles nothing to see anymore with the fundamental principles of that existing religion.
Where do you miss the part where I say that they do not (read: NOT) adhere to the fundamental principles of Islam. One can not “return” to what is not there to begin with.
Once again: They show a complete disregard for the fundamental principles of Islam. Why does it seems to be so difficult for you to understand this?
Yes, to their own principles indeed.
These are not (read NOT) the fundamental principles of Islam. Is this now clear enough or what is still unclear to you about this?
You say you “get it” that I write: *They change not only the meaning of the texts, they change while they are at it the whole set of principles that are the foundation of Islam. *|
At the same time you defend your positon that they indeed “return to the fundamental principles of Islam”.
?
No, I do nothing of the kind. I ask you to give proof of your claim that people who follow the politics of AQ or defend them “have returned and adhere to the fundamental principles of Islam”. The same counts for your claim that sects like the Wahabbis (or their most recent offspin the Mad Taliban) are “fundamentlist Muslims”.
Give for example the Quranic instruction that women can’t drive a car, can’t travel on their own, must cover themselves as if they are walking tents etc…
It is like JM said: Idiots like the Wahabbis are not seen as even remotely representing Islam and they never were even remotely seen as such.
It is not because the West in recent history found reasons to support members of this meaningless sect and now puts all of a sudden its focus on what this group propagates (and still can propagate with the clear and open knowledge and support of the West) that the West by focussing on these delusional idiots has an idea of the global Muslim mindset among the global Muslim population.
Thanks to the West the land where Islam has its origin - and hence where my family has its origin, which has a significant meaning for me personally - could be taken hostage by these raving lunatics. Thanks to the West they terrorize Islam (and its reputation and its teachings) with their delusion of power that has its foundation in Western lust for global economic power.
Salaam. A
Either because I’m an idiot or because the fundamental principles of Islam - and I know that murder isn’t one of them - don’t matter in this argument.
I’ve never said they were the fundamental principles of Islam, and if you read carefully you’d have noticed that by now. I said TWICE in that post that they were not following the fundamental principles of Islam. The phrase was “fundamental principles.” Not ‘accurate interpretations,’ not ‘the principles of the religion.’ Just fundamental principles. Get it?
I never said that once, so I don’t know how you can claim I’m defending it now.
My claim and everybody else’s.
It’s not necessary for me to do so because that’s completely irrelevant. I’ve asked you again and again what these people are if not fundamentalists. I even clearly defined fundamentalism, and you’re picking at things that don’t come into the definition. I never said the Qu’ran or mainstream Muslims support the things these people do, I know that’s not the case. Are you trying to tell me their actions have nothing at all to do with Islam?
I fucking know that, Alde, although it seems you’ve yet again assumed you’re arguing with a racist or an Islamophobe.
I love this guy’s attitude. He wants to know where I get off maintaining that a bunch of pedophiles are camel fuckers presumably because this somehow damages their good name. Next thing you know, Aldebaran’s going to become president of the Afghan pedophile antidefamation league. Well, he’s certainly got my vote.
Really.
I love it the way you try to avoid answering a simple question because by answering it you must expose your bigotry.
Don’t try to twist my posts and the intentions behind them. My question has in fact nothing to do with the sexual preferences of the people you refer to, but with what is behind your bigotted racism as expressed in the words you use to describe them because you talk about Afghans.
So I ask you: Do you actually claim that every pedophile has a preference for sex with camels when there are no children around to get raped by them, or do you claim that only Afghan pedophiles develop such preference.
I ask you further to deliver proof that they do (all the pedophiles or only the Afghani).
What is so difficult about answering that?
What I know is that you have no answer to my question because there is no other answer then admitting that you were driven by your own bigotry.
Making stupid remarks about the one who asks you to explain yourself is not very helpful to your case.
Salaam. A
You are the one who came up with this definition:
*1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. *
So your definition, which has “characterized by return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles” in its description… does not matter in this argument? Then why do you use it?
You said you follow your definition; that is why I pointed out that you argue against yourself.
Read my posts again and what I repeat here under
They do not have any characteristic of fundamental principles as outlined in Al Qur’an or in Isam in general, hence they could not “return” to such fundamental principles since they have no foundation on fundamental principles hence they can not “rigidly adhere” to fundamental principles from which they do not show any characteristic of.
So what “fundamental principles” other then the fundamental principles of Al Qur’an and islamic teachings do you refer to?
Do you?
In my opinion they could have taken the Bible and come to the same result, yet th.
I never said that. Why do you react so over-sensitive here?
I only brought up the Lunatical Wahabbis to make it clear that whatever people who are not familiar with Islam say about them, they are not “fundamentalists” in the sense of living “by the word of Al Qur’an and Islamic teachings” but merely a little sect that in fact is as far away from having a clear view at Islamic teachings as my cat is.
The same with the Mad Taliban and the same with every other lunatic from whom people say that their habit of terrorizing and killing people means “fundamentalism” for Islam.
Salaam. A
You are the one who came up with this definition:
*1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. *
So your definition, which has “characterized by return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles” in its description… does not matter in this argument? Then why do you use it?
You said you follow your definition; that is why I pointed out that you argue against yourself.
Read my posts again and what I repeat here under
** They do not have any characteristic of fundamental principles as outlined in Al Qur’an or in Isam in general. Hence they could not “return” to such fundamental principles since they have no foundation on fundamental principles. Hence they can not “rigidly adhere” to fundamental principles from which they do not show any characteristic of.**
So what “fundamental principles” other then the fundamental principles of Al Qur’an and islamic teachings do you refer to?
Do you ?
If you find it “irrelevant” to give proof that they rely indeed on fundamental principles of Islam, you have no case.
??? I followed your definition to give you proof that it doesn’t apply.
I didn’t say you do.
I didn’t say that either. I said: (putting while re-reading dyslex in coma:) Maybe it is clearer now…)
" They indeed created their own very personal and deviating version of an existing religion. That version has in its - by them invented - new fundamental principles nothing to see anymore with the fundamental principles of the existing religion they looked at to get started."
In my opinion they could have taken the Bible to come to the same set of idiotic reasonings, yet that would not work when dealing with Muslims, no?
I never said that. Why do you react so over-sensitive here?
I only brought up the Lunatical Wahabbis to make it clear that whatever people who are not familiar with Islam say about them, they are not “fundamentalists” in the sense of living “by the word of Al Qur’an and Islamic teachings” but merely a little sect that in fact is as far away from having a clear view at Islamic teachings as my cat is.
The same with the Mad Taliban and the same with every lunatic from whom people who have no knowledge of Islam say that their habit of terrorizing and killing people means “fundamentalism” for Islam.
Salaam. A
Sorry for the double posts… must have touched some button here while re-reading (and playing with some colouring… That is the fault of my children)
I recommend reading the second post because I don’t think the first is finished…
No, the good people at www.dictionary.com use it, borrowing the defintion from the American Heritage Dictionary. Merriam-Webster defines fundamentalism as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.” A bit more vague in that it doesn’t mention religion. The Oxford English Dictionary goes further:
"a. A religious movement, which orig. became active among various Protestant bodies in the United States after the war of 1914-1918, based on strict adherence to certain tenets (e.g. the literal inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith; the beliefs of this movement; opp. liberalism and modernism.
1923 Daily Mail 24 May 8 Mr. William Jennings Bryan…has been exerting the full force of his great eloquence in a campaign on behalf of what is termed ‘Fundamentalism’. 1925 K. LAKE Relig. Yesterday & To-morrow 63 There has been in America some surprise at the sudden rise of Fundamentalism in the last five years. 1927 Observer 5 June 5/3 Fundamentalism and the Klux Klan are signs of alarm on behalf of the older ideals. 1955 Times 25 Aug. 14/1 ‘Fundamentalism’…appears to have been used first in connexion with the (American) Northern Baptist Convention of 1920 to describe the more conservative delegates who desired ‘to restate, reaffirm, and re-emphasize the fundamentals of our New Testament faith’. Ibid., Now ‘fundamentalism’…appears to describe the bigoted rejection of all Biblical criticism, a mechanical view of inspiration and an excessively literalist interpretation of scripture.
b. In other religions, esp. Islam, a similarly strict adherence to ancient or fundamental doctrines, with no concessions to modern developments in thought or customs."
Take it up with them. I agree with you that these people have twisted Islam to their own purposes. Christian fundamentalists do the same thing all the time, and people at this board complain about it all the time. Why you think the term doesn’t apply to the comparable schools of thought in Islam I don’t know. I’ve gone out of my way not to insult other Muslims by association.
Of course it would work; Fred Phelps and many other people do it. It just happens to not be the case here.
I don’t have anything to say to this one, I just wanted to preserve for emphasis that you’re calling someone else over-sensitive. You say later in your post that
It’s not true that I have “no knowledge” of Islam, so how did I come to this conclusion? Why are you even bringing it up if you say that I never made this argument?
Thank you, Clarence Darrow. I see it’s impossible to pull the wool over your eyes.
Look, I have repeatedly explained that my remark was just a cheap wisecrack at the expense of pedophiles. I was not seriously maintaining that they’re actually out fucking camels — hell, now that I think of it, I’m not sure if Afghanistan even has camels, although it is next to Iran which, I believe, does.
And, of course, the point of my previous post — which I see that I’m going to have to explain to our friend the scholar here — is that, if someone’s already a know pedophile, it’s really impossible to damage their reputation further by calling them a camel fucker. The camel reference was just to give it a little local color.
I’ll tell you what, Aldebaran. If you want to attack me again, here’s what I’d like to see you do: I’d like to see you repeat my explanation in such a way that I can recognize it as my own. So far all you’ve been able to come up with are a bunch of distorted caricatures that really don’t stike me as being all that familiar. Of course, if you quoted me accurately, it would be a lot more difficult to go on feeling self-righteous and victimized, so I’m fairly confident that that’s not going to happen.
I shall make this easy and leave the Lanatic Wahabbis and the Mad taliban out of the picture.
What are the “ancient or fundamental doctrines” of Islam people like OBL and his followers (=terroristic lunatics claiming to be Muslim) show “strictly adherence” to?
Who said I refered to you personally? I did not. I said explicitely that I refer to “people” unfamiliar with Islam = in general.
I think this whole argument turns around the point that you think that the sayings and actions of terrorists who are wrongly named “Islamic” terrorists (the word Islamic alone indicates one can not be a murderer of innocent people to begin with or you are not acting Islamic) have something to do with Islamic teachings and fundamental principles and doctrines.
Read this, once again :
They have not.
Salaam. A
You were responding to a post of mine, and there are only two people talking to you in this thread at this point. Your condescending tone and your previous remarks make it clear to me you don’t think I know anything about Islam.
[quote]
I think this whole argument turns around the point that you think that the sayings and actions of terrorists who are wrongly named “Islamic” terrorists (the word Islamic alone indicates one can not be a murderer of innocent people to begin with or you are not acting Islamic) have something to do with Islamic teachings and fundamental principles and doctrines.
I’m on the verge of bashing my head open on the desk here, Aldebaran. I never said they did. I have said MULTIPLE TIMES IN ALL OF MY POSTS TO THIS THREAD that that is not the case. I have provided you with three different dictionary definitions of fundamentalism that have all made this same point clear. I’m bored as hell of saying it at this point; it’s very frustrating to try to communicate with you.
Have you heard of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy? I forgot about it, but you’ve used to an incredible extent in this thread. Like I said many posts ago, by your selective definition fundamentalists don’t exist, and I think most people who aren’t you would agree that’s not the case. The Taliban practice a perverted version of Islam, but to say it isn’t Islam at all doesn’t make sense. Do they think Allah is the one god? Do they think Muhammad is his prophet? Are they opposed to drinking alcohol and eating pork? Do they fast during Ramadan? I’m pretty sure they do, so they’re not freaking Hindus…
Sorry, not familiar with that name and it is said that I have “feminin” eyelashes, yes = long ones… Yet that does not make them turn into wooly things that cover my sight.
Yes, it was cheap indeed and not refering to the average Western pedophile.
Afghanistan must have still a few camels left.
Well, I am not a scholar in peadophiles and their weird habits…
I agree that no matter what is said about them can in no way damage their reputation more then being what they are. (champagne, we agree on something).
It was however the local colour in your remark that made my quills rise.
That is difficult. I have already enough difficulties to recognize what I write as my own.
Which makes me happy for you.
You would make me the same if you would then accept my apologies for making you feel a stranger inside your own self.
I have difficulties in reading this… Does not strike me as being all that familiar.
Except for being a victim… But that has to do with a self-sought real life situation named marriage.
Salaam. A