Well to me the basic problem stems from too many people and
insane religions that guide them. Ten thousand years ago before
the agricultural revolution, the hunter/gatherer societies had conflict
but it was mainly in the form of strikes on rival bands to force the
exchange of genetics, I steal your daughter and marry her off to my
son, you steal my daughter and marry her off to yours, that had
a positive effect on the overall genetic strength of the race.
Today its just the opposite, there is so much genetic variance now
we don't need that practice so to me warfare is a natural outcome
of just too many people on the planet and when you add insane
religions wars are inevitable. Competition is inevitable even in low
populations, its bred in to us from millions of years of evolution so
that will never disappear but unless the population goes way down
there will always be war and that may end up being the answer to
reducing the population to sustainable levels. Right now population
seems to be on the path to 10 billion or more people. That in itself
is insane. Add insane religions espousing war and you can guess the
result.
Actually, I believe their are more than just Christians and Muslims involved in this fight. Don't forget The Progressive Secularians (I made that word up). They are a huge group that will pose thenselves "above the fray" .. while keeping score and pointing out how stupid the rest of us are to fight for anything at all. Lots of them will be killed too .. they're considered even bigger infideles than Christians are. Sooner on later they'll fight or die.
So you see .. it's not all bad.
................................................
"Will the World ever grow up?"
..................................................
The World is grown up IMO.
People either grow up or not, and the ones that do, grow up at different times in there lives. Some 'grow up' quicker than others and some may grow up the day before they die of old age.
Lots die before they ever grow up.
To answer what might be part of the question .. NO, I don't believe ALL THE PEOPLE on Earth will ever all be "grown up" at the same time.
The machine's not designed to work that way .. It's not realistic to think that could ever be acheived IMO.
...........................
After thought .. What does "grow up" mean?
Fully grown?
Old enough to vote?
Drink?
Get (somebody) pregnet?
Or is it .. mature enough to takr responsibility for ones own actions?
Originally posted by kmax87So we can only go forward when :
How in the world can we go forward if at every turn its just a one eyed, our group are spotless and your group are the problem style of rhetoric.
1. The west accept that because of their own violent religious history they cannot complain about the behaviour of muslims today.
2. The west accept that because of the imperialist domination in the muslim countries, death threats and destruction of property is Ok.
Correct ?
Originally posted by Rajk999At least be a lot more circumspect in their dealings with the Islamic world and at least not trying to always somehow inhabit the high moral ground in terms of being inherently superior as a system.
So we can only go forward when :
1. The west accept that because of their own violent religious history they cannot complain about the behaviour of muslims today.
2. The west accept that because of the imperialist domination in the muslim countries, death threats and destruction of property is Ok.
Correct ?
I'm not saying that in doing so that extreme segments within the Muslim system will become any less extreme. I dont think that the wests past history legitimises Islamic extremism. I have never said that nor do I condone it. But while the west denounces Islamic extremism, while not finding any similarities between it and their own chequered history, it does IMO not leave any doors open for actual dialouge, or for the voice of moderation on both sides to ever gain ascendancy.
And this is my point. The moderates hold the key in this debate and the only way that we as a world community have any chance forward is if we demand honesty from both sides and not continually fan the flames of extremism, due to our one eyed self righteousness.
Originally posted by kmax87There is an interesting article in the thread ' Should Denmark apologise' posted by telerion on pg 40 (very little of which surprises me). Seems to me like the 'moderates' have their work cut out for them, if they plan to try to get their 'brothers' to mature.
At least be a lot more circumspect in their dealings with the Islamic world and at least not trying to always somehow inhabit the high moral ground in terms of being inherently superior as a system.
I'm not saying that in doing so that extreme segments within the Muslim system will become any less extreme. I dont think that the wests past history legitimis ...[text shortened]... sides and not continually fan the flames of extremism, due to our one eyed self righteousness.
I guess you think is the duty of the west to sit and wait and tolerate the abuse and the death threats and duck the bullets while these jokers get their act together.
I still believe the best solution is a 10' wall, for a 100 years or so.
Originally posted by Rajk999You didn’t address this to me, but I thought I’d toss in my two cents here.
There is an interesting article in the thread ' Should Denmark apologise' posted by telerion on pg 40 (very little of which surprises me). Seems to me like the 'moderates' have their work cut out for them, if they plan to try to get their 'brothers' to mature.
I guess you think is the duty of the west to sit and wait and tolerate the abuse and the death t ...[text shortened]... act together.
I still believe the best solution is a 10' wall, for a 100 years or so.
Seems to me like the 'moderates' have their work cut out for them, if they plan to try to get their 'brothers' to mature.
Yep. And the best thing is to encourage and respect and help them, not simply tell them they have a “sick religion.” These are the ones who are saying that Islam is not supposed to be (or ever was supposed to be) an analogy today to the witch-burning, pogroms, inquisition, crusader days of Christianity—or the fringe in this country that advocate turning the US into a (Protestant) theocracy run under largely OT law.
BTW, while your point in the other thread about taking verses out of context to support violence was well-made, to assert any more for those select quotations is to commit the same kind of error as Christians who read the Bible superficially and claim that it demands racial segregation (see the Bob Jones University thread in the Spirituality Forum). And, yes, I’ve read the Qur’an more than once (English only, unfortunately), and a lot of commentaries to boot—and still consider myself to be woefully ignorant. But this is not the forum to thrash out interpretations of religious scripture.
I guess you think is the duty of the west to sit and wait and tolerate the abuse and the death threats and duck the bullets while these jokers get their act together.
Absolutely not. Period.
Combatting the extremists absolutely while being open and respecting to the rest is, I think, the only reasonable option. Otherwise, you are forced into a position of fighting a war of either extermination or permanent suppression of the “all Jews have to wear a Star of David on their sleeve and live in the ghetto” type. At that point, we become the moral equivalent of our enemy, seeking another "final solution."
NOTE: Ivanhoe had a good comment in the “Denmark” thread in response to the article that you cited—we mustn’t naively ignore the political and economic issues, that often drive the wrenching re-interpretations of religious doctrine.
Originally posted by jammerWhen someone says 'is the world grown up' they are referring to
Actually, I believe their are more than just Christians and Muslims involved in this fight. Don't forget The Progressive Secularians (I made that word up). They are a huge group that will pose thenselves "above the fray" .. while keeping score and pointing out how stupid the rest of us are to fight for anything at all. Lots of them will be killed too .. they' ...[text shortened]... gnet?
Or is it .. mature enough to takr responsibility for ones own actions?
how advanced the society as a whole acts, for instance, towards
the elderly or children or the sickly or the homeless or gay people or
women. How well do they educate the poorest of their society?
What kind of taboo's does the government stick on people like
in China or North Korea, don't even BEGIN to say anything bad
against the government, since by definition, we are perfect.
Do you think that is a sign of being grown up?
.............................................................................
"When someone says 'is the world grown up' they are referring to
how advanced the society as a whole acts, for instance, towards
the elderly or children or the sickly or the homeless or gay people or
women."
................................................................................
That's one way to look at it .. collectively as Humans how are "we" doing based on the criteria above?
Not too good and IMO we never will be able to achieve a "grown up" status.
Collectively that is.
We as a race are flawed. It's that freedom of choice and ability to reason thing. We make decisions .. we have no choice but to .. and ..We're all born with a selfish gene. For many life will never be about anything other than their own desires and needs. It's the way it is, you meet them everyday. Never felt empathy and when seen, take it as a weakness.
These people have children too and those children are raised with crap rolemodels, yet rollmodels they are.
And the beat goes on.
Are we more advanced than we were 1000 yrs ago?
Probably not. There are a lot more "grown up" people, but in proportion to the whole probably a smaller percentage. "Grown up" people don't reproduce at the rate of the masses of non(?) grown ups. More elderly grown ups, less children. Less people that empathise .. and the beat goes on.
We're in reverse IMo.
Originally posted by Rajk999Not in exactly the same way, but currently extremists on both sides are perpetuating this conflict for very similar reasons. It's a 'them and us' mentality; they hurt us so hurt them back. The way that that retaliation takes place is a little different, but in the end extremists on both sides are equally to blame.
Before we get to the problem solving, are you saying that Christians and Muslims behave, and react the same way to preceived threats to their religion ?
Originally posted by vistesdI am all for dialogue, negotiations, mutual understanding and respect. But it must be a two-way street. The West cannot stoop under the death threats and apologise just to appease their anger and it is pointless to discuss and negotiate under duress.
You didn’t address this to me, but I thought I’d toss in my two cents here.
[b]Seems to me like the 'moderates' have their work cut out for them, if they plan to try to get their 'brothers' to mature.
Yep. And the best thing is to encourage and respect and help them, not simply tell them they have a “sick religion.” These are the ones who ...[text shortened]... economic issues, that often drive the wrenching re-interpretations of religious doctrine.[/b]
I think the crux of the problem is the Koran, hence the reason why I keep bringing it up. It would be nice if there was some expert on this site who could assist in an better understanding and interpretation.
Originally posted by Rajk999I am all for dialogue, negotiations, mutual understanding and respect. But it must be a two-way street. The West cannot stoop under the death threats and apologise just to appease their anger and it is pointless to discuss and negotiate under duress.
I am all for dialogue, negotiations, mutual understanding and respect. But it must be a two-way street. The West cannot stoop under the death threats and apologise just to appease their anger and it is pointless to discuss and negotiate under duress.
I think the crux of the problem is the Koran, hence the reason why I keep bringing it up. It would be n ...[text shortened]... ere was some expert on this site who could assist in an better understanding and interpretation.
If I think of something to disagree with here, I’ll let you know... 😉
I think the crux of the problem is the Koran, hence the reason why I keep bringing it up. It would be nice if there was some expert on this site who could assist in an better understanding and interpretation.
I wish we had an expert too—or more than one (look how Jews argue over Torah and Christians over the Gospels). Ultimately, it is up to those who do not read the Qur’an as a violence-handbook to take on the others. Some are beginning to do that, such as Khaled Abou El Fadl in his book, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists.
Here is one (very non-expert) effort I made (from http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35187&page=6); but that took me a long time, and is very limited. It, in the end, is as far as I can go, so I can’t defend it any further—and it is not an area where I wish to spend any more time.
________________________________________________
I am going to take these out of order. Again, I can do little more than provide commentaries by Muslim sources, mainly the translators. Either their testimony is acceptable, in terms of being at least prominent viewpoints within Islam, or not.
Surah 9: 5
First, this footnote comment by Muhammad Asad on verse 5—
“As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, every verse of the Qur'an must be read and interpreted against the background of the Qur'an as a whole. The above verse, which speaks of a possible conversion to Islam on the part of "those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God" with whom the believers are at war, must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Qur'anic ordinances. One of them, "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2 : 256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited - which precludes the possibility of the Muslims' demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity. Secondly, the Qur'an ordains, "Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors" (2: 190); and, "if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]" (4: 91). Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168), with the further proviso that "if they desist - behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace" (2 : 192), and "if they desist, then all hostility shall cease" (2: 193). Now the enemy's conversion to Islam - expressed in the words, "if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., "establish prayer"] and render the purifying dues (zakah)" - is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their "desisting from hostility"; and the reference to it in verses 5and 11 of this surah certainly does not imply an alternative of "conversion or death", as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verses 4 and 6 give a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to adopt towards such of the unbelievers as are not hostile to them. (In this connection, see also 60 : 8-9).”
As for the rest, verses 1 through 16 of this Surah have to do with specific groups of idolaters with whom the Muslims have made treaties—those who have kept the treaties, and those who have broken them. They may fight against those who have broken the treaties (“Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first?” v. 13) but not during the months in which fighting is prohibited (apparently a pre-Islamic tradition that is reaffirmed in the Qur’an; this mention implies that these verses refer to a particular historical circumstance).
Here is Maulana Ali’s translation of the whole (sans all the historical footnotes):
1 A declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger to those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
2 So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot escape Allah and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage, that Allah is free from liability to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So if you repent, it will be better for you; and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape Allah. And announce painful chastisement to those who disbelieve—
4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
5 So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free. Surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
6 And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not.
7 How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with his Messenger, except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty.
8 How (can it be)? And if they prevail against you, they respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant in your case. They would please you with their mouths while their hearts refuse; and most of them are transgressors.
9 They have taken a small price for the messages of Allah, so they hinder (men) from His way. Surely evil is that which they do.
10 They respect neither ties of relationship nor covenant, in the case of a believer. And these are they who go beyond the limits.
11 But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith. And We make the messages clear for a people who know.
12 And if they break their oaths after their agreement and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief - surely their oaths are nothing - so that they may desist.
13 Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
14 Fight them; Allah will chastise them at your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and relieve the hearts of a believing people,
15 And remove the rage of their hearts. And Allah turns (mercifully) to whom He pleases. And Allah is Knowing, Wise.
16 Do you think that you would be left alone while Allah has not yet known those of you who struggle hard and take not anyone as an intimate friend besides Allah and His Messenger and the believers? And Allah is Aware of what you do.
It seems clear that this is not about forced conversions—except under an interpretation that wants it to be about that.
Surah 8:12-13
This seems to be referring to an injunction given either to the angels or to the Muslim soldiers at the battle of Badr between the Muslims who had settled at Medina and the Quraysh who came from Mecca.
Ahmed Ali’s translation reads thus:
12. And the Lord said to the angels: “I am with you; go and strengthen the faithful. I shall fill the hearts of the infidels with terror. So smite them on their necks and every joint (and incapacitate them).”
13. For they opposed God and His Apostle; but whosoever opposes God and His Apostle (should know) that God is severe in retribution.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali also has those words directed to the angels; Asad does not; Maulana Ali leaves it open. The main point is that this is in reference to a pitched battle, not an open-ended injunction.
Surah 4:47
Verses 44-46 indicate that this is addressed to some Jews who are accused of having distorted the meaning of Jewish scriptures. Asad translates verse 47 thus:
“O you who have been granted revelation [aforetime]! Believe in what We have [now] bestowed from on high in confirmation of whatever [of the truth] you already possess, lest We efface your hopes and bring them to an end—just as We rejected those people who broke the Sabbath: for God’s will is always done.” (my italics)
In a footnote, he comments on the italicized phrase: Lit., “lest We obliterate the faces”—i.e., that towards which one turns, or that which one faces, with expectation…—“and bring them back to their ends.” It is to be noted that the term dubur (of which adbar is the plural) does not always signify the “back” of a thing—as most translators assume—but often stands for its “last part” or “end.”
Surah 9:29
There seems to be some disagreement among the translators as to whether this verse refers back to “idolaters” in verse 28, or ahead to Jews and Christians in verse 30. Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation:
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
(continued...)
continued from above...
(The Jizyah is a tax levied on non-Muslims in Muslim societies for protection and other services, since non-Muslims were not required to serve in the military nor pay the zakah.)
Muhammad Asad, in a footnote on this verse, refers to the arguments in the commentary at the top of this post—i.e., that here again, fighting is only allowed under the strictures mentioned in that commentary. The question here is similar to any scriptural exegesis: which verses must be qualified by which other verses in order to make sense.
Villager responded to 4:89 and 9:123, and I won’t expand on those.
______________________________
Can I say that these translations/interpretations are the (only) authentic ones? No, of course not. Yusuf Ali is perhaps the most recognized translator of the Qur’an into English. Maulana Ali is a member of the Ahmadiyyah “sect,” and his commentaries may sometimes be colored by that, but I think his translation is well-regarded. Muhammad Asad’s translation is more “modern,” as is Ahmed Ali’s—but I believe they are both well-regarded (especially Asad). In any event, they are the translations I have to work with. Dawood’s may be fine too, I don’t know.
I am not familiar enough with Hadith to do any work there. And all of the above is open to argument by people who know more than I do, and have an interest in doing so Sorry for the over-long post...
Originally posted by kmax87What is this intoxication that pulls us..
Is there enough humanity left in the nations of the world today for sanity to prevail and a world emerge where the prevailing theme is to live and let live, or because of our troubled history are forces counterbalanced in such a precipitous way that we are just on the first part of the slide that is the slippery slope that will usher in the end game of the prophesied apocalypse?
From where come all these words that attack me..
Incomplete pleasures that bewitch me..
We don't have the right to close these doors anymore..
I do not have time to panic, to save us from ourselves
I do not have time to panic, to save us from ourselves
To save us from ourselves, to save us from ourselves..
The Islamist movement is a political movement masquerading as a religion. This whole religion gobbledeegook spouted by the Jihadists is just a means of being able to mobilise the masses, educated and uneducated, and recrute eager and unexperienced young men and women to die for a political cause, again disguised as a religious one.
Therefore this whole discussion about Islam is mute. Jihadism is in the first place a new form of Arab-nationalist imperialism.