Support NeoGAF

[Game4life]

So is there anyone who seriously thinks women subjugation and hatred against homosexuality etc for many years is because of economic, political and geographic reasons rather than religion?

 

[Jonm1010]

I'm being factually incorrect? How many did he kill? Low estimates range from a quarter to half a million of his own people. That's on the low end. On the higher end it's a million or more. You want to argue numbers? He was a fucking monster. And where are you going with this? I never said anything about the U.S using removing Saddam as a just means to going into Iraq, i said the opposite. You're just going off into a tangent here.

There is an argument to be made that the U.S should no longer attempt to be the "world's police" and let everyone go fuck themselves. This is a real debate here in the country. Let everyone deal with their own problems; be it genocide, hunger, disease, fundamentalism, dictatorship, conflict, etc. You seem to be wanting to promote this stance... i'm not like you.

I believe in the modern secular society in which we can make justified claims to a well being for all. If that means removing a tyrant like Saddam or Kim Jong-un with a potential for collateral damage than so be it. You may feel like you're taking some type of moral high ground for "letting them be" but you're not on the higher ground. You'd essentially condemn hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to a bleak existence.

You once again didn't address a single point I made outside of fluffing up the numbers again and ignoring their context(something that seems to be a staple in your arguments).

You posted this: "Removing S. Hussein was justification alone for going into Iraq,"

That is an unequivocally false statement. Under no internationally recognized law or even in our own domestic law does that criteria alone give justification or authorization to invade another sovereign country. You may find that a personal criteria but that alone does not authorize an act of war.

I believe in the modern secular society in which we can make justified claims to a well being for all. If that means removing a tyrant like Saddam or Kim Jong-un with a potential for collateral damage than so be it. You may feel like you're taking some type of moral high ground for "letting them be" but you're not on the higher ground. You'd essentially condemn hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to a bleak existence.

I'm a liberal but this is where many common liberals fail- This idea that the moral high ground is not interfering with a "sovereign nation" and their people. If those people are being oppressed to living a life of bondage then it is the global societies obligation to remove the people from those horrific circumstances regardless of how blind they are to their own circumstances.

This is just short sighted. And wrong. First off the rationale is not that the moral high ground is achieved by not involving ones nation, that's a straw man.

The reason you don't go around attempting to overthrow every despotic regime by any means necessary is a simple issue of scarcity. The cost in blood, treasure and unintended consequences outweighs the available resources. It's why imperialism and many empires collapse. It's why regime changes need a higher standard then just "he's a very bad guy to his people." If that was the sole criteria our country would be a ghost of history given the number of countries that treat their people horribly and the number of conflicts we would feel obligated to engage in based on your rigid outlook.

Due to our economic and military footprint around the globe, our role in the UN and our hegemonic status, the U.S. will not anytime soon be able to drop out of the world police business. However our nation's(and any respectable nations) primary function on the world stage is to look after our own citizens well being and a heavily interventionist role has produced higher costs then benefits. Which is why I and others don't agree with the idea of expanding our role into heavy intervention and nation building unless a high bar of criteria is met. Vietnam and Iraq illustrate perfectly the dangers that can go along with nation building. However noble the intentions, more often then not, the end result is a situation as bad or worse for the people you intend to help. All while accumulating a huge domestic cost in the process and weakening your ability to respond to other global issues.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Do not agree with this.

Look at these verses;

6:19, 6:38, 6:114; 7:52; 17:12; 11:1; 41:3; 12:111, and 16:89.

Pretty much every single one says how he has provided ths "complete" book and "everything"? is in it, and that you should refer to it and nothing else. In verses 66:1 and 33:37 the Quran states how only God can prohibit things and that the Prophet cannot, which also contradicts Hadith.

Verse 6:119 is one of my favourites, as it clearly states how you should eat and do something unless God prohibits it, and that you shouldn't listen to ANYONE else besides God, and other people knowledge and opinions are meaningless.

I can post a dozen more verses where the Quran implies and says how you should only listen to God and the Quran and nothing else, and that it is complete.

I have tried to have this discussion many times rationally with other 'experts' on the religion, and then they say how those verses are taken out of context, or that my interpretation is wrong. I love when they use that excuse. They themselves first say how Quran has many interpretations, and then when it comes to these verses, theirs are the only ones that are correct.


[Quran 7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which HADITH, besides this (Quran) do they believe in?

[Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless HADITH, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.

[Quran 39:23] God has revealed herein the BEST HADITH; a book that is consistent and points out both ways (to heaven and hell). The skins of those who reverence their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up for God's message. Such is God's guidance; he bestows it upon whomever He wills. As for those sent astray by God, nothing can guide them.
[Quran 45:6] These are God's revelations (Quran) that we recite to you truthfully. In which HADITH other than God and His revelations do they believe?

[Quran 52:34] Let them produce a HADITH like this (Quran) if they are truthful.

[Quran 68:44] Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this HADITH(Quran); we will lead them on whence they never perceive.

[Quran 77:50] Which HADITH other than this do they uphold?

I have seen some put "statement" or "word" iunstead of Hadith in the above verses. Implies the same thing. There are countless examples in the Quran where God keeps saying ONLY the Quran and nothing else.

And of course, how could I leave out the verse where the Quran couldn't be any more clear when people say it isn't complete and God left things out, and also the fact that people Idolize the Prophet;

[Quran 18:109-110] Say (O Muhammad), 'If the ocean were ink for the words of my Lord, the ocean would have run out before my Lord runs out of words, even if we supplied twice as much ink.' Say (O Muhammad), 'I am no more than a human being like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is ONE God. Thus, anyone who looks forward to meeting his Lord shall lead a righteous life, and NEVER SET UP ANY IDOLS beside his Lord.'

related to your favorite 6:119

again..common sense

7:185 commentary: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=854&region=E1
31:6 commentary: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2079&region=E1&CR=

so on and so forth.

Here is the main concept because you don't seem to be comprehending it:

1. Quran is the word of God and the final word.
2. Hadith was written years and decades after Islams inception and thus NOT the word of God but stories of the Prophet (saw)
3. As Quran is the final word of God, all contradictions between Hadith and Quran mean Hadith is in doubt and Quran is correct

 

[Kraftwerk]

related to your favorite 6:119

again..common sense

7:185 commentary: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=854&region=E1
31:6 commentary: http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=2079&region=E1&CR=

so on and so forth.

Here is the main concept because you don't seem to be comprehending it:

1. Quran is the word of God and the final word.
2. Hadith was written years and decades after Islams inception and thus NOT the word of God but stories of the Prophet (saw)
3. As Quran is the final word of God, all contradictions between Hadith and Quran mean Hadith is in doubt and Quran is correct

I don't get what you are trying to say here?

I am saying that following Hadith is just bizarre to me as God has said in the Quran not to follow anything else besides the Hadith, and even the Prophet cannot create laws or tell you what to do. yet you have countless Muslims who follow hadith on the same level as Quran.

Dont get what you are trying to say by me"not comprehending it".

It's also ironic since there is even a hadith that says that;

"Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it."

 

[Maninthemirror]

I don't get what you are trying to say here?

I am saying that following Hadith is just bizarre to me as God has said in the Quran not to follow anything else besides the Hadith, and even the Prophet cannot create laws or tell you what to do. yet you have countless Muslims who follow hadith on the same level as Quran.

Dont get what you are trying to say by me"not comprehending it".

It's also ironic since there is even a hadith that says that;

"Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than the Quran shall erase it."

What ? You are confusing mainstream Islam with maudoodism which came in 20th century and said Hadith takes precedence over quran. That is not the case . Quran take precedence over Hadith in every sense of the word.

Hadith wasn't even written years after Quran was revealed so how can God say in the Quran about a book of examples by men written years after Quran. The final book is Quran and Quran has instructions. Hadith only contain examples of those instructions using what happened in the life of the Holy Prophet and many are 3rd and 4th hand accounts

The only valid Hadiths are written which don't contradict the Quran and most of them are like that as they are written by people trusted in the community as unbiased and not without an agenda

No one follows Hadith as a God given book, it's only stories of examples of Prophet (saw) that is it

 

[Kraftwerk]

What ? You are confusing mainstream Islam with maudoodism which came in 20th century and said Hadith takes precedence over quran. That is not the case . Quran take precedence over Hadith in every sense of the word.

Hadith wasn't even written years after Quran was revealed so how can God say in the Quran about a book of examples by men written years after Quran. The final book is Quran and Quran has instructions. Hadith only contain examples of those instructions using what happened in the life of the Holy Prophet and many are 3rd and 4th hand accounts

huh?

I came here posting how I don't like that a lot of muslims following hadith and follow it, and also the division that has happened in Islam with the sects.

Not sure why or what you are debating me about at this point.

 

[Maninthemirror]

huh?

I came here posting how I don't like that a lot of muslims following hadith and follow it, and also the division that has happened in Islam with the sects.

Not sure why or what you are debating me about at this point.

Now I am confused, maybe we diverge on the same point and agree

 

[Kraftwerk]

Now I am confused, maybe we diverge on the same point and agree

Indeed.

 

[kame-sennin]

And others will perform unyielding feats of mental gymnastics to try to paint Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Christian violence as all being at completely the same level. Never mind the fact that you if look at the current Wars in the world:
http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223
And do Ctrl-F 'Islam' you get a 156 matches and no other religious term even comes close.

But I know . . . it is all poverty, colonialism, land disputes, and every other excuse you can come up with.

Ok, you're right. Muslims are responsible for most of the world's wars

Spoiler

that the U.S./UK/Israel started

. Their religion is uniquely bad, and we can't have a civilized society with people believing in such a hateful ideology. So, now that we're all on the same page, what do you suggest is the best way to begin liquidating them?

 

[Son of Sam]

Ok, you're right. Muslims are responsible for most of the world's wars

Spoiler

that the U.S./UK/Israel started

. Their religion is uniquely bad, and we can't have a civilized society with people believing in such a hateful ideology. So, now that we're all on the same page, what do you suggest is the best way to begin liquidating them?

Why does it have to be like this? why can't you recognize that there is a growing movement amongst many Muslims that prescribe to fundamental Islam?

 

[speculawyer]

Ok, you're right. Muslims are responsible for most of the world's wars

Spoiler

that the U.S./UK/Israel started

. Their religion is uniquely bad, and we can't have a civilized society with people believing in such a hateful ideology. So, now that we're all on the same page, what do you suggest is the best way to begin liquidating them?

That is some pretty sad strawman argument style. But I guess some people can't handle reality in a mature way.

 

[RustyNails]

Pretty much every single one says how he has provided ths "complete" book and "everything"? is in it, and that you should refer to it and nothing else. In verses 66:1 and 33:37 the Quran states how only God can prohibit things and that the Prophet cannot, which also contradicts Hadith.

If I understand you correctly, you are pointing out the apparent contradiction when Quran says "this is a clear book", yet Muslims have been doing things antithetical to Quran (such as dividing into sects), and the fact that since Quran is complete in its revelation, there is no point in using Hadiths. For the first point, my understanding is that it is "clear" in it's message (iman) and guidance (what is liked, lawful, lawful but discouraged, and unlawful). But Quran also says some verses are not so clear, ambiguous or allegorical and accepts that Quran can be open to wrong interpretations. But it says that this is not the fault of Quran but due to people who want to cause discord. Quran says that people who deviate do so not because of Quran, but because of what's in their hearts. For example,

"There are two kinds of verses in this Book: muhkamat (which are precise in meaning: ) they are the essence of the Books, and the other kind is mutashabihat (which are ambiguous. ) Those, who are perverse of heart, always go after the mutashabihat in pursuit of mischief and try to interpret them arbitrarily, whereas in fact, none save Allah knows their real meanings! 6 In contrast to them, those, who possess sound knowledge, say, "We believe in them because all of them are from our Lord." 7 And the fact is that only the people of insight can learn lessons from such things. They pray to Allah, "Our Lord, let not our hearts become perverse after 'Thou hast once guided us aright, bestow upon us mercy from Thyself for Thou art the real Benefactor! Lord! Thou wilt surely gather all mankind together on a Day which is inevitable, for Thou never failest to fulfil Thy promise." Quran 3:5

The message itself is clear, that there is no god but God, and everything pertaining to that creed. It is clear in it's conclusion. Keep in mind that every single sect in Islam agrees on Quran as it's source of guidance and agrees that it's perfect, and that Prophet Muhammad is the messenger of the one God Allah. Agreeing on those two points is all that's needed to be a Muslim. On your second point, when it comes to practice, Quran is vague on it. It says establish prayer, but doesn't say how or what to say in it. It says give Zakat, but does not deal with it's details. The practice and its details, legal rulings and other mundane stuff. This falls into the Sunnah, hence why we need to refer to Hadiths.

 

[speculawyer]

This stuff about "every interpretation is valid" is not true. There's a difference between personal interpretation, which may or may not be valid, to scholastic interpretation which has broad consensus among the ulema and is likely to be valid. The scholarly interpretation is based on a broad, exhaustive study of Quran itself through it's context and setting, along with the sunnah of the Prophet and the conduct of rightly guided caliphs.

I don't know what is 'valid' and what is not. And you can't just go by authority because which authority. Sunni & Shia obviously both have different views on many things.

The issue is which interpretations exist and get lots of people following them. Most American Christians think Catholicism is not the correct interpretation of Christianity but one certainly cannot dismiss it!

 

[Maninthemirror]

I don't know what is 'valid' and what is not. And you can't just go by authority because which authority. Sunni & Shia obviously both have different views on many things.

The issue is which interpretations exist and get lots of people following them. Most American Christians think Catholicism is not the correct interpretation of Christianity but one certainly cannot dismiss it!

https://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/muslims-not-islam-need-reform/

In her recent Wall Street Journal opinion-editorial, Irshad Manji claims that not just Muslims, but the Quran and Islam itself needs reformation. In conflating the two, Manji ignores the possibility that the owner’s manual might be fine, while the issues lie with the owner.

The Quran commands Muslims to conduct a thorough investigation of its meaning (4:95) and, as Manji rightly noted, to repeatedly reflect (2:220) and meditate (4:83). It warns that those with a perverted heart will ignore the decisive foundational verses of the Quran, and manipulate the interpretive verses to promote discord and incorrect interpretations (3:8). Manji’s defeatist approach of “acknowledging and reinterpreting the [Quran's] awkward verses” solves nothing because it does not explain to extremists, or to the world, why the extremist understanding of Islam is wholly incorrect. This is crucial because otherwise, the false allegation that Islam promotes violence goes unanswered.

Manji glazes over the Quranic guidance to investigate, folds her hand to “publically acknowledge awkward verses,” and seeks a new interpretation, all the while hoping violent Muslims will simply forget the “awkward” meanings. The real solution, instead, is based on logic and explained in the Quran itself, “And none knows its right interpretation except God and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding” (3:8). Only with a firm foundation in knowledge and a concerted investigation — not blind avoidance — can a person properly understand the Quran, including the allegedly awkward verses.

Extremists like bin Laden arrive at their perverted understanding of Islam due to ignorance combined with a lack of sincere investigation. While on the opposite end, self-declared reformists like Manji arrive at their defeatist understanding of Islam for the same reasons. The reformation of those who support violent interpretations of the Quran can never happen with Manji’s proposed solution.

If there is STILL an issue understanding this verse for any reason here is the commentary.

 

[RustyNails]

I don't know what is 'valid' and what is not. And you can't just go by authority because which authority. Sunni & Shia obviously both have different views on many things.

The issue is which interpretations exist and get lots of people following them. Most American Christians think Catholicism is not the correct interpretation of Christianity but one certainly cannot dismiss it!

If we can keep the Scotsman out of the conversation, you can say something is valid or not based on Quran and Sunnah. That's it. Just because Nation of Islam say they believe Wallace Fard Muhammad was Allah does not mean their interpretation of Islam is suddenly valid. A mere cursory examination of Islamic doctrine will dispel any such notions. Which part of Quran do Shias and Sunnis differ on? They do not have differing interpretation of Quran. Shias believe Ali was appointed by Muhammad to be the Caliph, whereas Sunnis believe a Caliph must be chosen by the people. It has nothing to do with Quran.

 

[Ashes]

So is there anyone who seriously thinks women subjugation and hatred against homosexuality etc for many years is because of economic, political and geographic reasons rather than religion?

Religion is not divorced from context. You talk of it like an absolute entity with fixed definitions.

Take the shariah, and the founding schools of jurisprudence. When these founders sat around to decide what was law, some made rules on crime & property. & these rulings were based on the reality of the 7th century.
Economical, political, cultural baggage in tow. Sometimes, the arguments they laid down, were directly connected with, and justified with the contexts you choose to ignore! Go read some of the commentaries. They too had to interpret like it needs to be done today.

These commentaries have almost become immutable laws in some people's minds. When there is no real justification for this. Worse, some, like Wahhabism, turned back the clock, and actually ignored most of Islamic history & reformation, to go back to these 7th century commentaries!

I'm going to keep it simple and not talk about fiqh, and the formative years but on a very basic level, a lot of stumbling blocks emerged last century.

What did these 7th century jurists know about women and the workplace - they thought they were reforming, and progressive by giving women the right to work. And the right to her own property. Etc.

What did these great minds in the 7th century know about Human Sexuality? When they were laying down laws, and found no strong evidence for punishment for homosexuality? they debated even between themselves, even when everyone was absolutely sure it was 'wrong'.

And that's if you can get your head around hadiths with these mindsets. History is tainted somewhat.

 

[ecnal]

https://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/muslims-not-islam-need-reform/

http://i.imgur.com/uOsFCsU.png[IMG]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/99rh8W9.gif[IMG]

If there is STILL an issue understanding this verse for any reason here is the commentary.[/QUOTE]

out of curiosity, where is this commentary being sourced from, and why have you deemed it to be the "correct" interpretation of said verses?

 

[Maninthemirror]

out of curiosity, where is this commentary being sourced from, and why have you deemed it to be the "correct" interpretation of said verses?

https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1

Are you saying the person who interpret it to mean Muslims who are good hearted is the one who has the pervesion in their hearts? It's a pretty straight forward verse

 

[Ashes]

https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1

Are you saying the person who interpret it to mean Muslims who are good hearted is the one who has the pervesion in their hearts? It's a pretty straight forward verse

Not sure what you mean. But it could *possibly* be because the ahmadiyya break pretty much the fundamental concept of Muhammed being the last prophet.

From a scholarly perspective, I do wonder how many covenants you can *break* before you're not an Islamic branch - legally speaking. Something like Boko Haram, is political extremism to such an extent, that the arguments for them being non-muslim are much more authentic than the argument for.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Not sure what you mean. But it could *possibly* be because the ahmadiyya break pretty much the fundamental concept of Muhammed being the last prophet.

From a scholarly perspective, I do wonder how many covenants you can *break* before you're not an Islamic branch. Something like boko haram, is political extremism to such an extent, that the arguments for them being non-muslim are much more authentic than the argument for.

Ahmadiyya from other sects have 2 basic and major differences and 2 differences ONLY from mainstream which have no bearing to basic concepts and 99% of other ideological thinking

1. Jesus died a after the crucifixion natural death and survived the crucifixion as opposed to mainstream view that someone else took his place on the cross and Jesus ascended to heaven supernaturally.

2. Mainstream muslims believe Muhammad(saw) was the last Prophet of the last religion and Quran is the last book and if anyone who comes to reform (like Imam Mahdi and Jesus) will not be Prophets while Ahmadis believe Muhammad(saw) was the last law bearing Prophet of the last religion and Quran is the last book and if anyone comes to reform (like Imam Mahdi and Jesus) will be subordinate Prophets of Muhammad (saw) under Islam like Moses being the lead Prophet of Judaism(law-bearing) and Aaron being his subordinate. That is another topic entirely

Again the two points have nothing to do with that verse which points to the fact that those who are essentially evil and want to cause disorder on earth and portray islam as evil as they are will twist the verse to conform that view

 

[Ashes]

Again the two points have nothing to do with that verse which points to the fact that those who are essentially evil and want to cause disorder on earth and portray islam as evil as they are will twist the verse to conform that view

I thought you posted the quotes because we're talking about denominations?

On some level, we have to decide that certain strands are not Islamic at all. Or is everybody who wants to give them self a Muslim name, Muslim? There are certain obligations to starting up a school of thought. Even if problematic on a scholarly level, something like Quranism, is at least on the table to some degree.

It's not that a person isn't Muslim, if they're not a practising Muslim, which is a headache, but I can see that debate being had.

So I can see a shia person going to sunni mosque on the odd occasion even if prayers are different. Or seeing Sufism talks at a Muslim conference perhaps. A massive schism, but within set boundaries.

It's that the departure of Ahmadiyya, is to the point of introducing a new prophet. The only other thing to break away is to just say there are two gods. Or something like, there is no god etc..

 

[Maninthemirror]

I thought you posted the quotes because we're talking about denominations?

On some level, we have to decide that certain strands are not Islamic at all.

It's not that a person isn't Muslim, if they're not a practising Muslim, which is a headache, but I can see that debate being had.

So I can see a shia person going to sunni mosque on the odd occasion even if prayers are different. Or seeing Sufism talks at a Muslim conference perhaps. A massive schism, but within set boundaries.

It's that the departure of Ahmadiyya, is to the point of introducing a new prophet. The only other thing to break away is to just say there are two gods. Or something like, there is no god etc..

Ahmadis simply treat the predicted Imam Mahdi and Messiah as Prophet (non-law bearing) like when Quran calls Abraham the Imam of the people.

 

[Ashes]

Ahmadis simply treat the predicted Imam Mahdi and Messiah as Prophet (non-law bearing) like when Quran calls Abraham the Imam of the people.

Whose view is this based on? Shaikh Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi?

 

[Maninthemirror]

Whose view is this based on? Shaikh Muhyiddin Ibn 'Arabi?

By the definition of the word prophet.

 

[Ashes]

By the definition of the word prophet.

Maybe you should look up the arguments made for Ahmadiyya's existance. Specifically, the 'non-law bearing' part.

Anyways, we're straying off topic. So I'll leave it here. Regardless, I'm sure we're covering old ground. & that we've covered this before.

 

[kurisu1974]

By the definition of the word prophet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Haven't kept up with the thread as I've only just managed to find the time to watch the video but the one thing that really stuck out is the whole TYT 'we're so cool/alternative and yell all the time' looks so ridiculous when he's sitting with an academic.

Other than that, Cenk hit the nail on the head when complaining about how Christians deny Hitler was inspired by God (and obviously missing the use of the phrase 'doing God's work' as meaning doing it for God) when he said something the the effect of people secretly want to protect and argue for the faith which they were raised in whether they still hold it or not. That's exactly what Cenk is doing. Whilst I do agree that Islam is such a force because of the nature of the area where Islam resides in it's a more general problem with Holy books that they're so vast you can justify almost anything you do. Reza Aslan has explored this crossroads of Islam perfectly however the lack of a single authoritative figure in Islam (similar to the Pope) is part of the danger.

 

[kame-sennin]

Why does it have to be like this? why can't you recognize that there is a growing movement amongst many Muslims that prescribe to fundamental Islam?

I would never deny that. Radicalism, islamic or otherwise, is on the rise in West Asia. That is in an entirely predictable outcome of fifteen years of war. I just don't think Muslims are particularly special in this regard, which is the whole argument that I object to. Any peoples who endured what they have endured would go to extreme measures as a reaction. If we want to really address the problem, we need to reduce intervention in the region, enforce international law with regards to Israel, engage in coordinated law enforcement with local authorities to arrest hardline terrorists, and provide mediation in areas where civil war has broken out.

None of these things will ever happen because the U.S. needs to maintain military hegemony over the rest of the world. Armies run on oil, therefore controlling West Asia is key to global military strategy (in addition to our corporate interests).

That is some pretty sad strawman argument style. But I guess some people can't handle reality in a mature way.

Homie, you've been having a meltdown for the past two pages. Let's not talk about who can and can not handle reality. But I'll put the issue to you in a more fair way; if Islam is a special problem, what is the "solution"?

 

[ecnal]

https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/guide.htm?region=E1
?
Are you saying the person who interpret it to mean Muslims who are good hearted is the one who has the pervesion in their hearts? It's a pretty straight forward verse

i'm not sure what post you read, but i asked two very simple questions that have no room for interpretation:

- source of commentary (you answered this, thank you)
- why do you view this interpretation as being correct?

 

[Son of Sam]

I would never deny that. Radicalism, islamic or otherwise, is on the rise in West Asia. That is in an entirely predictable outcome of fifteen years of war. I just don't think Muslims are particularly special in this regard, which is the whole argument that I object to. Any peoples who endured what they have endured would go to extreme measures as a reaction. If we want to really address the problem, we need to reduce intervention in the region, enforce international law with regards to Israel, engage in coordinated law enforcement with local authorities to arrest hardline terrorists, and provide mediation in areas where civil war has broken out.

None of these things will ever happen because the U.S. needs to maintain military hegemony over the rest of the world. Armies run on oil, therefore controlling West Asia is key to global military strategy (in addition to our corporate interests).

And i'm saying it's not just because of what they have endured. There's a lot of places around the world that have gone through and still are going through terrible things. You don't see them blowing themselves up, or trying to create a radical movement to spread their ideals. This is inherent within the religion itself.

I've repeated this a number of times, almost till i'm blue in the face, religion needs to spread or it fades. Islam is spread through violence. It's been like this since day 1 of the faith. The middle east being volatile as it is has allowed the foundation for the spread of radicalism, but these fundamental ideas can't spread unless the core beliefs aren't already rooted in the religion itself.

There was recent report on CNN in regards to Denmark and its Muslim citizens. Denmark has the most or is one of the most (can't remember) countries with ISIS militant converts per capita. DENMARK, one of the highest standards of living anywhere in the world. Think about that.

 

[Maninthemirror]

i'm not sure what post you read, but i asked two very simple questions that have no room for interpretation:

- source of commentary (you answered this, thank you)
- why do you view this interpretation as being correct?

that is a translation, not an interpretation. the interpretation is the commentary. the commentary is the correct one because nearly all mainstream muslims view it this way and also because of the time it was revealed and what moment it was revealed it. The translation for that is universal and everyone agrees with it (doesnt mean everyone abides by it) and the translation is pretty clear

"God has sent this book, some verses are precise and clear, some verses need more understanding. Those people who are evil will follow as per their evil ways as they seek to create disorder and discord. No one knows the correct interpretations of these verses except Allah AND those who actually study it. These people say that everything is from God and only they will understand the meaning of these verses who try to study and understand the Quran"

can't get any more simple than that

here are the translations from different schools of islam.

Sahih International: It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah. But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

Pickthall: He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

Yusuf Ali: He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

Shakir: He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.

Muhammad Sarwar: It is God who has revealed the Book to you in which some verses are clear statements (which accept no interpretation) and these are the fundamental ideas of the Book, while other verses may have several possibilities. Those whose hearts are perverse, follow the unclear statements in pursuit of their own mischievous goals by interpreting them in a way that will suit their own purpose. No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All its verses are from our Lord." No one can grasp this fact except the people of reason.

Mohsin Khan: It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Quran). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabari).

Arberry: It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, 'We believe in it; all is from our Lord'; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds.

 

[ecnal]

that is a translation, not an interpretation. the interpretation is the commentary. the commentary is the correct one because nearly all mainstream muslims view it this way and also because of the time it was revealed and what moment it was revealed it. The translation for that is universal and everyone agrees with it (doesnt mean everyone abides by it) and the translation is pretty clear

"God has sent this book, some verses are precise and clear, some verses need more understanding. Those people who are evil will follow as per their evil ways as they seek to create disorder and discord. No one knows the correct interpretations of these verses except Allah AND those who actually study it. These people say that everything is from God and only they will understand the meaning of these verses who try to study and understand the Quran"

can't get any more simple than that

here are the translations from different schools of islam.

thanks for providing further clarification.

in general, when you need to refer to commentary on a particular verse, do you prefer alislam's interpretations?

 

[Maninthemirror]

thanks for providing further clarification.

in general, when you need to refer to commentary on a particular verse, do you prefer alislam's interpretations?

I use it because it's the website of the school of thought I belong to which for most cases is mainstream

 

[kame-sennin]

There was recent report on CNN in regards to Denmark and its Muslim citizens. Denmark has the most or is one of the most (can't remember) countries with ISIS militant converts per capita. DENMARK, one of the highest standards of living anywhere in the world. Think about that.

I would think about what the standard of living is for Denmark's muslims in comparison to Denmark's white citizens. Somehow, I doubt the enlightened liberal citizens of Denmark are making their dark-skinned immigrant friends feel right at home.

With regards to the rest of your comments, yes, monotheistic religions are a fire that spreads to engulf everything in their path. But imperialism is the gasoline.

 

[Son of Sam]

I would think about what the standard of living is for Denmark's muslims in comparison to Denmark's white citizens. Somehow, I doubt the enlightened liberal citizens of Denmark are making their dark-skinned immigrant friends feel right at home.
.

Denmark is unbelievable in their generosity and understanding, actually. They are welcoming back fighters into rehabilitation programs. Helping them with counseling, jobs, housing, everything. It's stunning, really.

But it's amazing how you miss the point completely. They're not doing it because they are disenchanted with their lives in Denmark, they're doing it because they believe it is their religious duty. They're being called to fight a holy war. WHY OH WHY do people dance around this? It's absolutely absurd.

You will do everything to avoid criticizing the religion, everything in your power to tip toe around the atrocities committed by the devout. No other ideal, philosophy, or policy gets this type of privilege, the absence of criticism and blame.

 

[speculawyer]

But I'll put the issue to you in a more fair way; if Islam is a special problem, what is the "solution"?

-Admit there is a problem
-More education
-Moderation
-Hardcore Muslims either need to move to a hardcore Muslim nation if they want to live a hardcore Muslim life (take your pick . . . Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.) or accept that in the West, it will just always be another religion that gets no special privilege over other religions and cannot change the nation's laws or culture to reflect Islamic views. (No laws on alcohol, women's dress codes, no laws from the Quran, no blasphemy laws, etc.) The same goes for all other religions.
-Special programs to counter the jihadi narrative (These exist in the UK, Saudi Arabia, etc.) I think the USA has some but they are probably pretty clumsy.
-Some programs that do watch the hardcore jihadi internet sites and monitor for people here that become very interested & engaged in those sites. If people go to some of the hardcore sites and post with joy about killing kafir then I don't mind such people being monitored. Again, I hope they do the same for Neo-Nazi sites.
-Cooperation between Imams & authorities when an Imam suspects someone is going over to the dark side. Muslims themselves are the biggest victims of the jihadis and Muslims themselves have been one of the best assets in finding and exposing the extremists.
-Cooperation in interfaith dialogue things.


Perhaps looking at what has worked well in combatting the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups should be done to help deal with hardcore jihadis. They are obviously very different but they do share some things in common. A view that their divisive ideology is best and that much of society is wrong. A willingness to commit violence in furtherance of the ideology.

 

[Duji]

-Admit there is a problem
-More education
-Moderation
-Hardcore Muslims either need to move to a hardcore Muslim nation if they want to live a hardcore Muslim life (take your pick . . . Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, etc.) or accept that in the West, it will just always be another religion that gets no special privilege over other religions and cannot change the nation's laws or culture to reflect Islamic views. (No laws on alcohol, women's dress codes, no laws from the Quran, no blasphemy laws, etc.) The same goes for all other religions.
-Special programs to counter the jihadi narrative (These exist in the UK, Saudi Arabia, etc.) I think the USA has some but they are probably pretty clumsy.
-Some programs that do watch the hardcore jihadi internet sites and monitor for people here that become very interested & engaged in those sites. If people go to some of the hardcore sites and post with joy about killing kafir then I don't mind such people being monitored. Again, I hope they do the same for Neo-Nazi sites.
-Cooperation between Imams & authorities when an Imam suspects someone is going over to the dark side. Muslims themselves are the biggest victims of the jihadis and Muslims themselves have been one of the best assets in finding and exposing the extremists.
-Cooperation in interfaith dialogue things.


Perhaps looking at what has worked well in combatting the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups should be done to help deal with hardcore jihadis. They are obviously very different but they do share some things in common. A view that their divisive ideology is best and that much of society is wrong. A willingness to commit violence in furtherance of the ideology.

Yes.

We should also ramp up our international pressure and support groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. A Christian woman was saved from an apostasy death sentence in Sudan thanks to this kind of pressure -- it works. Also America should be a lot more critical of countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.