Islam

[Fraggle Rocker]

When pressed, they often define God in such a vague way that it really doesn't mean anything.

We define religion as a set of metaphors, and God is one of them. So when a churchgoer agrees with that, he's taken the steam out of the disagreement.

And it's important to understand that many churchgoers do agree with that. They're not (all) stupid, they're not (all) Paleolithic nomads who quake in fear every time they see lightning because it means God is angry at them. They just don't focus on that aspect of their religion: the supernaturalism. So it doesn't pop into their heads very often. They like the sense of community, they like the commitment to doing good deeds for the community, they like the things God and Jesus have told them to do. It doesn't make any difference in their day-to-day life whether God and Jesus are metaphors rather than real creatures, and unless they have a degree in philosophy they have no reason to even ponder that issue.

Of course they don't talk about it this way, and many of them may not even have thought about it this way, at least not consciously. But go to one of their churches and you might find that the reality of God as a living creature is soft-pedaled. They're rarely challenged to accept God as real rather than metaphor. It may happen a few times a year on holidays, more of a ritual than an oath.

Not all churches are fire-and-brimstone.

There's a reason that we American atheists have been out of the closet for decades. Mainstream liberal American Christianity doesn't have much of a problem with us, so long as we don't write shrill op-eds demeaning their faith. They want to make this world a better place and so do we. Jesus told them to be kind to outsiders and they figure he meant us too. They'll leave it to somebody else to haggle over the science and philosophy of the supernatural.

 

[spidergoat]

...Mainstream liberal American Christianity doesn't have much of a problem with us, so long as we don't write shrill op-eds demeaning their faith. They want to make this world a better place and so do we. Jesus told them to be kind to outsiders and they figure he meant us too. They'll leave it to somebody else to haggle over the science and philosophy of the supernatural.

Right, as long as we don't challenge their unconstitutional creeping theocracy, we can all get along... Well, their faith should be demeaned at every opportunity because it's dangerous and deadly.

 

[Balerion]

Perhaps it's actually a shame that of all the Abrahamic religions, Judaism is not evangelical.

In typical fashion, you're framing it to sound as if I'm saying "Clean Jews are a stereotype." Obviously that's not what I'm taking umbrage with. I'm taking umbrage with the idea that Jews wouldn't be Jews if their faith outlawed interest banking. That clearly plays to the ugly "money-grubbing" stereotypes, and you know it. Hiding it behind this idiotic idea that you somehow represent all of Judaism doesn't make your story any more credible.

Save it.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

In typical fashion, you're framing it to sound as if I'm saying "Clean Jews are a stereotype."

Uh... no. Forgive me if that's how it seemed. "Clean Jews" is nothing more or less than a fairly accurate description of the people. However, it highlights an attribute that is no longer discussed. It no longer distinguishes them from the host population in an era of sewers, running water and Hoovers, so it could hardly be the essence of a stereotype.

I'm taking umbrage with the idea that Jews wouldn't be Jews if their faith outlawed interest banking.

Not just interest banking, but the whole culture, including cleanliness, literacy, good citizenship, non-evangelism, and all the rest. You can take away a bit of any culture and it remains that culture. In fact that's what we all do over the millennia and eventually we've got a culture that isn't really the same as the original. Yet the Greeks continue to regard themselves as Homer's people, and even more amusingly the Mexicans think of themselves as Aztecs, sometimes anyway. I guess we're lucky since we can only trace ourselves back to Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

That clearly plays to the ugly "money-grubbing" stereotypes, and you know it.

The money-grubbing stereotype is based on observation of their way of doing business. From the perspective of the medieval Europeans, it's not too hard to see how that could have been interpreted as "money grubbers." Their way of distributing surplus wealth or "capital"--a harbinger of the Industrial Era's surplus-driven economic systems in a time of pre-industrial food-based scarcity-driven economies--pushed it much farther down into the community than the Europeans' way of concentrating it among the aristocracy.

Hiding it behind this idiotic idea that you somehow represent all of Judaism doesn't make your story any more credible.

I do not claim to represent all of Jewry (Judaism is the religion, Judaica is the culture, Jewry is the people) and furthermore I know enough about the Jews to know that they would not tolerate anyone, inside or outside the tribe, claiming to represent all of them.

I am merely repeating what they (some of them anyway) have told me. This is, apparently, how they (some of them anyway) wish to be known to the general population.

You have so far not passed along anything that the Jewish people you know have told you about themselves. Since you think I'm wrong, I'm surprised that presenting your own evidence to the contrary was not your first step.

So far your argument has been based 100% on a stereotype of your own: That Jews don't appreciate being stereotyped by the attributes that they are proud of. I'm challenging your assertion with several decades of first-hand evidence, including testimony from people whom I know intimately or even live with.

So far you have not refuted it. I'm beginning to wonder what your own personal knowledge of the Jewish people is based on. So far everything you've said could be gleaned from a high school textbook.

 

[Bowser]

Short of tracing back for myself, how did this thread turn to Jewish culture? I was hoping to learn more about Islam, and possibly Salafism.

 

[Yasin]

Short of tracing back for myself, how did this thread turn to Jewish culture? I was hoping to learn more about Islam, and possibly Salafism.

Or to have a reasonable discussion on why some people hate it. Does that ring any bells ? Yes, the OP.

Why Salafism though ?! Why not Shia' or Sofism ?

 

[Bowser]

Or to have a reasonable discussion on why some people hate it. Does that ring any bells ? Yes, the OP.

Uhm...

do you know why many people hate Islam? I hope you Understand Islam before JUDGE about it.
please DO NOT judge Islam by the behaviour of the Muslims

The above is, well, kind of funny. Are we to conclude that most Muslims misrepresent Islam? Also, knowing that there is bad blood between Jews and Arabs must have been where the topic took a turn. I am more interested in the religion and how it's followed.

Why Salafism though ?! Why not Shia' or Sofism ?

They seem to practice, if my understanding is correct, a more literal translation of the religion's doctrine.

 

[Yasin]

The above is, well, kind of funny. Are we to conclude that most Muslims misrepresent Islam?

Perhaps. Some of the actions of the Muslims are justifiable through religion and some aren't. Let's neglect the ones that aren't, since they aren't related to the discussion. So what is it you hate about Islam and the actions of the Muslims that are based on Islam ?. What I was expecting, when I first read the thread, was replies such as Jihad, inequality between men and women and perhaps one or two who just disagree with religion as a whole. There were good points in the first two pages but since the OP never bothered to reply to anyone, the discussion wandered off.

They seem to practice, if my understanding is correct, a more literal translation of the religion's doctrine.

A more literal translation of the religion's doctrine as understood by the people who lived that period, yes.

I am more interested in the religion and how it's followed.

Ask away.

 

[Bowser]

Perhaps. Some of the actions of the Muslims are justifiable through religion and some aren't. Let's neglect the ones that aren't, since they aren't related to the discussion. So what is it you hate about Islam and the actions of the Muslims that are based on Islam ?. What I was expecting, when I first read the thread, was replies such as Jihad, inequality between men and women and perhaps one or two who just disagree with religion as a whole. There were good points in the first two pages but since the OP never bothered to reply to anyone, the discussion wandered off.

I've dropped in on the thread earlier but haven't been following it with diligence.

A more literal translation of the religion's doctrine as understood by the people who lived that period, yes.

Yes, and there are those who adhere to the earlier following now, which is disturbing when we think of where Christianity was only a century or two ago. The Salafis appear to be working towards a more backward society than what we would want for the Middle East. They seem to be a threat to any real progress in the region. They might not be worse than any other Islamist group, but they're on the rise.

 

[Yasin]

Yes, and there are those who adhere to the earlier following now, which is disturbing when we think of where Christianity was only a century or two ago. The Salafis appear to be working towards a more backward society than what we would want for the Middle East. They seem to be a threat to any real progress in the region. They might not be worse than any other Islamist group, but they're on the rise.

This, to a degree, is why I asked you 'Why Salfists and not any other group ?'. It's the most right, the only right ?, group you could have picked in a thread like this. The backward argument; a valid and a reasonable one but directed at the wrong target. See, the Salafists aim is to apply Islam, no more and, most definitely, no less; the 'no less' part is why the west is disturbed by them. But you are directing the correct question towards the wrong people. Salafism isn't an invention, it's essentially Islam. Their doctrine is to apply the instructions of Islam and what's deemed true of the prophet's teachings. Which is precisely what Islam instructs. So the backwardness you speak of isn't because the Salafists chose to make certain rules, they are simply applying the instructions of the Koran and Sunnah. [See post 79].

So what you should wonder about isn't Salafis, it's Islam. You should ask why is Islam a threat to the progress in the region ? Why does Islam want a backward society ?. Because they both mean the same thing. In fact, Salafism is a term coined not by Salafists but by other groups to identify them, based on their doctrine to understand Islam the way it was understood by their predecessors (which translates to Salaf in Arabic); they refused to give themselves a name because they identified themselves as Muslims only.

Apart from that, and whether you choose to acknowledge Salafism as Islam or not, the article you referenced was much like the one you made for the Koran scriptures promoting Jihad, in that it was both subjective and referenceless. If you want me to clarify or confirm what you think is wrong in Islam, you will need to be more precise. I can't discuss why you think Islam works towards a backward society without knowing what you consider a backward society and what you see in Islam that will lead to it.

Yes, and there are those who adhere to the earlier following now, which is disturbing when we think of where Christianity was only a century or two ago.

Not that it is related to the discussion, but I wished you didn't draw this analogy. Whether it was for the lack of precise instructions in their scriptures or their Popes' greed and corruption, the Christians didn't follow their religion correctly for a very long time, then they decided to shun it altogether and go for a secular society, which is not a Christian one no matter what their constitution states or what book they swear on at court. Islam is different; it tells Muslims what to do and how and when to do it. The similarity lies in the people; Muslims and Christians alike neglect their religion. You can, however, point to certain similarities, or differences in that matter, in a wide range of instructions; which is what I want this discussion to head towards. Arguments discussing Islam and it's scriptures not how it's followers acted or behaved, for every religion had fanatics and good, or evil, intentioned misinformed individuals and/or groups.
Thank you.

 

[Yasin]

Strange. My post went into moderation queue.

 

[spidergoat]

Strange. My post went into moderation queue.

Happened to me too, I think it's just a bug they are trying to fix.

 

[Yasin]

Shall I write another or they may post it ?

 

[spidergoat]

Shall I write another or they may post it ?

I don't know.

 

[Yasin]

Yes, and there are those who adhere to the earlier following now, which is disturbing when we think of where Christianity was only a century or two ago. The Salafis appear to be working towards a more backward society than what we would want for the Middle East. They seem to be a threat to any real progress in the region. They might not be worse than any other Islamist group, but they're on the rise.

This, to a degree, is why I asked you 'Why Salfists and not any other group ?'. They are the most right group, the only right?, to ask this of, because they essentially are Islam as I will explain soon. The backward argument; a valid and a reasonable one but directed at the wrong target. You see, the Salafists aim is to apply Islam, no more and, most definitely, no less; the 'no less' part is why the west is disturbed by them. But you are directing the correct question towards the wrong group. Salafism isn't an invention, it's essentially Islam. They want to apply the rules and instructions of Islam as demonstrated in Koran and Sunnah. So the backwardness you speak of isn't because the Salafists chose to make certain rules, they are simply applying the instructions of the Koran and Sunnah. [See post 79].

So what you should wonder about isn't Salafis, it's Islam. You should ask why is Islam a threat to the progress in the region ? Why does Islam want a backward society ?. Because they both mean the same thing. In fact, Salafism is a term coined not by Salafists but by other groups to identify them, based on their doctrine to understand Islam the way it was understood by their predecessors (which translates to Salaf in Arabic); they refused to give themselves a name because they identified themselves as Muslims only. If you had asked about Shia, for example, I would have had to argue, first, how Shia falsifies and distorts many of the rules of Islam to begin with and had I convinced you, we would then proceed to discuss the correct instructions of Islam, about which you may argue, but with assurance that at least you are arguing Islam, not a distorted image of it.

Apart from that, and whether you choose to acknowledge Salafism as Islam or not, the article you referenced was much like the one you made for the Koran scriptures promoting what you deemed disturbing, in that it was both subjective and referenceless. If you want me to clarify or confirm what you think is wrong in Islam, you will need to be more precise. I can't discuss why you think Islam works towards a backward society without knowing what you consider to be a backward society and what you see in Islam that will lead to it.

Yes, and there are those who adhere to the earlier following now, which is disturbing when we think of where Christianity was only a century or two ago.

Not that it matters with our current discussion, but I wish you hadn't drawn that analogy. In that respect, Islam and Christianity differ greatly. Whether it was for the lack of precise instructions in their scriptures or their Popes' greed and corruption, the Christians didn't follow their religion correctly, as is, for a very long time, then they decided to shun it altogether and go for a secular society, which is not a Christian one no matter what the constitution says or what book you swear on at court. Islam is different; it tells Muslims what to do and how and when to do it, and what not to do and the punishment for it. It controls a great portion of a Muslim's life, which is a source of many a discussion. The similarity, you may have intended, lies in the people; Muslims and Christians alike neglect their religion. That's where we should stop, because it doesn't matter. I shouldn't judge Christianity based on what the puritans did to the catholic and vice versa, let alone other religions. It never mattered as long as it wasn't in the bible. If I ever feel interested in discussing Islam Vs Christianity I should be corrected if I chose the history as an argument, unless, of course, we were discussing which of them had the brightest history; a futile discussion.

Thank you for your patience, I hope the long article didn't bother you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Yasin, like every advertised religion, Islam is just a load of FALSE crap designed to make people feel good. It only works on people who value how they feel more than actual truth. Trying to sell Islam on a science site (i.e. a place where the majority is going to value truth) is just kind of well... stupid.

 

[Yasin]

That's relevant to a discussion on religion, not to one on Islam. The thread supposes you are either a religious man, or a non religious one who is willing to go past it and discuss what he thinks might be the reason for the hate Islam gets. I'm not refuting atheism here, I'm pointing out that it's not the place to discuss it. The thread's goal is very clear and the sub forum is called Comparative Religion; there are other threads and other forums if you want to discuss what you call actual facts.
As to me I don't sell Islam, I only attempt to correct some misunderstandings you get because I know it's difficult and boring to look for the sources in everything you read. After your facts are corrected, feel free to exhibit any emotion you prefer towards Islam, but this time, based on a solid understanding of it.

 

[GeoffP]

Thanks for your comments Yasin.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That's relevant to a discussion on religion, not to one on Islam. The thread supposes you are either a religious man, or a non religious one who is willing to go past it and discuss what he thinks might be the reason for the hate Islam gets.

Well no, that's not correct. The thread's creator had no intention of discussing anything and makes no such supposition. He/she strictly posted a promotional plea advertisement and then vanished from the forum with that single post.

do you know why many people hate Islam? I hope you Understand Islam before JUDGE about it.
please DO NOT judge Islam by the behaviour of the Muslims

I'm not refuting atheism here, I'm pointing out that it's not the place to discuss it. The thread's goal is very clear and the sub forum is called Comparative Religion; there are other threads and other forums if you want to discuss what you call actual facts.

The comparitive religion subforum is here for discussions concerning the "history of religion, origin belief, finding roots in mythologies of the world, anthropology of religion, comparing of religious tradition...". Yes the thread's goal of being an emotional plea advertisement to not judge Islam based on the behaviors of Muslims is very clear; however, it does not fit into what this subforum is designed for. I am fine with engaging the rules designed for this subforum; however, at present there is no corresponding topic that fits.

As to me I don't sell Islam, I only attempt to correct some misunderstandings you get because I know it's difficult and boring to look for the sources in everything you read. After your facts are correct, feel free to exhibit any emotion you prefer towards Islam, but this time, based on a solid understanding of it.

What misunderstandings are you attempting to correct?

 

[Yasin]

Well no, that's not correct. The thread's creator had no intention of discussing anything and makes no such supposition. He/she strictly posted a promotional plea advertisement and then vanished from the forum with that single post.

I agree.

The comparitive religion subforum is here for discussions concerning the "history of religion, origin belief, finding roots in mythologies of the world, anthropology of religion, comparing of religious tradition...". Yes the thread's goal of being an emotional plea advertisement to not judge Islam based on the behaviors of Muslims is very clear; however, it does not fit into what this subforum is designed for. I am fine with engaging the rules designed for this subforum; however, at present there is no corresponding topic that fits.

I agree again. I'm sorry if my last reply suggested I sympathise with the creator of this thread one bit, but that doesn't deny that the goal of this thread is clear. See the replies on the first and second page, what they all have in common is that they are an answer to the question in the OP, regardless of the creator. The emotional plea to not judge Islam based on the Muslims' behaviour is, as you say, out of place. Nevertheless, the purpose of the thread is understood by commenters.

What misunderstandings are you attempting to correct?

If you mean misunderstandings regarding what, why regarding Islam,the subject in discussion, of course. I don't exactly have an agenda here. Your opinions of anything are, well, yours, and I haven't an intention to change them so long as you don't base them on false facts.

Thanks for your comments Yasin.

Erm, thanks. (Why does this feel like the end of a failed interview ?! - O, well thank you for coming, we'll call you if anything comes up.)