“Hating” is unreasonable, and I never defended it.
Denouncing people who want to kill others for religious reasons is perfectly fair.
Rejecting or accepting a book is entirely a personal decision. I, personally, would likely reject a book that contains a strong advocacy of murder.
Denouncing people who advocate killing others for religious reasons is perfectly fair.
At this point, I don’t have any idea what your point is. Can you state it as clearly as possible?
The Koran is vague enough to be interpreted in more than one way. The “kill the infidel” stuff can be taken as “In time of war” or “in self defense” or “if they make war against you.”
Some people put a more moderate interpretation upon the Koran’s instructions. This doesn’t have to be taken as “perverting” the text. Such people might say that those who interpret it too literally are, themselves, in error.
You’re being foolish in demanding that only the ugliest interpretation is correct; that puts you on the same side as the violent extremists whom you would seem to be condemning.
Dude, you’re late to a rather lengthy and in-depth discussion that iiandyiii were engaged in, and I don’t feel like catching you up or rehashing what he and I have discussed. I’m sorry. But if this is what you think I said or meant, you’re woefully missing things. I wish you luck should you endeavor to plow thru our whole discussion and the discussion that prompted it; I have no interest in having it again.
Why do people keep assuming that Jihadists actually read the Quran?
Most of them almost certainly can’t read Quranic Arabic if their lives depended on and it’s extremely difficult in Muslim countries to find the Quran in languages other than Quranic Arabic. In fact in many, if not most, it’s illegal to print Qurans in languages other than Quranic Arabic and by tradition a translation is not considered a Quran.
For anyone wondering, that’s why most English/French/fill-in-the-blank translations will have one page in the appropriate Western language and then one in Quranic Arabic.
Muslims depend on people they recognize as experts to tell them what the Quran says.
and you are just as bad!!!
If you honestly don’t civil rights and safety it is worse in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan than it is in living is some poor struggling country in Africa or eastern Europe then you yourself are not being honest and your opinion is not to be trusted. I have not ever made the claim that bad things happen only in predominately Muslim countries. How could you possibly infer that I would think such a thing? My claim is a Muslim Theocracy is, with certainty, going to take elements of poverty, oppression and strife, and make them worse.
But that’s not a difference. It’s not uncommon at all for the members of religions in general to do horrible things because their religious books clearly demands it. That’s a normal quality of religious fanatics, not anything special about Islam.
Of course not. Religions in general were created by people of the ancient past who were by moderns standards barbarians, therefore it’s not at all surprising that following the commands of barbarians results in barbarism. But again; there’s nothing about that that’s special about Islam. The Christians who kill homosexuals aren’t perverting the Old Testament any more than those Muslims are perverting the Koran.
Of course it will; because it’s a theocracy. And theocracy is simply a rotten way to run a country. But it doesn’t much matter if the guy killing you says he’s doing it for Christ, Allah, Buddha or anyone else; dead is dead.
And what Christian and Buddhist theocracies are there that are comparable to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, or Afghanistan?
You appear to just want to make assertions without evidence.
Civil rights might very well be worse in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan than in Nigeria or Central African Republic. (Although you have failed to demonstrate that this is true.) On the other hand, those are two extreme examples even in regard to Muslim lands. However, your original statement noted that Islam in Westernized countries is fairly benign and drew the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious conclusion that it was Islam that made the Middle Eastern Muslim countries worse. I noted that the locations of the places with really bad records of civil rights and violence seem to determine their levels of violence better than their religion and now you want to move the goalpost by cherry picking two of the worst examples from the Middle East, (note their location), and claiming (without a shred of evidence) that they are clearly worse than some vague and unnamed other places.
In other words, I note that culture tied to geography seems to be a better indicator of violent societies and you simply go back to singling out nations in the same geographical locations and insisting that “religion did it.”
The belief that Islam in Westernized democracies is fairly benign is being a bit presumptuous. All we can say is at this precise moment in time Islam in Western democracies is relatively benign. Even this point is debateable, just ask the people of Rotherham. In a centralised Western State with an Islamic population of 3% or so Islam may well be compatible with liberal ideals; another Western state with a Muslim population of 10% to 20% may turn out to be very different indeed. No-one knows. We have had about one generation or so of significant numbers of Muslims living amongst us in the West. This is too short term a period to jump to any conclusion on the matter.
Plus, I know this is not quite the debate we are having, but the point needs made. That if Islam is to co-exist inWestern states then it is no good always bending over backwards to accomodate it. When we see Islam do wrong in our country we must call it out. Some people will try to exploit this calling out, some will not, yet it must happen.
Religion, specifically the Muslim religion, most definitely makes conditions worse in Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. To assert that it doesn’t is such an absurd proposition that I feel I no need to waste any more time talking to you about this topic.
It can only be applied by one side legitimately. “both sides can use it” applies to every label in the language, but not all uses are legitimate.
It depends on what they do. All holy texts require interpretation… there’s no single way to “follow the word of their god exactly as written”.
Neither are “violent” Muslims. All groups interpret their holy texts. None are “better” at following them than the others.
Because all holy texts require interpretation, even such “basic” sorts of instructions as this. Even this could be interpreted in many different ways.
Violent and non-violent, extreme and moderate, etc.
I think it’s pretty clear – the “something like that” is just the allowance that the meaning and use of the word can very beyond a pinpoint definition.
I still don’t understand this point at all. Racists can call me “racist”; that doesn’t mean the label “racist” isn’t worth anything. There are legitimate and illegitimate uses of these words; and the fact that anyone can use them wrong does not mean they’re not still useful.
no, if the Koran calls for thieves to have their hands cut off, there is no “interpreting” that. it is excessive and violent. pretending that those parts of the Koran don’t exist doesn’t make it a peaceful religion.
They do exist, and similarly violent passages from the Bible and other texts also exist. It’s the interpretation that’s the problem, since this is the case for all religious texts.
Here are some of the different ways in which the “cut off hands” thing is interpreted within Islam.
Interpretations of the Koran or the Bible are the least interesting parts of this whole debate. Anyone can interpret these things in almost any way. The post you linked to suggests the cutting off of the hand is a myth or misinterpretation of the Koran. The problem is literally thousands of Imams are willing to interpret these verses in a more fundamental way. These Imams being far more knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. If many scholars or Imams do not believe in such intolerant interpretations then thats fine, but linking to some liberal Muslim website whilst on Straightdope in no way deals with the problem; the problem of millions of Muslims who are linking to and hearing from the intolerant side of Islam on a daily or hourly basis.
None of this contradicts anything I’ve been saying.
Neither was it meant to. It was meant to suggest that the point you are making bears little relation to the problem of Islam and its relationship to the West.
Okay.
Apologies if my previous post came across as a bit flippant and smart arsey. I do believe though that religious interpretation is best done by religious experts and scholars. That most such texts have things in them that can be interpreted many, many ways. Right now fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran appear to have a worryingly strong appeal in various parts of the globe.