plekhanov Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Quite simply Plek, I regard a law as relevant in discussion if it is enforceable by some authority today. The state introduced the laws and they were indeed inspired or based on Islamic teachings from the Qur'an and may even have taken Hadith into account. The law is pointless if doesn't apply without an enforcing authority. Seeing as the law on apostasy is enforced by authorities today then by you own standard then it is relevant is it not? But even if it wasn't the fact that substantial numbers of muslims in other polities have demonstrated both through surveys and campaigns (be they violent or peaceful) a desire to impose their understanding to Islam inclusive of the apostasy law upon others then that law is still part of Islam. Just as the fact that hard-line European Christians haven't been successful in reversing laws decriminalising homosexuality doesn't mean that there is no homophobia in Christianity. The Afghanistan issue or others you mention are groups of people such as extremist Taliban and such like who wish to set up a state that is modelled on the Caliphate Islamic state. They have no authority over any Muslims other than the political area they control, and their expansion is being challenged by other Muslims such as the conflict in Pakistan. Wrong, the recent sentence of death apostasy was handed down by the 'moderate' successor to the Taliban. If you'd read the reports I linked to instead of trying to pretend they don't exist you might have known this. I find it disingenuous to call them true believing Islamists when the majority opposing them is ignored as a irrelevance. They 'truly believe' don't they? How then can you object to them being described as 'true believers'? The extremists don't represent the whole of the Muslim world and to base judgement of all Muslims on these fanatics in wrong and unfair. I never said they did, why can't you respond to what I actually post instead of strawmen of their own invention? Why do you have to be so continually dishonest? I have never said the trouble makers don't exist Yes you did, you repeatedly denied that there was any imposition of coercive Islamic laws be it on apostasy and flatly denied that coercive Islamic laws were imposed today. You were absolutely denying that the murderous Islamists be they vigilantes or in formal positions of power exist. and I along with majority of the Muslims oppose their pipe dream of a Caliphate style of an Islamic state where they appoint themselves as the head of such a state. On what grounds do you claim that most muslims oppose the idea of an Islamic state? Even if a majority do it’s still entirely possible for a very substantial minority to favour Isamic rule. We differ only in the view that I don’t blame Islam for it but those people who do wrong. It all comes back to political control where the resentment sewn by invasions and external meddling has lead to radicalisation of a population determined to fight the invaders. The unifying call for them is that they are being attacked because they are Muslims, and the American trigger happy attitude has lead to confirming just that. The problem therefore isn't what Islam is teaching them but what life experience of loved ones being blown to bits by outsiders is teaching them. That is simple unadulterated hate of the perpetrators of their misery. We differ in lots of ways, I for example don’t continually lie and accuse people of being BNP supporters just because they oppose Islam. Anyway you are posing a false dilemma; the existence of other factors doesn’t magically absolve Islam of all blame for the actions of Islamists who give every indication that they are doing what they do because it accords with what they believe Islam demands of them. It is entirely possible for an Islamist to be motivated both by Islam and amongst other things American foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Not quite. (my bold) Suicide, and suicide bombing is expressly forbidden in Islam, so is taking the lives of non-legitimate targets, and non-legitimate targets in a time of war, (eg the elderly, women and children) therefore their actions are directly contradicting the scriptures. As I have argued before:- These crackpot coward teachers who teach these gullible youths that Jannath (Paradise) awaits them, and their "72 virgins" should surely be "leading from the front", and pushing their way forward, in order to destroy themselves, rather than shoving these kids in front, and leading from the back? They are "expressly forbidden" in your understanding of Islam, large numbers of other Muslims obviously have a very different understanding of Islam. According to a 2005 Pew Research Survey in the following Muslim Majority countries support amongst Muslims for; Suicide bombings and other acts violence of against civilian targets in defence of Islam was at the following levels: ________Often/ ________Sometimes__Rarely__Never__DK Jordan____57_________31_____11____1 Lebanon__39_________19______33___10 Pakistan__25_________19______46___10 Indonesia_15_________18______66___1 Turkey___14_________6_______66____13 Morocco _13_________5_______79____3 The notion that Islam and suicide bombing are compatible seems rather widespread amongst Muslims does it not? Isn't it rather arrogant of you to declare that you are the one true arbiter of what is and isn't approved Islam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 You're all just as 'true' as each other to me, who are you to say that their interpretation of Islam is wrong and yours isn't? A. Because they really are 'true' believers, just like you, and just like Grahame, they really do believe what they believe. Also, according to a poll conducted by the Guardian approximately half of British muslims think that in some situations, killing someone in the name of religion is justified: That's a scary stat to me. And it it not a viewpoint held by a fringe minority, it is held by just under half of British Muslims, very much a mainstream opinion within Islam. I would argue the point about the emboldened bit:- Firstly, it's the answer from half of those polled- not half of the Muslims in the UK.. Secondly, we do not know how the initial question was phrased when put to the people polled. eg a>> Was English their first language? (IE could they reasonably be expected to understand the question and its implications?) b>> Was the question worded ambiguously? c>>was it a leading question, where you could only answer "Y"es or "No" or one to which they could give an answer in justification of their response? d>> Was the question asked of the respondents the same question as reported back? Thirdly, was the cross-section of respondents representative, or did the people carrying out the poll deliberately seek out those they expected to have a controversial viewpoint? To have a poll that reasonably reflects the viewpoint of demographic X, Y, or Z, you have to take into consideration all these points and more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Sorry, I hit send before I was finished (Above) There are circumstances where *I*, as someone who is quite pacifist, would agree that it may be right to take another's life. (EG in a Kill-or-Be-Killed situation) That does not equate to me saying "The taking of life is 'right' or 'acceptable'." What I am saying is that I can look at certain situations and evaluate that someone might find it necessary to take a life, willingly or unwillingly, in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 They are "expressly forbidden" in your understanding of Islam, large numbers of other Muslims obviously have a very different understanding of Islam. According to a 2005 Pew Research Survey in the following Muslim Majority countries support amongst Muslims for; Suicide bombings and other acts violence of against civilian targets in defence of Islam was at the following levels: ________Often/ ________Sometimes__Rarely__Never__DK Jordan____57_________31_____11____1 Lebanon__39_________19______33___10 Pakistan__25_________19______46___10 Indonesia_15_________18______66___1 Turkey___14_________6_______66____13 Morocco _13_________5_______79____3 The notion that Islam and suicide bombing are compatible seems rather widespread amongst Muslims does it not? Isn't it rather arrogant of you to declare that you are the one true arbiter of what is and isn't approved Islam? I have somewhat answered your point in the post I was composing as you posted yours. In Christianity, amonst the ten commandments is a commandment which says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". Now how does one interpret that? Can it be more unambiguous than "don't". Or do we take the Bill Clinton stance? ("eatin' aint cheatin!"?) or "it's ok so long as we use contraception? or it's ok so long as the wife doesn't find out? or "It's ok for us to cheat on our partners because we are both consenting adults!" My interpretation of that is, no nonsense... "Don't go 'boffing' someone who isn't your partner. be faithful!" In the Qur'an, the rules are laid down for waging warfare. (I'll focus on warfare, here) The Scriptures clearly say a combatant in war can only take the life of another legitimate combatant. You cannot take the life of women, children or the elderly. You cannot destroy crops or livestock. you cannot attack a non-legitimate target. Suicide is also expressly forbidden. It states that paradise is closed to the person who commits suicide. (Yes I accept that some people may have an illness or depression that may cause them to kill themselves, but I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about taking a whole market-place with you) Again, those rules are quite unambiguous. "You can only kill another soldier, in a time of war. You can't take civilians' lives, you can't kill women and children, or the elderly, nor can you destroy livestock or crops..." No-one should need a dictionary to understand or interpret that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Do you have any knowledge of this poll whatsoever PT, and any basis for your criticism? Or was that just a kneejerk reaction because you don't like the results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 <snip desperate evasion> And you have the one true understanding of Islam do you? Can you show us any documentation to prove that you've been appointed the ultimate authority on a religion held by over a billion people? Until you can do the above you can set out why you think your understanding of Islam all you like that won't change the fact that lots of other muslims disagree with you and act on their differing beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The Scriptures clearly say a combatant in war can only take the life of another legitimate combatant. Islamists get around that easily by interpreting 'legitimate combatant' however they want. Suicide is also expressly forbidden. It states that paradise is closed to the person who commits suicide.They get around that easily by calling it martyrdom instead of suicide. Again, those rules are quite unambiguous. "You can only kill another soldier, in a time of war. You can't take civilians' lives, you can't kill women and children, or the elderly, nor can you destroy livestock or crops..." No-one should need a dictionary to understand or interpret that. Like I said, they get around this by defining 'soldier' or 'legitimate combatant' however they want. The way in which they twist and ignore the scripture to suit their worldview is only the same as the way I imagine you do about what the Quran says about homosexuals. 'Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Pretty unambiguous too, yet I'm sure you don't regard homosexuality is a 'transgression [against God, I presume] beyond bounds', right? The Hadith gets even worse: "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Do you have any knowledge of this poll whatsoever PT, and any basis for your criticism? Or was that just a kneejerk reaction because you don't like the results? Sorry, Jimmy, the thread has now descended into confusion:- the answer I was giving, was to the earlier comments about the UK poll which said that "half UK Muslims said...", and Plek has suddenly brought in another poll about Middle Eastern countries, which has now utterly muddied the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Sorry, Jimmy, the thread has now descended into confusion:- the answer I was giving, was to the earlier comments about the UK poll which said that "half UK Muslims said...", and Plek has suddenly brought in another poll about Middle Eastern countries, which has now utterly muddied the water. It's ok, I think we're still just about on the same page, that's the one I meant anyway "the half UK Muslims polled said...(not just said:thumbsup:). I was wondering what it was that led you to question it? Do you have a reason to believe it was conducted poorly, or is it just because you didn't like what it turned out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.