What does it mean to its followers today?
i'm a follower, it's a couple of instructions to follow where relavent, and do whatever i want where it says nothing about.
for many other followers it's a word to fill in the "religion" blank when filling forms.
What do they think of their scriptures in the context of modern life
??
i'm not sure i understand what you mean.
and how do they conciliate the theory and practice of the Quran with modern living?
i don't know, we just do it, practice our freedom of religion i guess..
it's easily compatible, if that's what you mean.
Oh yeah only muslims should answer this as it would be interesting to know how muslims reconcile terrorism,
glad to see they have so far granted you your wish,
my personal view, is that there are three kinds of terrorism:
1-one which we all agree upon is bad, like people killing civilians who are residents of the same country and there's no war, like the dumbasses who call themselves muslims and blow themselvs in the middle of riyadh, whether they targeted muslim population who they call traitors or non muslims who the saudi or any other government have allowed to live in their country.
those might start rambling about all the bad consequences we're suffering for having those non muslims in islamic countries, they might also bring up a quote by the prophet muhammed saying to keep all non muslims out of the arabian peninsula....now while both point are debatable and they could be right or wrong about them, they are a 100% wrong in the way they are dealing with it, the government have allowed them to stay there and they have signed contracts and everything, and the prophet also did say:"who killed a contractee won't sniff the smell of heaven", and "muslims abide by their treaties", and just how killing them is a back stabbing move trashing lots of islamic morals, and definitly doing more harm than good.
blowing up yourself in the middle of a market is also terrorism..and so on.
2-what the west calls terrorism and we (or i) don't:
acts of war against invading troops, is not terrorism.
freedom fighting, is not terrorism, defending a homeland, even by suicide bombing, is not terrorism.
actually it is terrorism, it's terrorizing your enemy, which is a good thing, and the arabic translation of terrorism is actually ordered in the quran in this context, such verses are used by those who brain wash the dumbos of the first type into doing "terrorism", saying it's mentioned and ordered in the quran, so strap it up and let a rip!.
so... no, killing american husbands and sons and brothers in afganistan and iraq is not terrorism, it's self defense.
3-a grey area:
which is when an invaded country which has had it's civilians terrorized, reply to the terrorizing country's civilians by peer terrorism, like 9/11.
you have countries living life and walking their path, along comes another country and wrecks havoc and tyranny in it, why did i say i"wreck havoc and tyranny in it" instead of just "invade" it? because of the great difference in power, making it go from a typical war of invader and defender, into "wreck havoc and tyranny in it".. from tanks, soldiers and jets vs. tanks, soldiers and jets, into an army vs. civilians.. and a war against civillians is the definition of terrorism.
so when the terrorized civilians reply by terrorizing the civilians of the original terrorizes, for me it enters the grey zone.
what nudges it out of the grey zone into the justified white zone, is that those who are terrorizing have no other way of defending themselves, meaning it would be really grey if the two armeis were fighting, and one army trespassed by terrorizing the civilians of another, then is replying by terrorism justified? i don't know.. but in the absence of an army and fair fight and equal power and just no systematic war as we know it, the choice taken by the terrorized becomes a bit more into focus, even though i won't be so sure about it.
-A
the first step in discussing terrorism from islam's viewpoint is to define terrorism so we can start from shared grounds of understanding, and be sure we're talking about the same thing.
B-
i really like this, and i think it's got a point:
-C
i've inquired about type 3 before, see
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2293544#post2293544
which, last time i checked, wasn't locked.
that's utterly silly, women are holy in islam, well, in a manner of speaking, everything else is bullshit, propaganda, whatever you call it..
and antiquated religious edicts with modern living.
wow, that's interesting..mmm, how about this:
something that even though it's coming from the past, it bears what we can't reach in the future.
i think they're ambiguous parts of wisdom which survived the old times, kinda like how a book of quantum mechanics would be appreciated by a kid born in the second stone age of post world war three or world war four.
also, such religious edicts may be surrounded by many different forms of disapproval, but they have never failed when followed.
This of course isn't religious baiting its the new 'good faith' sciforums is passing as intellectual debate
that went over my head.
You see in order to ask the question one first has to see muslims as people not some monolithic group (wink wink its an example of doublspeak).
why thank you lucy.
