Mosque attacked by Islamists!

[flamingjimmy]

As 'Islamists' have very little to do with the actual religion of Islam it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Islamism has everything to do with Islam. If Islam did not exist, neither would Islamism. Islamism is the ideology that the religion of Islam should be all powerful politically. You cannot separate the two.

 

I wonder (and this is me thinking aloud because I have no idea of figures) how many 'Islamists' have actually read the Quran

A massive proportion, I would say, they tend to to take their religion a little more seriously. The taliban for example, literally train young children directly from thew Quran in justifications for taking horrible actions in the name of Islamism. I've seen videos of this: What evidence do you have for your assertion that they haven't read the Quran other than wishful thinking?

 

If the Sunnah/Hadith (which is what most of the Shariah is made of) contradict the Quran (which some of it does) then it should not be applied as Islamic law.

This is very very easy for Islamists to get round, they just interpret it differently. There is no 1 version of Islam and 1 interpretation of the Quran that all Muslims agree on. There are many different versions and interpretations. On what grounds do you suggest that Islamism is incompatible with Islam? Muhammed himself was certainly an Islamist, who set up a theocracy that lasted hundreds of years. Trying to separate his religious power from his political power is impossible.

 

 

If it is the people doing so are not Muslims as they are putting mans word above the word of God, in Islam such people would be considered (depending on the context) as either polytheists or idol worshippers.

Yes and no true scotsman wears a kilt on thursdays.

[PaliRichard]

Islamism has everything to do with Islam. If Islam did not exist, neither would Islamism. Islamism is the ideology that the religion of Islam should be all powerful politically. You cannot separate the two[/Quote]

 

I want to break down what you're saying because I think you're generalizing.

 

Firstly of course if Islam didn't exist there would be no Islamism, but that does not mean Islamism is a part of Islam. Without meat vegetarianism (as an ideology) wouldn't exist but that doesn't automatically mean the two share the same values.

 

Muslims get labelled as 'moderate' if they want to argue against the ideology of Islamism in a manner that suggests they are not accepting Islam 'properly', that they are being too wishy washy, but in most cases 'moderate' Muslims are simply Muslims, they don't water down the Quran, they simply live by it.

 

Islam is the religion of those who wish to submit to the will of Allah (or as they believe the will of Allah to be), the will of Allah is outlined in the Quran. Islamism as an all encompassing ideology is not compatable with this, from wiki

Leading Islamist thinkers emphasize the enforcement of Sharia (Islamic law); of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be incompatible with Islam[/Quote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism (My bold)

 

The religion of Islam (that being the will of Allah, the Quran) does not ask for the elimination of the non Muslim, it says that (some, the bad ones) people of the book, those who have left Islam and unbelievers will be punished by Allah, not that Muslims should do any eliminating of such people.

 

A massive proportion, I would say, they tend to to take their religion a little more seriously. The taliban for example, literally train young children directly from thew Quran in justifications for taking horrible actions in the name of Islamism. I've seen videos of this: What evidence do you have for your assertion that they haven't read the Quran other than wishful thinking?[/Quote]

 

Taking religion seriously is not the same as being an Islamist. I can't comment on the Taliban but most of those who have what I would say are views 'on the edge' of either Islamism or extremism that I have met spend very little of their time actually directly reading from the Quran. There is a massive trade in Islamic 'scholars' who tour, release dvd's etc who are massively influencial, especially to the 20-40 age group of Muslims and who 'interpret' the Quran on behalf of their followers. I do know (because I have been to the talks/seen the dvd's what these people are peddling) that it is very different to what is in the Quran.

 

Of course this doesn't mean that they don't read the Quran, and I have no 'evidence' of figures, but in my experience among the, shall we say, impressionable, an interpretation by a popular 'scholar' is much more influencial than the book is.

 

This is very very easy for Islamists to get round, they just interpret it differently. There is no 1 version of Islam and 1 interpretation of the Quran that all Muslims agree on[/Quote]

 

I agree.

 

There are many different versions and interpretations[/Quote]

 

There are many interpretations, usually based on what the individual wants to get accross. Islam and Buddhism are very similar in the fact that there are very few 'versions' of the texts and they tend to be quite clear and universal, the differences come when those who wish to veer away from that message can be quite influencial and their followers tend to follow them more than the text itself. A problem we have in the west is that over the last twenty years lots of politically motivated (from both extremes, liberal and Islamist) translations have come out, and the influencial scholars are those very same people who make the translations. The original texts (and good translations) tend not to get as much 'airplay' because they aren't being promoted in the same way.

 

On what grounds do you suggest that Islamism is incompatible with Islam? Muhammed himself was certainly an Islamist, who set up a theocracy that lasted hundreds of years. Trying to separate his religious power from his political power is impossible[/Quote]

 

So what would you suggest? Forcibly remove Islam altogether to get rid of the extremism? I am not a Muslim, I don't agree with everything in the Quran but some people do. For those people we (or more correctly they) have to differentiate between Islamism and Islam. Because Islam is not the hard edged nut case ridden religion imagined by us in the west. Many aspects of 'Islamism' contradict the Quran. Education for, and by Muslims to understand this is what is needed. But if we 'rational' people refuse to make a distinction then 'they' certainly wont. And when all 'they' see is us saying 'Islam is this and that' then the real extremists within Islam say 'Look, this is what the west think of us' and all we do is fuel the flames.

 

We can use rationality to teach the distinction without giving them the idea we are 'out to get them'. The Quran doesn't say 'behead apostates', it says Allah will deal with them in the hereafter, we can educate Muslims so they too understand the distinction and can read the book for themselves without the influence of 'Mad Mac Mahmood' and his latest 'tour' to interpret it for them.

 

We either work with them, ignore them completely or fight against them, which would you prefer?

 

Yes and no true scotsman wears a kilt on thursdays.

 

I wear mine Thursdays, and I look a right bobby dazzler

[MrSmith]

I want to break down what you're saying because I think you're generalizing.

 

Firstly of course if Islam didn't exist there would be no Islamism, but that does not mean Islamism is a part of Islam. Without meat vegetarianism (as an ideology) wouldn't exist but that doesn't automatically mean the two share the same values.

 

Muslims get labelled as 'moderate' if they want to argue against the ideology of Islamism in a manner that suggests they are not accepting Islam 'properly', that they are being too wishy washy, but in most cases 'moderate' Muslims are simply Muslims, they don't water down the Quran, they simply live by it.

 

Islam is the religion of those who wish to submit to the will of Allah (or as they believe the will of Allah to be), the will of Allah is outlined in the Quran. Islamism as an all encompassing ideology is not compatable with this, from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism (My bold)

 

The religion of Islam (that being the will of Allah, the Quran) does not ask for the elimination of the non Muslim, it says that (some, the bad ones) people of the book, those who have left Islam and unbelievers will be punished by Allah, not that Muslims should do any eliminating of such people.

 

 

 

Taking religion seriously is not the same as being an Islamist. I can't comment on the Taliban but most of those who have what I would say are views 'on the edge' of either Islamism or extremism that I have met spend very little of their time actually directly reading from the Quran. There is a massive trade in Islamic 'scholars' who tour, release dvd's etc who are massively influencial, especially to the 20-40 age group of Muslims and who 'interpret' the Quran on behalf of their followers. I do know (because I have been to the talks/seen the dvd's what these people are peddling) that it is very different to what is in the Quran.

 

Of course this doesn't mean that they don't read the Quran, and I have no 'evidence' of figures, but in my experience among the, shall we say, impressionable, an interpretation by a popular 'scholar' is much more influencial than the book is.

 

 

 

I agree.

 

 

 

There are many interpretations, usually based on what the individual wants to get accross. Islam and Buddhism are very similar in the fact that there are very few 'versions' of the texts and they tend to be quite clear and universal, the differences come when those who wish to veer away from that message can be quite influencial and their followers tend to follow them more than the text itself. A problem we have in the west is that over the last twenty years lots of politically motivated (from both extremes, liberal and Islamist) translations have come out, and the influencial scholars are those very same people who make the translations. The original texts (and good translations) tend not to get as much 'airplay' because they aren't being promoted in the same way.

 

 

 

So what would you suggest? Forcibly remove Islam altogether to get rid of the extremism? I am not a Muslim, I don't agree with everything in the Quran but some people do. For those people we (or more correctly they) have to differentiate between Islamism and Islam. Because Islam is not the hard edged nut case ridden religion imagined by us in the west. Many aspects of 'Islamism' contradict the Quran. Education for, and by Muslims to understand this is what is needed. But if we 'rational' people refuse to make a distinction then 'they' certainly wont. And when all 'they' see is us saying 'Islam is this and that' then the real extremists within Islam say 'Look, this is what the west think of us' and all we do is fuel the flames.

 

We can use rationality to teach the distinction without giving them the idea we are 'out to get them'. The Quran doesn't say 'behead apostates', it says Allah will deal with them in the hereafter, we can educate Muslims so they too understand the distinction and can read the book for themselves without the influence of 'Mad Mac Mahmood' and his latest 'tour' to interpret it for them.

 

We either work with them, ignore them completely or fight against them, which would you prefer?

 

 

 

I wear mine Thursdays, and I look a right bobby dazzler

 

All that boils down to different Muslims arguing about who is right about Islam and the interpretation of the Quran. It’s not for one Muslim to say another Muslim is incorrect about their interpretation, so they can't realy be muslims or follow Islam, Christian have done the same, there are many different groups of Christians all with different ideas and interpretation of the Bible, but they are still all Christian. This is the fundamental problem with all religions, they simply cannot reach a consensus about their Gods.

[PaliRichard]

All that boils down to different Muslims arguing about who is right about Islam and the interpretation of the Quran. It’s not for one Muslim to say another Muslim is incorrect about their interpretation, so they can't realy be muslims or follow Islam[/Quote]

 

I'll break this first part into two answers.

 

First, I will ask you a counter question, if it's just a case of 'they're all equally right' how do you suggest we handle the extreme elements? This isn't rhetorical, I'm not going to ask you this with a pre prepared answer on my part. Do we just let them, including the extreme elements get on with it? Do we try to somehow, whether that be through pursuasion or elemination get rid of Islam altogether? Are there any other options?

 

Second, I think one Muslim can say another is incorrect. This is where education comes in. If (and it is) it is blatantly evident that some Muslims are trying to force on their brethren (or non believers) elements from the Hadith/Sunnah (or just their own mind) that blatantly contradict the Quran, it can be shown, with education, that this is not the Islamic way. I keep saying it over and over on thread after thread though that simply saying your wrong only serves one purpose, and that is to fuel the fires of hatred. It is possible to use the scriptures themselves to educate people into where they are reading it incorrectly, this isn't saying 'Islam is wrong', it's saying let's look at it and see what it actually says, weigh it up and think about it, but most importantly of all, weigh it up and think about it using your own scripture because it is solid enough to do that with.

 

Christian have done the same, there are many different groups of Christians all with different ideas and interpretation of the Bible, but they are still all Christian

 

Christians are different though, and I don't want to offend anyone because I have many Christian friends but this is the crux of the matter. The Quran (as well as most other religious texts) are reasonably straightforward. It changes when people seek to change it for their own purpose, but to read the text there isn't really that much room for interpretation, it pretty much does what it says on the tin.

 

Of all the major religions their is only Christianity that differs in this respect. The Christian texts themselves are interpretation, and the amalgamating of the Christian Bible was very much a work of political formulation. A basic reading of the texts shows there inconsistancy and the central tenats of Christianity largely post date the texts. So those that were included were chosen to adhere to a particular agenda.

 

Because of the range of those texts it allows a wider scope of interpretation. The central teachings of Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Sikhism and Hinduism all centre around the core principles of the faiths, but because those core principles in Christianity were largely absent at the time the texts were written it is very difficult to find a common binding. That's not to say all those other faiths agree on every point, but it is easier to 'pick out' the additions/changes because the core principles are much more deeply ingrained in the texts themselves. It also doesn't mean that we can draw a clear line of authorship and authenticity to those other texts, but the 'message' is clear without having to read between the lines.

 

This is the fundamental problem with all religions, they simply cannot reach a consensus about their Gods.[/Quote]

 

Alas this is the fundamental difficulty with any group of humans with any ideology. Ten people, ten interpretations. The point I'm making is that the core of some of those ideologies can be easily understood and 'wayward', or contradictory interpretations pointed out. This is the case with Islam, it is relatively easy to take the Quran and some of the more extreme ideas in 'Islamism' and show that they are not compatable.

[MrSmith]

I'll break this first part into two answers.

 

First, I will ask you a counter question, if it's just a case of 'they're all equally right' how do you suggest we handle the extreme elements? This isn't rhetorical, I'm not going to ask you this with a pre prepared answer on my part. Do we just let them, including the extreme elements get on with it? Do we try to somehow, whether that be through pursuasion or elemination get rid of Islam altogether? Are there any other options?

 

Second, I think one Muslim can say another is incorrect. This is where education comes in. If (and it is) it is blatantly evident that some Muslims are trying to force on their brethren (or non believers) elements from the Hadith/Sunnah (or just their own mind) that blatantly contradict the Quran, it can be shown, with education, that this is not the Islamic way. I keep saying it over and over on thread after thread though that simply saying your wrong only serves one purpose, and that is to fuel the fires of hatred. It is possible to use the scriptures themselves to educate people into where they are reading it incorrectly, this isn't saying 'Islam is wrong', it's saying let's look at it and see what it actually says, weigh it up and think about it, but most importantly of all, weigh it up and think about it using your own scripture because it is solid enough to do that with.

 

 

 

Christians are different though, and I don't want to offend anyone because I have many Christian friends but this is the crux of the matter. The Quran (as well as most other religious texts) are reasonably straightforward. It changes when people seek to change it for their own purpose, but to read the text there isn't really that much room for interpretation, it pretty much does what it says on the tin.

 

Of all the major religions their is only Christianity that differs in this respect. The Christian texts themselves are interpretation, and the amalgamating of the Christian Bible was very much a work of political formulation. A basic reading of the texts shows there inconsistancy and the central tenats of Christianity largely post date the texts. So those that were included were chosen to adhere to a particular agenda.

 

Because of the range of those texts it allows a wider scope of interpretation. The central teachings of Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Sikhism and Hinduism all centre around the core principles of the faiths, but because those core principles in Christianity were largely absent at the time the texts were written it is very difficult to find a common binding. That's not to say all those other faiths agree on every point, but it is easier to 'pick out' the additions/changes because the core principles are much more deeply ingrained in the texts themselves. It also doesn't mean that we can draw a clear line of authorship and authenticity to those other texts, but the 'message' is clear without having to read between the lines.

 

 

 

Alas this is the fundamental difficulty with any group of humans with any ideology. Ten people, ten interpretations. The point I'm making is that the core of some of those ideologies can be easily understood and 'wayward', or contradictory interpretations pointed out. This is the case with Islam, it is relatively easy to take the Quran and some of the more extreme ideas in 'Islamism' and show that they are not compatable.

 

It’s just arrogant to say that your interpretation of a 1400 year old book is correct whist someone else’s interpretation is wrong and there are many Muslims in many countries that would say you are wrong.

[PaliRichard]

It’s just arrogant to say that your interpretation of a 1400 year old book is correct whist someone else’s interpretation is wrong and there are many Muslims in many countries that would say you are wrong.

 

Most Muslims don't disagree on the Quran. The difficulty in Islam lies with those who wish to highlight, or create a particular political viewpoint and use the Hadith or Sunnah to try to make that point. My point here is that in Islam, according to Islam (and virtually every Muslim regardless of motivation) the Quran is the word of God, the other Islamic texts aren't. Those 'radical' Muslims in most cases use those other texts to justify their opinions, some of which contradict the Quran, but they are teaching their own ideology in the guise of Islam.

 

If you put some of what they are saying side by side with the Quran it is blatantly obvious it doesn't work together, but they don't 'teach' by doing that. They teach by highlighting their own opinion and taking 'snippets' of the Quran (or larger parts of the hadith) to authenticate it.

 

All 'extreme' (or alternative/cult) elements of all religions work in the same way, they isolate parts that 'appear' to back up their claims and basically brainwash people.

[MrSmith]

Most Muslims don't disagree on the Quran. The difficulty in Islam lies with those who wish to highlight, or create a particular political viewpoint and use the Hadith or Sunnah to try to make that point. My point here is that in Islam, according to Islam (and virtually every Muslim regardless of motivation) the Quran is the word of God, the other Islamic texts aren't. Those 'radical' Muslims in most cases use those other texts to justify their opinions, some of which contradict the Quran, but they are teaching their own ideology in the guise of Islam.

 

If you put some of what they are saying side by side with the Quran it is blatantly obvious it doesn't work together, but they don't 'teach' by doing that. They teach by highlighting their own opinion and taking 'snippets' of the Quran (or larger parts of the hadith) to authenticate it.

 

All 'extreme' (or alternative/cult) elements of all religions work in the same way, they isolate parts that 'appear' to back up their claims and basically brainwash people.

 

Give over they've been killing each other for centuries over their disagreements.

[PaliRichard]

Give over they've been killing each other for centuries over their disagreements.

 

I never said they haven't.

 

I said that those disagreements for the most part don't centre around the interpretation of the Quran, they centre around the ideology surrounding the implementation of the Shariah which for the most part is based on the Hadith and Sunnah.

[MrSmith]

I never said they haven't.

 

I said that those disagreements for the most part don't centre around the interpretation of the Quran, they centre around the ideology surrounding the implementation of the Shariah which for the most part is based on the Hadith and Sunnah.

 

Islam, the Arabic word Sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life. The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur’an. Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them.

 

It would be impossible to understand all of the verses of the Qur’an without referring to the Sunnah of the Prophet

 

http://www.croydonmosque.com

[PaliRichard]

Islam, the Arabic word Sunnah has come to denote the way Prophet Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Allah, lived his life. The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur’an. Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them.

 

It would be impossible to understand all of the verses of the Qur’an without referring to the Sunnah of the Prophet

 

http://www.croydonmosque.com

 

Indeed, but you seem to have missed the point. The Sunnah (and Hadith) should be used to augment the Quran. The misuse of the supplementary texts is to elevate them above the Quran, which is what the Islamists do, and I have repeatedly pointed out to you.

 

I never said the Hadith and Sunnah were redundant in Islam, I never said Muslims didn't disagree, you don't seem to be addressing the point I am making but you do seem on being insistant on trying to raise new points that I have not taken issue with.