The eternal flame of Muslim outrage

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Ah - the usual "attack the source" routine. How original.

He's extremely predictable.

[Peikko 1,575]

My agenda is simple, I believe in a secular political and judicial system and I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law and the constitution with no favour for, nor discrimination against anyone who follows the secular law. Those who have a religious/spiritual belief system should be allowed to practice that belief system without fear or favour as long as that belief system is entered into freely and the tenets of the religion do not infringe on the rights of others whether or not they share that belief system.

I therefore have no particular axe to grind as I am not in favour of one belief system over another and I am not beholden to believe one system is better than another. Of course, I am most familiar with christianity and for what it's worth I believe there are many aspects of that religion that I think are beneficial to society - however from what I know of other belief systems, they share basic concepts with christianity and are equivalent for the most part in that they promote messages of humanity and compassion.

I am mostly suspicious of those who use religion for personal gain of one sort or another - and that is not confined to one belief system. The problem with terrorists is not that they adhere to a religious belief system because clearly they have a blatant disregard for humanity and compassion and regard human life as having no intrinsic value at all which is anathema to religious belief where all human life is deemed specifically sacred to the deity and only the deity has the right to determine the quality of each individual soul. Now, I may not buy into the whole soul/deity stuff, but I do believe that we are all born equal and that our actions determine how we should be treated, not how one looks, whether one is male of female, whether adult or child, what sexual predilections one has (unless they are predatory) or what religious belief system one adheres to or indeed if one adheres to none at all.

From this position it is not hard to see that muslims are being discriminated against, either because of ignorance or indifference or plain old fashioned fear of what is different. The muslim credo does not condone, support or persuade its adherents to attack non muslims. If people do it, their motive is not religious no matter how many times they say they are doing it in the name of all things holy.

[^_^ 5,021]

I believe in a secular political and judicial system...

Well, no wonder conservatives hate you.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, no wonder conservatives hate you.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

BTW, Jim. My interpretations are more authoritative than OBL's. I have the ijaza to issue them, and he doesn't. Why is it that you dismiss my interpretation, but expect me to accept yours of either Bible passages, Quranic verses or ahadith? Where does your expertise come from when you are a follower of neither faith? Since you are not a Muslim, nor a respecter of the faith, your rejection of any interpretation other than the ones that are self-serving is expected. You have no motivation to elevate Islam.

I am, however, wondering why you have such a need to protect Christianity to the point of stating that parts of it don't really count. That's a very strange use of the narrative, but then, you do need to make excuses, not theological sense.

I don't dismiss your interpretation, and I wish more than you would believe that OBL would adopt your views. I just want you to acknowledge that there are a substantial number of Muslims in the world who have a fundamentalist view, and interpret the Quran literally, and that your interpretation does not represent theirs. In their minds, they are right and you are wrong. That means you and those who believe as you do are harmless, but the radical fundamentalists are a threat. That leaves those of us who don't believe in either interpretation wondering who represents the "real" Islam.

A person does not have to believe what they read in order to understand it. I have read the Quran and the Bible, but I've not memorized either, and I do have to look up scripture when discussing it. I've also read most of the sahih hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. Of course, I've only read translations of them. I don't speak Arabic, and I have no interest in learning it. I've also read a considerable amount about Buddhism and Hinduism, and a bit about Sikhism. I'm aware of some of the basic differences between sects of the major religions; Sufi, Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya, as well as at least a dozen branches of Christianity. All of this is the result of a time much earlier in my life when I was searching for my soul. I didn't find the answers I was looking for in any of these religions, but I learned enough to form a personal opinion on each.

I don't protect Christianity, nor do I defend it. If we were having this discussion a millenia ago then I would be pointing an accusing finger at both Christianity and Islam for the deeds their faithful have done in the name of their faith. In modern times, Christianity has largely lost it's ability to compel it's followers to violence. With the exception of few relatively small extremist groups, I don't feel threatened by Christianity or Christians. I can say the same about the Muslims I know, and there are many Muslims where I live in California, mostly from south Asia. By and large, they are wonderful people who wouldn't intentionally harm anyone. I cannot say I feel the same way about Islam, though. Christianity has shed itself of the fundamentalist core as predominantly Christian nations have modernized. Islam has not done this yet. There are enough radical fundamentalists who profess to be Muslims that they pose a significant threat to anyone who does not believe as they do. You may say that they don't represent Islam, but they say that they do.

The modern world is largely secular. In order for religions to peacefully coexist then it's necessary that adherents of every type accept some basic rules:

1. All religions have equal rights to exist and to practice their faith, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

2. No public law should be derived from the laws of any religion, but should be based on community standards of right and wrong.

3. No religion is exempt from analysis, scrutiny, or criticism. Freedom of speech and expression trumps any perceived right to be protected from being offended.

4. Everyone has a right to be free from coercion to believe or profess a belief in any religion.

Most western societies have accepted these. Are Islamic countries ready to do the same?

[mawilson 2,133]

BTW, Jim. My interpretations are more authoritative than OBL's. I have the ijaza to issue them, and he doesn't.

Whatever the eff that is.

[^_^ 5,021]

Well, ijaazat in Hindi/Urdu is permission. So I assume ijaza is authority or pre-approval or something.

[mawilson 2,133]

Well, ijaazat in Hindi/Urdu is permission. So I assume ijaza is authority or pre-approval or something.

I am impressed. Do you speak Hindi/Urdu?

[^_^ 5,021]

I do.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't dismiss your interpretation, and I wish more than you would believe that OBL would adopt your views. I just want you to acknowledge that there are a substantial number of Muslims in the world who have a fundamentalist view, and interpret the Quran literally, and that your interpretation does not represent theirs. In their minds, they are right and you are wrong. That means you and those who believe as you do are harmless, but the radical fundamentalists are a threat. That leaves those of us who don't believe in either interpretation wondering who represents the "real" Islam.

I am a fundamentalist. Practicing Muslims are fundamentalists. It doesn't have the same connotation in Islam as it does in Christianity, where the term was originally applied. Terrorists and their sympathizers don't interpret parts of the Quran literally, they interpret it poorly and in a self-serving manner, and I have no doubt that they do it on purpose. Terrorism is a grab for power, not a spiritual experience.

A person does not have to believe what they read in order to understand it. I have read the Quran and the Bible, but I've not memorized either, and I do have to look up scripture when discussing it. I've also read most of the sahih hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. Of course, I've only read translations of them. I don't speak Arabic, and I have no interest in learning it. I've also read a considerable amount about Buddhism and Hinduism, and a bit about Sikhism. I'm aware of some of the basic differences between sects of the major religions; Sufi, Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya, as well as at least a dozen branches of Christianity. All of this is the result of a time much earlier in my life when I was searching for my soul. I didn't find the answers I was looking for in any of these religions, but I learned enough to form a personal opinion on each.

Like the Bible, the Quran and ahadith are not books you understand by reading them. People study them both for a lifetime in their original languages and still have doubts about the context of passages or the true meaning of a word that has meaning meanings. A casual reading would not be sufficient to form a substantive or authoritative opinion, but opinions are part of free speech. It's just sad that so many of them are negative when there is so much beauty in Islam.

I don't protect Christianity, nor do I defend it. If we were having this discussion a millenia ago then I would be pointing an accusing finger at both Christianity and Islam for the deeds their faithful have done in the name of their faith. In modern times, Christianity has largely lost it's ability to compel it's followers to violence. With the exception of few relatively small extremist groups, I don't feel threatened by Christianity or Christians. I can say the same about the Muslims I know, and there are many Muslims where I live in California, mostly from south Asia. By and large, they are wonderful people who wouldn't intentionally harm anyone. I cannot say I feel the same way about Islam, though. Christianity has shed itself of the fundamentalist core as predominantly Christian nations have modernized. Islam has not done this yet. There are enough radical fundamentalists who profess to be Muslims that they pose a significant threat to anyone who does not believe as they do. You may say that they don't represent Islam, but they say that they do.

Here is the flaw in that position. Christianity has many violent passages, we agree on that. If terrorists seized on the examples in those verses, they would have a Biblical basis for their claim, but they would be cherry-picking the Bible for what they needed to justify their claim. That would not be Christianity.

The same is true of Muslim terrorists. They are cherry-picking verses to justify their acts of violence, but while the Quran and Muslim history puts those verses in context, terrorists don't. I mean, seriously. How ignorant do you have to be to believe that out of a book with more than 6,000 verses, less than a dozen are the only ones dealing with warfare and the oppression of women and non-Muslims define the faith of more than a billion people? If that was how it worked, the Quran would be as small as Jet magazine.

On a practical level, it's pretty insulting to tell your Muslim neighbors that you can't determine whether extremists are the model Muslims or if peaceful Muslims just don't know how to observe their faith properly. It says that Muslims should be violent and tyrannical to be Muslims, as if the lowest common denominator is all we deserve to be.

The modern world is largely secular. In order for religions to peacefully coexist then it's necessary that adherents of every type accept some basic rules:

1. All religions have equal rights to exist and to practice their faith, as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

2. No public law should be derived from the laws of any religion, but should be based on community standards of right and wrong.

3. No religion is exempt from analysis, scrutiny, or criticism. Freedom of speech and expression trumps any perceived right to be protected from being offended.

4. Everyone has a right to be free from coercion to believe or profess a belief in any religion.

Most western societies have accepted these. Are Islamic countries ready to do the same?

I disagree with your premise that most western societies operate on that premise. There are no Islamic countries anyway.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

There are indeed Islamic countries, some featuring Islam as both the religion and the basis of the state combined.

I'll take what is Iran for $500.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There are indeed Islamic countries, some featuring Islam as both the religion and the basis of the state combined.

I'll take what is Iran for $500.

They are not Islamic, despite the claims.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He's extremely predictable.

When dealing with haters, its all the attention they deserve.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

They are not Islamic, despite the claims.

They might not be Islams proudest product, but their entire system of government is religious based. And unfortunately that religion is Islam.

Are they a perfect example of the many flavors of Islam, some none too savory? I will give you that. But I won't give you the easy 'They aren't really Muslim' out.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

When dealing with haters, its all the attention they deserve.

Biggot isn't polling well so you whip out your thesaurus and come up with haters...

Anticipated!