What's happened to Islam?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think we've got an issue with statistics here. there are 1bn muslims, right? so, if as you say, 0.01% is the number of terrorists, that translates into 100,000 actual people worldwide.

The statistics are not my own BB, they are estimated active terrorists and are western governments statistics. I assume they are the estimated number of active terrorists cells with the desire and ability to commit attrocities outside their own 'war' zone.

I do not deny that 100,000 terrorists is 100,000 too many but I also do not accept that my faith teaches violence and terrorism. Yes a lot of Muslims support suicide attacks when it comes to Palestine but oppose them when it comes to US or UK, saying suicide is a sin and we are not allowed to kill civilians - sheer hypocracy I agree but I would suggest Palestine is a different issue, as it is an occupied territory and it does cloud peoples usual judgement. I agree with Palestine fighting the Israeli army but not, I repeat not, attacking civilians - that goes against our faith which is the poi I am trying to make.

I also accept that a majority of terrorist cells in the world today are Islamic fundamentalists. What I do not accept is that this is taught by Islam (where suicide and killing civilians is forbidden). No amount of telling me 'but they are Muslims and they are doing it' is going to change the fact that both are forbidden in the Quran so these Muslims are going againt the teaching of our faith).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that number is almost certainly too small for the UK.

Of course it is too small for the UK. The UK & US are the 'enemy' for these people, we have occupied Iraq for oil and supported occupying Palestine to provide a Jewish state. I would suggest if you go to a country without US or UK army bases, etc you are unlikely to find an Islamic terrorist. Even if you forget about the politics of oil and land, surely we can agree that what has and is being done to the ordinary people in Iraq and Palestine is shameful, no matter what the excuses/reasons for military action in those countries?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i live in london in close proximity to large numbers of muslims, which means on any given day at least one of the 20 muslims i've come into contact with wouldn't object if one of their co-religionists killed me.

I don't know what it feels like to have people, outside of a war zone, wanting me dead because I belong to a group of people but I can imagine it angers and upsets you and I take my hat off to you that you have not allowed that to blind you to good Muslims that follow the faith correctly. For every one of these people there are so many of us that do not share their view (I know that doesn't help when people are shouting abuse at you in the street). Even Abdullah, who in my opinion holds some very extreme views does not for a moment want you dead, he just thinks you are going to hell.

I can't apologise for it BB because I do not share that view and accept that the Quran has many passages that can be used to support hatred of Jews but you and I both know that when those verses are put into historical context they are talking about one small group of Jews in Arabia at the time of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Maybe it comes down to a persons mindset? If you want to find peace and tolerence in the Quran it is easy to find but if you want to find hatred and violence it is easy to ignore context and find that too. We know the Torah and Bible are exactly the same, it is just that people, these days, choose not to use them in that way.

I have never attempted to defend these people BB but I would suggest you also live near to more Muslims that bear you no ill will other than disagreeing with your religious practices. Would I want to live near people that want me dead, of course not I would want them imprisoned and re-educated. Do you remember the Muslim family that turned their own son and his friends into the police because they were going to afghanistan to learn to fight? Would you agree with Bob that those parents follow a sick and vile religion? Of course not, they follow the real Islam. This is all my argument is about, not to defend unacceptable attitudes or practices but to point out that for every idiot that holds these views there are many more that do not, therefore how can my religion be based on vile and disgusting teachings?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you'll see that shi'ites make up 11.2% of world islam. you'll also see that there are about 8 1/2 times as many of them as there are of jews. considering that the largest shi'ite countries are both pretty anti-jewish i don't think that reassures me terribly much.

It is not meant to reassure you, I believe Israel is surrounded by Shia majority countries and it looks like Iraq will end up the same. Shia's now see Jews as the absolute enemy. But we have spoken before about the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived in that area in relative peace before the political wranglings began. That is largely why my discussions always end up moving away from religion and into politics and why I object to people that say Islam itself teaches this hatred (or did all of those generations of people just miss the point?).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

umph, i think that depends what you think a zionist is.

It is not something I have ever looked into to be honest. I think my idea of a zionist is probably the opposite of what it really is. I believe a zionist in the religious sense is someone that believes all Jews will one day return to the promised land and herald the day of judgement, I have no problem with that. But when I say zionist it is not in the religious sense but in the political one, someone that wants a state for only Jews to live in and thinks Jews are superior to others. So when I say I am not a fan of zionists, they are the group I refer to.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

(although almost none are as bad as neturei karta) - they're, ironically, almost exactly as representative of judaism as your 0.01% terrorists.

Excellent bit of info, now I know where to go when I want to incorrectly state what Judaism teaches .

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as it is i'll settle for "thinks there ought to be a jewish state of some sort in the general area of israel and doesn't want people to kill his auntie for living there, but doesn't see how this precludes a palestinian state, but frankly doesn't think much of nation-states as a concept in general, they're soooo C19th".

Now here we can agree as long as we add that a Palestinians auntie should also not be killed in order for your auntie to live in her house.

That is the stupid thing, if you turned the whole situation over to women we would all just make food and force everyone to eat too much - instant peace because no-one could get off the couch to fight.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm not suggesting that - but i would definitely suggest that someone's faith which claims (although it really substantively isn't) to be the same as yours has definitely taught them theirs.

I have to disagree, the faith comes from the Quran for both Sunni and Shia so the teaching of Allah remains the same. It is the political wranglings that twist those teachings into the hatred we now see, you know all the man made add on's and (mis)interpretations to fit in with their argument. Also I go back to the point of the centuries of relative peace - so it is quite a new 'teaching' I would suggest, as Shia's have existed for approx 1300+ years but seem to have avoided calling for the extermination of the Jews for most of that time.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ah, there's the rub. i don't know. i'm for free speech, but i don't think that translates into the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Well maybe we can ask Brian to have a selected members only thread where people that show they can discuss rationally and without personal insult can be invited to discuss such sensitive topics?

Whilst I understand why this may be appropriate I am left with the question why it is ok to call me a 'lump in a bag' and say my religion is 'vile and disgusting' but to question the actions of another faiths followers should be done behind closed doors? That is not to say 'if you can insult me I should allowed to insult you' but I am hoping you know who (on both sides) will read this comment and take note).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ok, but very few of them appear to be influential clerics, unfortunately. irshad manji and ali eteraz do not make a "consensus of the scholars", hence my argument with you-know-who in which i was very much in your corner.

Not a good attitude BB, no they are not the consensus but they are new voices in the ME, they have recognised how far astray the Ummah has become and are speaking out (not an easy thing to do in an Islamic society). We need to encourage these voices on both sides and shout down the voices of hatred on our own sides.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

indeed - and it only took him 6 years to leap into action, if it's the bloke i'm thinking of. and in any case, i think if this guy can get a letter to bin laden, it was his duty to humanity to give it to the americans to deliver.

Again not a helpful attitude. The point is he has at last spoken out. Did you ever think you would hear such a voice come from Saudi? Did you ever think his head would reamin in contact with his body? Okay so it is not ME peace but it is a small step in the right direction and unless we back and encourage such voices others will not follow.

Now you know I am not an idiot and I accept that a lot of this condemnation came after al-Q started bombing Muslim countries too but are you aware that a minutes silence was held in the Iranian football stadium after 9/11 (and no it was not for the terrorists that died), that the Palestinian Legislative Council condemned the attack, Muslims in Jerusalem held a candlelit vigil, the Grand Mufti of Saudi condemned it, etc. Muslims are not animals whose only desire is to wreak havoc in the world. Okay they haven't got their act together yet in finding ways to strongly condemn these actions but to be honest when your are not related to bin laden it is difficult to know where to start. Can you imagine my letter being addressed to 'Mr Bin Ladin, Terrorist Stronghold, Mountains of Afghanistan'!!

Sod America, why should it be his duty to get it to America? America are not the king of the world and if it came from America it would be dismissed as western propaganda. The condemnation was a personal message from an Islamic cleric to a terrorist that is damaging the name of Islam and causing hardhsip for Muslipeople all over the world - where does America come into that equation? It is all over the web if anyone cares to look so you can bet your bottom dollar the CIA saw it the moment it went out but did the newspapers hail it as progress? Did the mass media publish it to send a message to all Islamic extremists? Did Bush hold a press conference to advertise it? NO and one has to ask why not?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i know all about the boer war *and* bevingrad, internment on cyprus, etc. goodness knows i'm not an uncritical admirer of anyone, but if it wasn't for the british - and the americans and russians - the nazis would certainly have won and where would cock BB be then, poor thing?

Well if you want to discuss the issue of how many Jews and others the UK & US government could have saved but chose not to or the actual reasons we went to war with Germany, we will need to start a new thread. But I can assure you it had very little to do with saving anyone in the death camps or ghettos. Yes a positive result came out of it for humanity but that was just an added bonus for our goverment.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

er... just because a technical term isn't in the Qur'an doesn't mean it isn't valid. the term "prosbul" isn't in the Torah, yet it's perfectly valid.

I disagree, stoning is not in the Quran but is accepted by the consensus as valid because of the hadiths. I do not have a voice on the world stage but those that do should stop accepting this 'validity' and start challenging "where did Allah say that".

Even if we accept it as a valid argument, for a country that is annually armed to the teeth by the US to say we are not accepting a 100 year truce because you will use it to re-arm (I suppose you can make a lot of home made rockets in 100 years) is just off the scale of hypocracy. Is Isreal really suggesting that in 100 years of truce some progress to genuine peace cannot be found?

I do not know what prosbul is but if it is not in the Torah how can you calim it is from G-d? (I think you know I had this argument with you know who regarding the hadiths too).

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and the main question should be "did the irish use their own children as human shields and so-called martyrs?"

Yes they used their children as human shields and yes they taught their children to throw rocks and broken bottles at soldiers and armoured vehicles (would you like to see the scars? And I am not spinning a yarn to make my point, look at my photo in the what you look like threat, that is a NI ribbon I am wearing). The small kids also used to bring fruit for the soldiers, with crossed razor blades in them. Yet in 30 years of violence only 7 children were killed and not one of them was sitting at their school desk at the time. Do you not think the British soldiers had the attitude of better them than us, better they die than another London bombing?

I know the inhumanity of war BB, I have arrested soldiers that got 'bored' so used civilians as human target practice, it happens in every war zone without exception. War dehumanises the victims and the perpetrators. Maybe you could read the link and then tell me how 25% of dead being children can justify your comment (not belief) that it is better them than us?

Palestinian doctors despair at rising toll of children shot dead by army snipers | Israel and the Middle East | Guardian Unlimited

If you don't like the Guardian (maybe it is anti-semitic) the same story is carried on a few non-Muslim sites.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ghastly euphemisms like "collateral damage".

I don't see how you can say that after you said above that the soldiers have the attitude of 'better them than us', which sounded like 'well it's not acceptable but you can see their point'. When anyone can show me a single justification for shooting a 9 year old in the head or how that death stopped Israeli's dying I shall hang up my keyboard. All that killing does is create future bombers, friends that go the funerals of their classmates and vow to take revenge.

Sorry but I think we should be posting on our relevant religions sites that killing civilians, on both sides must stop now. We should be emailing everyone we can think of to say we as a Muslim or Jew do not support their actions. I see pictures of small kids with their jihadist headbands and Jewish kids signing rockets and quite frankly I want to puke and go to bang everyones heads together.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

just move the rockets up to the new border and off you go.

I was being sarcastic BB, giving bits back but keeping other bits does not constitute a unilateral withdrawal behind agreed lines. I have no problem with a buffer zone but to then build settlements in the buffer zone is just extracting the urine imo, not to mention endangering your own people just to grab more land.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

if the children you refer to were those of the settlers then they are perfectly happy to throw stones at the soldiers and call them nazis when it suits them.

I have no idea to whom the children belong BB, they were just Jewish children throwing rocks at US peace monitors. My point was simply that it is a behaviour endemic to war zones, kids throw rocks no matter what side they are on, so Bobs assertion that Muslims teach this to their children, because we are from a violent religion, is just utter utter rubbish. Children see such violence and they copy it any way they can.

To make my point, sit a dozen Jewish and a dozen Muslim 7 year olds down and ask them what the fighting really about - they have no idea about the issues or understanding of politics, they just know we belong to this group and so we throw stones at the other group because they try to kill us.

I have no idea about the internal strife inside Israel, perhaps you could explain it to me. I hope civil war doesn't break out, the ordinary people have enough to condend with.

Sorry it is such a long post but so much to get through and understand. (oops had to split into 2 posts as it was too long )

Salaam

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

Muslimwoman has already indicated that she wants no more dialogue.

Only with you because:

Originally Posted by bob x

a Muslim cannot distinguish the good from the bad

You are a bigot and need to take a long hard look at yourself. As I told Abdullah I shall tell you, I will not allow you to fill my head or heart with hatred so keep it to yourself or take it elsewhere.

[bob x]

I am left with the question why it is ok to call me a 'lump in a bag' and say my religion is 'vile and disgusting'

The 'lump' was in response to you saying you were MORE of a person when you are muffled up to look as little like a human as possible-- with the offensive implication that a woman who is visibly human is LESS of a person. I told you flat-out when we first met that the veil was very repellent to me, but you wanted to talk on and on about the veil (on the assumption that if I just "understood" I would be less repelled? Rather, the more I understand of it, the worse it seems), instead of telling me what you saw of good in the Qur'an as you had first said you would. Now that you are doing so (on the other thread), I encourage you to continue, and though you say there that you would welcome certain kinds of questions about the verses you present (not, of course, "Oh YEAH, well how about these OTHER verses..."), I am going to refrain even from that (because I will say "I don't see these verses in a positive light like you do" and it might slide into mud-wrestling again).

What I said was "vile and disgusting" was the Qur'anic injunction to respond to sexual unfaithfulness with murder and/or sadistic violence. There is no way I will ever see that as anything but an evil: not even if it is supposed to be "rare"; that is not a defense, it is evil always. You cannot say, "Well this is a part of the Qur'an that is just wrong":

a Muslim cannot distinguish the good from the bad

meant, you cannot distinguish the good from the bad in the Qur'an. I can respect a Christian who is able to say, "This in the Bible is good; but that part is just a primitivity from those early times"; I cannot respect a Christian who says that everything in the Bible is from God and therefore good by definition, no matter how evil by any objective standard of morality. Unfortunately, I do not see Muslims who are able to distinguish what parts of the Qur'an are teaching what is good from the parts that are just preserved primitivity.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I also do not accept that my faith teaches violence and terrorism.

i know *you* don't. however, there are some who would agree with you that they are part of the same faith, who would, nonetheless, consider that the violence and terrorism they practise were taught by this faith. they interpret it into action one way, you interpret it into action another way. there are people in my faith who interpret it in such a way as to suppose that it gives them the right to treat non-jews in general with disdain, or actively persecute palestinians. i may be of the same faith as them, consider them to be jews, but consider them to be completely in error in terms of what the faith teaches - and i would and do go out of my way to point this out to them by any means in my power. what you are objecting to is *categorical* statements without context, nuance and distinction - as do and would i. that's the point.

I agree with Palestine fighting the Israeli army but not, I repeat not, attacking civilians - that goes against our faith which is the point I am trying to make.

sometimes i think you fail to appreciate the depth of doublethink and hypocrisy that occurs - the "logic" goes something like this:

"we only attack military targets"
"all israeli citizens are conscripted"
"therefore all citizens are military targets"

as well as:

"we are only against settlers"
"all of palestine is occupied land"
"therefore tel aviv is a settlement"

you can see, therefore, how these fine distinctions are meaningless if you can justify a bus bombing in tel aviv on the grounds that every israeli is a "military target" and tel aviv is a "settlement". i know most journalists fail to point this out - it's the same doublethink and hypocrisy that allows certain people to go on about how wonderful the ahle qitab ("people of the book") are without pointing out that no christians and jews have actually qualified for that label since the revelation of the Qur'an, so it's effectively meaningless except for pretending to be tolerant. of course, i know you do not define these terms in this manner, but that is why it is interpretation and action that are the keys, not nominal membership of this or that tradition or ethnic group.

No amount of telling me 'but they are Muslims and they are doing it' is going to change the fact that both are forbidden in the Quran so these Muslims are going againt the teaching of our faith).

i agree - but equally, no amount of temporising and equivocation is going to change the fact that *they consider* themselves muslims, consider themselves driven by their faith and followers of the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah in every detail. thus we can have people saying that "well, the 9/11 hijackers and 7/7 bombers weren't muslim", meaning (at least if they're not making out it was a cia/zionist plot) that *at the time of committing these actions they were acting in an unislamic fashion and therefore could not be defined as muslims*, again a fine distinction that is lost on journalists and the uninformed, where it just comes across as weasel words or downright denial. i personally understand the difference, but it's not the message that is sent.

Of course it is too small for the UK. The UK & US are the 'enemy' for these people, we have occupied Iraq for oil

ok, so because the UK is the #3 target for terrorists there will be a statistically higher concentration of them here, right? at least we can agree on that, even if it's cold comfort to me personally, mind you, it's not safe to be jewish anywhere really.

and supported occupying Palestine to provide a Jewish state.

that is *so* glib. what the US did (and the UK sort of did whilst at the same time sort of trying to not do) was support the right of the jewish people to national self-determination, just as they both (and as i myself) eventually came to support the right of the palestinian people to national self-determination, recognising the *legitimate* historical and cultural connections and claims both have to this tiny bit of land. my hackles start to rise when i feel that the jewish connection and claim to the land of israel is negated in the name of such a paltry thing as the C19th nation-state.

I would suggest if you go to a country without US or UK army bases, etc you are unlikely to find an Islamic terrorist.

i'm not sure there are many US and UK army bases in iran, lebanon and syria.

Even if you forget about the politics of oil and land, surely we can agree that what has and is being done to the ordinary people in Iraq and Palestine is shameful, no matter what the excuses/reasons for military action in those countries?

fine, i agree that, just as long as we also agree that the way they have been treated by their "own people" is also shameful, whether we are talking about the dreadful rulers or the rabid insurgents.

but you and I both know that when those verses are put into historical context they are talking about one small group of Jews in Arabia at the time of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

exactly - and the louder people yell about this the sooner it will get noticed and become more widely understood - by muslims as well as by others.

Maybe it comes down to a persons mindset? If you want to find peace and tolerence in the Quran it is easy to find but if you want to find hatred and violence it is easy to ignore context and find that too. We know the Torah and Bible are exactly the same, it is just that people, these days, choose not to use them in that way.

*claps loudly* - this is known as "confirmation bias"; look it up.

Would I want to live near people that want me dead, of course not I would want them imprisoned and re-educated.

although not in guantanamo bay, eh, or those camps that mubarak has.

Shia's have existed for approx 1300+ years but seem to have avoided calling for the extermination of the Jews for most of that time.

they did consider us to convey a form of ritual contamination at one point, i forget what it was called, but it wasn't very pleasant and began with a "t". the actual extermination stuff, as you will discover if you get through that bernard lewis book on anti-semitism i recommended, was imported originally by the christian clergy (as in the damascus blood libel of 1840) but ultimately by the nazis during the arabs' love affair with fascism, which is where the ba'ath party originates.

I believe Israel is surrounded by Shia majority countries and it looks like Iraq will end up the same. Shia's now see Jews as the absolute enemy.

ok, i can accept that, but sunnis also have to stop looking for an external scapegoat and come to terms with their own very real issues as you have so eloquently outlined.

But we have spoken before about the centuries that Muslims and Jews lived in that area in relative peace before the political wranglings began.

as long as this peace did not depend upon either side being treated as dhimmi were in practice, as contemptible, somewhat laughable second-class citizens.

It is not something I have ever looked into to be honest. I think my idea of a zionist is probably the opposite of what it really is. I believe a zionist in the religious sense is someone that believes all Jews will one day return to the promised land and herald the day of judgement, I have no problem with that. But when I say zionist it is not in the religious sense but in the political one, someone that wants a state for only Jews to live in and thinks Jews are superior to others. So when I say I am not a fan of zionists, they are the group I refer to.

i think that is a really important statement. i am a zionist in the religious sense. i am a zionist in the political sense, BUT i do *not* think that implies a state *only* for jews AND i do *not* consider hat that also implies jewish superiority within this state. i think we know what sort of people you are not a fan of and i am not a fan of them either - but they are not the only people who are entitled to call themselves zionists.

Now here we can agree as long as we add that a Palestinian's auntie should also not be killed in order for your auntie to live in her house.

precisely. in fact my auntie's moshav is right next to an arab village. we also need to understand that both aunties need to have the same rights and responsibilities and treat each other with dignity and respect. as it happened i got my auntie to give one of my palestinian friends a lift to brent cross the other day, so i suppose it's a start, they just both happened to be at my house at the same time!

Again not a helpful attitude. The point is he has at last spoken out. Did you ever think you would hear such a voice come from Saudi? Did you ever think his head would reamin in contact with his body? Okay so it is not ME peace but it is a small step in the right direction and unless we back and encourage such voices others will not follow.

look, as tesco say, every little helps, but we are so far away from that being an action that would stop someone murdering me (or my auntie) that it won't make any noticeable difference. i'm sorry - although perhaps the actions of the clerics i noted above in the link constitute a more impressive stand; i'll know when i've read the entire 29-page letter in more detail.

you can bet your bottom dollar the CIA saw it the moment it went out but did the newspapers hail it as progress?

asharq al-awsat did; that's where i read it. they at least seem to agree with you, mind you they're published in london, where the lumpen-mujahidin can't get at them so easily.

Well if you want to discuss the issue of how many Jews and others the UK & US government could have saved but chose not to or the actual reasons we went to war with Germany, we will need to start a new thread. But I can assure you it had very little to do with saving anyone in the death camps or ghettos.

yes, i know all about that, they could have bombed the tracks that went to auschwitz and didn't, there are still some *very* raw feelings about that. i can understand, however, that they had to concentrate their resources on military targets rather than moral ones.

I do not have a voice on the world stage but those that do should stop accepting this 'validity' and start challenging "where did Allah say that".

well perhaps - except that making it theologically based would make it more difficult to get consensus, people would nit-pick over terminology, whereas if you simply legislated it out of possibility using countervailing Qur'anic principles (e.g. "we can't be sure that the person is 100% guilty") that would have a more effective, er, effect.

I do not know what prosbul is but if it is not in the Torah how can you claim it is from G-d? (I think you know I had this argument with you know who regarding the hadiths too).

because we have a principle that human interpretation is valid as well and sometimes has to overrule revealed truth for the sake of practicality, equity and the sanctification of the Divine Name (i.e. making G!D look good) - to our way of thinking, G!D thoroughly approves of us using the *rules of argument and logic* that came from G!D to come to a conclusion that may *appear* to overrule G!D.

Even if we accept it as a valid argument, for a country that is annually armed to the teeth by the US to say we are not accepting a 100 year truce because you will use it to re-arm (I suppose you can make a lot of home made rockets in 100 years) is just off the scale of hypocrisy.

but all the high-tech weaponry in the world doesn't stop low-intensity, low-tech irregular warfare, as the israelis ought to bloody know, at any rate you can't stop 80,000 rockets; they found that out the hard way last summer.

Yes they used their children as human shields and yes they taught their children to throw rocks and broken bottles at soldiers and armoured vehicles (would you like to see the scars? And I am not spinning a yarn to make my point, look at my photo in the what you look like threat, that is a NI ribbon I am wearing). The small kids also used to bring fruit for the soldiers, with crossed razor blades in them. Yet in 30 years of violence only 7 children were killed and not one of them was sitting at their school desk at the time. Do you not think the British soldiers had the attitude of better them than us, better they die than another London bombing?

i understand this, of course, but i am still not aware that the irish encouraged their children to seek martyrdom and aspire to it religiously. there was none of this "when i grow up i want to be a shaheed" stuff. there was no mickey mouse on children's TV and books and textbooks teaching them to hate. some of my family comes from northern ireland - they might have hated the english but they didn't try and get this over by intentionally sacrificing their children. once you factor that in, it becomes quite understandable how so many of them have died, israeli attitudes notwithstanding. i can assure you i know plenty of israeli soldiers, my cousins all serve - and all of them are appalled at being put in a situation where they might be forced to make a split-second decision about whether a kid has a bomb belt on or not.

incidentally, i've got no problem with the guardian. or this neo-marxist site, though i don't care for their politics or their tone sometimes: Stop mothering the Middle East | spiked

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by bob x

Muslimwoman has already indicated that she wants no more dialogue.

that might be because you've been extremely hostile. i think if you were able to calm things down a bit, this would be a more productive conversation, however:

neither will I withdraw the statement "Islam lacks any ethical core beyond "Do whatever you are told" " which is entirely accurate: the Qur'an contains some good ethical advice, and some dubious advice, and some I consider very bad, but a Muslim cannot distinguish the good from the bad, because all of it is based on "whatever you are told, that is from God";

this i feel is monumentally tendentious and unfair. you are confusing an argument for the source of moral authority with the content. clearly many muslims *can* distinguish between right and wrong as you would understand it and would, as in other systems, interpret out things which, if interpreted literally, would result in wrongdoing. you have only to look at today's open letter to the pope to see there are some people trying to make a difference to this:

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Muslim scholars reach out to Pope

i personally know plenty of highly ethical muslims who draw their moral authority from the Qur'an. they are certainly not "do as you're told" kind of people. i really think statements like this add nothing to the discussion and just appear bigoted.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[bob x]

that might be because you've been extremely hostile. i think if you were able to calm things down a bit, this would be a more productive conversation

My horoscope for today: "On the way to work, your feathers -- usually flat and smooth -- start to ruffle. As the day goes on, you feel increasingly aggressive and grouchy. Maybe it's time to work some of that out. Hit the barbells hard tonight." I would take that as a bad sign, but: this astrologer-person thinks my feathers are usually flat and smooth? Must not know me in the slightest!

you are confusing an argument for the source of moral authority with the content.

The source determines the content. If the source is believed to be "whatever it says in an ancient book", then the content will be the preservation of the stupidities and brutalities of ancient times.
Now as you point out, many religious people *say* they derive their moralities from the ancient books, but they don't really *mean* it: if shown something horrible that they are "commanded" to do, out come the excuses and tendentious interpretations to explain it away, because they know in their heart that it is just wrong. But that moral sense in their heart is not what their religion is teaching them: it is something they hold onto IN SPITE OF what their religion teaches.
And while you say you know many Muslims who interpret away what would lead to wrongdoing, I find that this is rarer in Islam than in the other Abrahamic religions (though make no mistake, I despise fundamentalist Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity equally as much as fundamentalist Islam; and spend more of my energy combatting fundamentalist Christianity, since it is the most direct threat to my life and livelihood). The Torah does to be sure include some laws with no stated basis than "do as you're told" ("Thou shalt not boil a kid in his mother's milk-- I am YHWH!") but oftentimes grounds it pronouncements in an ethics of reciprocity ("Thou shalt not mistreat slaves-- for remember, you were slaves in Egypt"). The New Testament is strong on this, not just "Love God with all you have, and your neighbor as yourself-- on that depends all of the law", but even explicit statements that what is in old books should be disregarded if it is not right (the law about unilateral divorce "was written out of hard-heartedness", Jesus says, and is just wrong); however, Christianity often becomes a neo-legalism, no don't go by whatever the Jewish old book said, go by whatever OUR new improved old book says.
Islam? The Qur'an grounds its laws in "Allah knows best", and I seldom find any hint of any other logic. When reference is made to the possibility that you would know in your own heart what is right, the Qur'an often tells you to GO AGAINST your heart: as in the passage about inflicting 100 lashes, which particularly sent me over the edge into hostility. I don't see any hope for Islam until Muslims are ready to say, some things in the Qur'an are just flat-out wrong. That's what I don't see: "fundamentalist Christians" are a subset of Christians; but, "fundamentalist Muslims" is practically a redundancy, they're just about all that way.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i know *you* don't. however, there are some who would agree with you that they are part of the same faith, who would, nonetheless, consider that the violence and terrorism they practise were taught by this faith. they interpret it into action one way, you interpret it into action another way. there are people in my faith who interpret it in such a way as to suppose that it gives them the right to treat non-jews in general with disdain, or actively persecute palestinians. i may be of the same faith as them, consider them to be jews, but consider them to be completely in error in terms of what the faith teaches - and i would and do go out of my way to point this out to them by any means in my power. [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']what you are objecting to is *categorical* statements without context, nuance and distinction[/font] - as do and would i. that's the point.

Excellent analysis and I can agree completely, thank you.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

sometimes i think you fail to appreciate the depth of doublethink and hypocrisy that occurs - the "logic" goes something like this:

I don't think I fail to understand it or accept this is how these people think or that they take those teachings from their interpretation of verses of the Quran (while totally ignoring huge chunks of it because it doesn't fit their argument). What I cannot do, as I said to Niranjan so many times, is argue their corner or explain why they think this way, I do not think like them alhamdolillah so all I can do is try to offer guesses as to how the political situations in places like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are fuelling their warped thinking.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you can see, therefore, how these fine distinctions are meaningless if you can justify a bus bombing in tel aviv on the grounds that every israeli is a "military target" and tel aviv is a "settlement".

Well here we need a distinction of what in my view is a military target (I say in my view as I said I would support fighting legitimate military targets within Israel). In the Irish troubles the IRA used to put car bombs on soldiers cars, cars which carried wives and children. That is not a legitimate military target.

Once that soldier gets into his tower or tank and trains his gun on your people, he then becomes a legitimate military target.

So to me a legitimate military target is someone armed, capable and intending to fight you. There is no fine distinction in my mind or in the Quran, we can only fight those actively fighting us (and that does not include children throwing stones). Okay then we get into the who started it bit and who refused which peace offer but that’s another argument.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i know most journalists fail to point this out - it's the same doublethink and hypocrisy that allows certain people to go on about how wonderful the ahle qitab ("people of the book") are without pointing out that no christians and jews have actually qualified for that label since the revelation of the Qur'an, so it's effectively meaningless except for pretending to be tolerant.

I agree with you, people are individuals and hold differing views of the same thing. As for the People of the Book, to me that is like saying I didn't agree to being called German because I am Deutsch (same thing different languages). It is simply a name to refer to followers of the Torah and followers of the Bible. It is like this silly discussion about is G-d and Allah the same thing Erm YES it is just the same word in a different language.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i agree - but equally, no amount of temporising and equivocation is going to change the fact that *they consider* themselves muslims, consider themselves driven by their faith and followers of the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah in every detail.

I can't and don't argue with that, I simply object when I am tarred with their brush (and my objection is toward the person saying it and the Muslims that creat that brush for me to be tarred with).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

thus we can have people saying that "well, the 9/11 hijackers and 7/7 bombers weren't muslim",

No-one but Allah can say they are or are not Muslim, we can only say their acts are unIslamic.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that is *so* glib. what the US did (and the UK sort of did whilst at the same time sort of trying to not do) was support the right of the jewish people to national self-determination,

Now come on BB, accepting the right to self-determination is one thing but doing that by saying ‘oh look we are occupying this country so you can go there and of course we don’t need to ask the people that live there’ is typical British Empirical thinking. At the time the Muslims and Jews in the area were not exactly having hugging competitions, Jerusalem has important Jewish and Islamic religious sites – could anyone over the age of 4 not guess there would be trouble? Quite frankly I thin the UK & US just wanted the problem to go away and be someone else’s problem – I can see no other reason for what they did, knowing what would happen (or maybe the intelligence people were on holiday that week?).

There is also the issue of Zionist leaders refusing unoccupied land, where the Jewish nation would have been welcomed, using guilt and foot stamping to say ‘it is this bit or nothing’. If any other nation of people did that everyone else would say ‘hey your choice mate’.

Even if you accept the religious right of the Jewish nation to live on that land (which from a religious perspective I do) that should not be at the expense of other people.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'm not sure there are many US and UK army bases in iran, lebanon and syria.

Hee, hee good one.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

fine, i agree that, just as long as we also agree that the way they have been treated by their "own people" is also shameful, whether we are talking about the dreadful rulers or the rabid insurgents.

Okay we can agree on that, as long as we can also agree that for the Israeli government to build settlements in the buffer zone and place their people out as cannon fodder, just to grab another km of land, is also shameful. (hey maybe you and I should be appointed to create a peace accord for them )

Originally Posted by bananabrain

although not in guantanamo bay, eh, or those camps that mubarak has.

Of course not, torturing these people simply solidifies their feelings of injustice and gives their supporters something else to fight about. Personally I would have an international prison which was an education centre. The guards would be from non aggresive countries and the teachers would be moderate Imams. The world would be safe from them and re-educated back to the true path of Islam. On their release, if ever, they would take that message back to others. Quite honestly I think those that remained inside for life would actively participate in re-educating new inmates.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as long as this peace did not depend upon either side being treated as dhimmi were in practice, as contemptible, somewhat laughable second-class citizens.

I know this will annoy you but so be it. If you get peace for 100 years and your kids can sleep safely in their beds and you have a huge bloody wall to stand behind does it matter if you stand on that wall, bear your buttocks and say “we are dhimmi’s”. Okay it is not very pleasant but let’s be honest we all see the statements about ‘one million Arabs not worth a Jewish fingernail’ and Israeli soldiers saying ‘we are human and they are animals’. So ‘superiority’ is an issue on both sides but 100 years would be a real time of peace to find middle ground, to move forward, to find a way past these issues.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i think we know what sort of people you are not a fan of and i am not a fan of them either - but they are not the only people who are entitled to call themselves zionists.

Sorry that I have used it incorrectly (generalising again). Can you give me an appropriate word for the group I am not a fan of?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

as it happened i got my auntie to give one of my palestinian friends a lift to brent cross the other day, so i suppose it's a start, they just both happened to be at my house at the same time!

Everything starts with small steps – Bravo.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

look, as tesco say, every little helps, but we are so far away from that being an action that would stop someone murdering me

But if we say we want it all today we are being unrealistic. We must grab any little crumb we can find and build on it, get that information out so in time the net is flooded with demands for peace, rather than the hatred we have now. I know that is easier for me to say when no-one is calling for my death or that of my auntie. This, to me, is one of the biggest problems at the moment, everyone looks for the negative, so if the document calls for the end of terrorist attacks but also says ‘Muslims are superior to Jews so should take the high road’ (I have not read it all yet either so am not suggesting it says that just giving an example), the negative comment will be latched onto and the positive will be ignored. So why should that cleric make the effort in the future? It just encourages him to say ‘bugger it, why bother making myself unpopular and a target’.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

asharq al-awsat did

LMAO that is such a western sounding name!!! That makes my point perfectly, why was it not on the front page of the Times “STEP TOWARD PEACE” or “SAUDI CLERIC STATES TERRORIST ACTION UNISLAMIC” – with huge neon lights and bells and whistles and loads of encouraging sounds from western governments?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

because we have a principle that human interpretation is valid as well and sometimes has to overrule revealed truth for the sake of practicality, equity and the sanctification of the Divine Name (i.e. making G!D look good) - to our way of thinking, G!D thoroughly approves of us using the *rules of argument and logic* that came from G!D to come to a conclusion that may *appear* to overrule G!D.

Hmm, not sure we could go as far as overruling G-d but certainly we must get back to the time when discussion and personal interpretation was encouraged (think you know my teeth are firmly gritted on that issue).

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but all the high-tech weaponry in the world doesn't stop low-intensity, low-tech irregular warfare, as the israelis ought to bloody know, at any rate you can't stop 80,000 rockets; they found that out the hard way last summer.

You really don’t want to start comparing number of dead civilians in Israel to number of dead civilians in Lebanon last year do you? Or we really will start arguing. That is not to defend killing Israeli’s but what they did to Lebanon turns my stomach and to be totally honest turned me against Israel (as a government) totally, any sympathy I had for them before that vanished to be frank.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i understand this, of course, but i am still not aware that the irish encouraged their children to seek martyrdom and aspire to it religiously.

The reason the Irish troubles and Palestine?israel are such a good comparison is because they both started fighting over land and it developed into a fight about religious differences.

Okay they do not use the same terminology or promise 72 virgins and daily orgies but the teaching, to children, of religious hatred was the same. They were taught that we are on the side of right and we are superior to them. Sounding familiar? Have you heard of the IRA Youth wing? Do you know how young some of them were? It was not the boy scouts I can assure you. Two young sisters (one 7 yrs and one 9 years) were videoed in an abandoned warehouse practicing stripping and re-assembling an automatic rifle (I wish I had such nimble fingers).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

they might have hated the english but they didn't try and get this over by intentionally sacrificing their children.

I accept that but then I have to ask why a 7 year old needs to know how to strip an SLR?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

once you factor that in, it becomes quite understandable how so many of them have died, israeli attitudes notwithstanding

That does not wash with me for a split second, been there, seen it, done it and got the t-shirt in every colour. I am not talking about 15 year old boys as human bombs, I am talking about 9 year old girls in school (or was the teacher teaching them to fight with a stick of chalk?). I am talking about Israeli reports that children were blown up by their own bombs yet their bodies in the morgue show bullet wounds to the head and no evidence of bomb damage (seen by independent witnesses). I accept the Mickey Mouse things blows my mind – sheer bloody insanity but you cannot use that as an excuse to kill children.

What I would like to see, as disrespectful as it sounds, is that every time a child is killed an independent expert is brought in to examine the body and evidence of what that child was doing. I would bet my bottom Egyptian pound that within 6 months there would be outrage (including from Israeli people).

i can assure you i know plenty of israeli soldiers, my cousins all serve - and all of them are appalled at being put in a situation where they might be forced to make a split-second decision about whether a kid has a bomb belt on or not.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

incidentally, i've got no problem with the guardian. or this neo-marxist site, though i don't care for their politics or their tone sometimes: Stop mothering the Middle East | spiked

Well there you go then, it is okay to kill a kids family and bomb his home as long as there are adults around to comfort him there will be no lasting damage. Hey give him a football, that will take his mind off it. Let’s start a ‘send footballs to war zones campaign’. And this outrageous sympathy for children, I mean how stupidly emotional.



Salaam