Originally posted by maryjane: No, nor does it make you a religious scholar or expert, but it's interesting that you use the same process that fundamentalist Muslims use to justify violence. "I think--I believe" the Koran says/means "this". "I think--I believe" the prophet Muhammad meant "this". Those who claim that a very literal interpretation of any several thousand year old religious text should be used, often forget that more often than not, much vanquish and controversy arise when people attempt to do the same with our own much younger US Constitution. I'm sure our founding fathers thought their words were quite clear and concise, just as the writers of those old religious texts did, but we know today, that simply isn't the case in either case.
I agree with you here, about the Constitution.
It sounds like you are saying that I am falling victim in my thinking to the same fallacies that I have argued against at length, in what may be as many as a thousand O/T message board posts on the general topic of Islam.
But I don't "get that". Where I have gone wrong? Maybe you can be more clear.
People do all kinds of disgusting things in the name of religion.
There are plenty of radicalized Muslims I don't think it's just the religion that radicalizes people but when people are less educated and poor it is more likely IMO.
People do disgusting things with whatever they've got. Like many things it can be used as a tool, to get another meal, to take someone elses, to conquer other lands.
It sounds like you are saying that I am falling victim in my thinking to the same fallacies that I have argued against at length, in what may be as many as a thousand O/T message board posts on the general topic of Islam.
But I don't "get that". Where I have gone wrong? Maybe you can be more clear.
"falling victim" I don't know about, but you are using the same process the violent fundamentalists use. These are your words (and theirs) :
quote
I am inclined to believe that Mohammed...
quote
I hardly think so.
quote
I think that you standing on the same ground here....
This is all based on one's interpretation of words and events--especially,
quote
What Would Mohammed Do Today
There's not even a 100% known history of what he (or anyone else) did then, much less what he would do today.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 05-23-2014).]
Thanks for spending time on things for me. Alas, they are lost because I don't give a ****. I will go by what I have dealt with in life. That is my guide.
The Qur'an is a long story, and the central (human) character is Mohammed.
The "trick" of Islam is to extrapolate from the Qur'anic presentation of Mohammed--in its entirety--to arrive at what Mohammed would be like today. How he would think, how he would talk, how he would interact with all contemporary peoples, institutions and situations, as he would encounter them today. To "reverse engineer" the Qur'anic character of Mohammed and reinstall him in today's CW "hardware" platform: CW for "Contemporary World". All this, so that each Muslim today can conduct himself like another Mohammed. Or in the case of a female Muslim: like a composite representation, drawn from the most ideally Islamic aspects of the various female characters in the Qur'an.
Historians can use whatever historical evidence is available to evaluate the facts about the real Mohammed (if there was one), but in terms of proper Islamic practice (as I see it), it doesn't matter whether the Qur'an is 100 percent factual, or 100 percent fictional, or anything in between, in terms of how it presents the character of Mohammed.
I think this is the opposite of the way that the Islamic radicals and extremists think. They don't look at the character of Mohammed in a complete and coherent way, as drawn from the entire Qur'an. If they decide that they want to target someone or some group, using violence or some other form of coercion, they find their justification on just this or that page or only a few pages of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an, in some isolated passage or verse. (They do the isolating.) They don't see the forest for the trees, in this context. And they don't try to fit their "Mohammed" into the modern world. The extremists think and act as if wherever they are today is the Arabian peninsula in the year 600 CE.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2014).]
The Qur'an is a long story, and the central (human) character is Mohammed.
The "trick" of Islam is to extrapolate from the Qur'anic presentation of Mohammed--in its entirety--to arrive at what Mohammed would be like today. How he would think, how he would talk, how he would interact with all contemporary peoples, institutions and situations, as he would encounter them today. To "reverse engineer" the historic character of Mohammed and reinstall him in today's "hardware" platform: The contemporary world. All this, so each Muslim can conduct himself like another Mohammed. Or in the case of a female Muslim, like a composite representation drawn from the most ideally Islamic aspects of all of the females in the Qur'an.
Historians can use whatever historical evidence is available to evaluate the facts about the real Mohammed (if there was one), but in terms of proper Islamic practice (as I see it), it doesn't matter whether the Qur'an is 100 percent fact or 100 percent fiction or anything in between, in terms of how it presents the character of Mohammed.
I think this is the opposite of the way that the Islamic radicals and extremists think. They don't look at the character of Mohammed in a complete and coherent way, as drawn from the entire Qur'an. If they decide that they want to target someone or some group using violence or some other form of coercion, they find their justification on just this or that page of the Qur'an, in some isolated passage or verse. (They do the isolating.) They don't see the forest for the trees, in this context. And they don't try to fit their "Mohammed" into the modern world. They think and act as if wherever they are today is the Arabian peninsula in year 600 CE.
The problem with all that trick, is that the majority of Islam doesn't believe in doing it. Nor, does any other segment of the global society, whether it be religious, athiest, or other lifestyle. Each and every one functions in the way that works for them until acted upon by an outside force. What you describe, is a 'in-a-perfect-world" scholastic interpretation of (in this case) Islam, and probably 95% of the estimated 2 billion followers aren't into (never have been or will be) scholastic followers or students. They follow the basic tenets, go about their daily lives and are ambivalent to all the rest until the marketplace that explodes is their own. The violent factions neither need or recruit actual mass support--they count on the ambivalence--and they get it en mass.
The Qur'an is a long story, and the central (human) character is Mohammed.
The "trick" of Islam is to extrapolate from the Qur'anic presentation of Mohammed--in its entirety--to arrive at what Mohammed would be like today. How he would think, how he would talk, how he would interact with all contemporary peoples, institutions and situations, as he would encounter them today. To "reverse engineer" the Qur'anic character of Mohammed and reinstall him in today's "hardware" platform: The contemporary world. All this, so each Muslim can conduct himself like another Mohammed. Or in the case of a female Muslim, like a composite representation drawn from the most ideally Islamic aspects of all of the females in the Qur'an.
Historians can use whatever historical evidence is available to evaluate the facts about the real Mohammed (if there was one), but in terms of proper Islamic practice (as I see it), it doesn't matter whether the Qur'an is 100 percent fact or 100 percent fiction or anything in between, in terms of how it presents the character of Mohammed.
I think this is the opposite of the way that the Islamic radicals and extremists think. They don't look at the character of Mohammed in a complete and coherent way, as drawn from the entire Qur'an. If they decide that they want to target someone or some group using violence or some other form of coercion, they find their justification on just this or that page of the Qur'an, in some isolated passage or verse. (They do the isolating.) They don't see the forest for the trees, in this context. And they don't try to fit their "Mohammed" into the modern world. They think and act as if wherever they are today is the Arabian peninsula in the year 600 CE.
REGARDLESS... of how you think the Koran should be interpreted, the fact is... there are MILLIONS of people being killed every year in the name of Islam. You spend far more of your time defending Islam, than you do chastising those you feel are abusing it. If I was Christian, and I knew that they were responsible (right now) for killing millions and millions of people in the specific name of Christianity and Jesus Christ, then I would have a huge problem with that, and I would be renouncing it constantly since it would have a DIRECT connection to me. There HAVE been examples in the past of similar things, like the child / sex abuse from priests in the Catholic church. It was horrible... and the Catholic church has suffered horribly as a result of it (people leaving that denomination). Most of the huge growth in non-denominational churches such as Calvary Chapel and some of the others, The Rock I think is one, etc... has been as a direct result of people disgusted from the Catholic church's response to this scandal. Our new pope has made waves. I don't agree with everything he believes in, but he's a good guy. But I'm not seeing this from Islam. Sure, there may be one or two caliphs or clerics... but holy **** ... there are literally millions of people dying every year in the name of Islam and Sharia law. To put it into context, there are MORE Christians in this world than there are Muslims... yet Islam makes up more deaths per year than disease and famine.
(Setting aside the ridiculousness of Newf and Pyrth to suggest that Hitler was on a Christian quest, or that somehow the Iraq and Afghan war was a Christian war)
I'm just saying, if you want to save your religion... you'd better start getting on the correct side of the argument. Islam has actually started losing support of the main stream media and the Hollywood left. Once that happens... not even the low information voters will support Islam.
Amazing how things change when they are talking about "your" religion isn't it? Thank you for proving that point.
Nothing has changed. Whats amazing to me is the justification that seems to go on for trolling. Even high fiving. What your reply did was feed the trolling and agree with him, if you now claim it is wrong then your reply of Haha true should probably be explained?
I was making the point that the "god given sacred texts" can be and are being twisted every which way all the time to serve whatever purpose at hand. I didn't find a corresponding picture for the Quran, that why I used this one (with an explanation). But I do think that the bible has been and is being used to justify about anything under the sun, as well.
I think it works more or less the same way for the Quran:
True but in all their hypocrisies and twisting the books to make it more palatable for consumption the Christians aren't running around killing the crap out of anybody screaming ala Akbar or whatever nonsense. Let's face it, these guys are taking extreme to an extreme and pointing at the Christians for anything at this point is a pathetic defense.
I was making the point that the "god given sacred texts" can be and are being twisted every which way all the time to serve whatever purpose at hand. I didn't find a corresponding picture for the Quran, that why I used this one (with an explanation). But I do think that the bible has been and is being used to justify about anything under the sun, as well.
Please explain how this is simple minded now?
What you posted, the persons ideas who wrote it and what they did, was simple minded.
Yes I agree with your observation that it is abused as a tool I mentioned that before in this thread. No one can read that and not think of it as dumbing down, simplifying to rediculous levels, and intentionally making satire. Helps if you dont think about it, just keep smiling, smiley, etc. You know what I mean.
True but in all their hypocrisies and twisting the books to make it more palatable for consumption the Christians aren't running around killing the crap out of anybody screaming ala Akbar or whatever nonsense.
No, the Christians mostly yelled "Deus lo vult", "Burn, witch, burn" or "Get the Jews, those Jesus-killers"!
quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:Let's face it, these guys are taking extreme to an extreme and pointing at the Christians for anything at this point is a pathetic defense.
I agree (see my above post) and I wasn't defending anyone.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-23-2014).]
Originally posted by maryjane: The problem with all that trick, is that the majority of Islam doesn't believe in doing it. Nor, does any other segment of the global society, whether it be religious, athiest, or other lifestyle. Each and every one functions in the way that works for them until acted upon by an outside force. What you describe, is a 'in-a-perfect-world" scholastic interpretation of (in this case) Islam, and probably 95% of the estimated 2 billion followers aren't into (never have been or will be) scholastic followers or students.
They follow the basic tenets, go about their daily lives and are ambivalent to all the rest until the marketplace that explodes is their own.
The violent factions neither need or recruit actual mass support--they count on the ambivalence--and they get it en mass.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: REGARDLESS... of how you think the Koran should be interpreted, the fact is... there are MILLIONS of people being killed every year in the name of Islam. You spend far more of your time defending Islam, than you do chastising those you feel are abusing it. If I was Christian, and I knew that they were responsible (right now) for killing millions and millions of people in the specific name of Christianity and Jesus Christ, then I would have a huge problem with that, and I would be renouncing it constantly since it would have a DIRECT connection to me. There HAVE been examples in the past of similar things, like the child / sex abuse from priests in the Catholic church. It was horrible... and the Catholic church has suffered horribly as a result of it (people leaving that denomination). Most of the huge growth in non-denominational churches such as Calvary Chapel and some of the others, The Rock I think is one, etc... has been as a direct result of people disgusted from the Catholic church's response to this scandal. Our new pope has made waves. I don't agree with everything he believes in, but he's a good guy. But I'm not seeing this from Islam. Sure, there may be one or two caliphs or clerics... but holy **** ... there are literally millions of people dying every year in the name of Islam and Sharia law. To put it into context, there are MORE Christians in this world than there are Muslims... yet Islam makes up more deaths per year than disease and famine.
(Setting aside the ridiculousness of Newf and Pyrth to suggest that Hitler was on a Christian quest, or that somehow the Iraq and Afghan war was a Christian war)
I'm just saying, if you want to save your religion... you'd better start getting on the correct side of the argument. Islam has actually started losing support of the main stream media and the Hollywood left. Once that happens... not even the low information voters will support Islam.
I am very dubious about your statistics. People killed all around the world, in any one year since year 2000, and killed for no other reason than an intolerant version of Islam (or a more virulently anti-Western version of Islam than the previous one)..? That sounds more like 10s of 1000s, not your "millions".
There are Buddhist groups in Southeast Asia that have been racking up a pretty good score recently in terms of sectarian violence. Keywords: 969 Movement [Buddhist nationalists], Rohingya Muslims, Myanmar (Burma). And on the Indian subcontinent, Hindu nationalists and "Hindu caste-system fans" have been responsible for a goodly amount of sectarian mayhem and repression.
But I don't want to quibble about the statistics of sectarian mayhem. I more or less share your sentiments here. The thing that you are mistaken about is my motives--what moves me to post at such great length on this topic. It's not particularly to defend or support Islam or Muslims. I just enjoy analyzing what I consider to be the dubious ideas that are manifest on this forum, almost every single day, about what Islam would be like if it were practiced in a way that I think would be authentic to its foundational texts, and to its most learned and thoughtful scholars and practioners, from Mohammed's time all the way forwards to today.
This is a recreation for me. I have found it agreeable to put my reactions into words (here), and to Google my way to online materials that I can review and factor into my message board posts here.
If the numerous here (it's a sizable group) would focus their indignation on the misdeeds of wayward Muslims, instead of poorly informed rants about Islam as a concept--then I doubt that I would keep hitting on this topic in the superabundant way that has become my habit.
Mr. "maryjane" gets it--about where I am coming from on this topic. Look at what he just posted, immediately above.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2014).]
If the numerous here (it's a sizable group) would focus their indignation on the misdeeds of wayward Muslims, instead of poorly informed rants about Islam as a concept--then I doubt that I would keep hitting on this topic in the superabundant way that has become my habit.
Mr. "maryjane" gets it--about where I am coming from on this topic. Look at what he just posted, immediately above.
What is it that you hope to change? Yes, we got our basic math / numbering system from the middle east, yes, they invented the precursor to telescope (?) 500+ years ago... But none of this changes the fact that millions, MILLIONS die every year as a result of Islam. I don't know what your Google searches are trying to convince yourself of... ???
As a Muslim, you are guilty of the ambivalence Mary Jane speaks of. Your not going to convince anyone on here how great and peaceful Islam is, when millions die every year as a result of it. The fact that you try... to me, almost feels like you're trying to quell the outrage against it.
Like everyone who posts here (except for Internet spambots), I have a backstory. It's not one that I would like to share (in full). But referring to me as a "Muslim" is ROFLMAO hilarious (at my end). Nothing could be further from the truth.
What do I hope to change? Nothing. I don't think that message board posts on the Internet, especially on the O/T section of a specialty automobile forum, are a viable form of political or quasi-political or faith-related activity.
Anyone who thinks that they are changing anything in the real world with their PFF forum posts is clearly delusional. Aside from certain exceptions, like the campaign to support that cancer victim, or some of our other members who have met with misfortune. That's very separate from the thematic discussions and debates that often take center stage here on O/T.
Again, a post about MILLIONS of victims PER ANNUM of Islamist instigated or peculiarly Muslim related violence: That number is in the 10s of 1000s (woeful indeed), and the persistence of this blatant hyperbole is symptomatic of a dogma-dominated and distinctly non-empirically based narrative, born of a disturbingly brash (but unjustified) self-assurance that crosses the boundary into the domain of intellectual bravado.
Some here still don't "get me".
For me, this is an academic exercise. It's a personal resurrection of the ethos of a four-year, university college, dormitory residence, liberal arts education.
Here's a nugget: I had a passing acquaintance with the late Benazir Bhutto (a very young Benazir Bhutto) when I was a college student.
I'm just having what currently passes in my world for some fun. There might be a cure for this, but I don't have it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2014).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What is it that you hope to change? Yes, we got our basic math / numbering system from the middle east, yes, they invented the precursor to telescope (?) 500+ years ago... But none of this changes the fact that millions, MILLIONS die every year as a result of Islam. I don't know what your Google searches are trying to convince yourself of... ???
As a Muslim, you are guilty of the ambivalence Mary Jane speaks of. Your not going to convince anyone on here how great and peaceful Islam is, when millions die every year as a result of it. The fact that you try... to me, almost feels like you're trying to quell the outrage against it.
My thinking has slowly evolved since I started posting on this topic. I credit "maryjane" for some (considerable) in this regard.
I am not talking about Islam as it is. I am talking about what Islam would look like if it improved itself. It has the "right stuff" in its foundational texts and scholastic traditions to be amenable to significant internal reform and modernization. Its theological foundations and historically articulated methods of debate, self-examination and discovery are inherently progressive. The realization of a large scale reformation of Islam, however, is only theoretical: a currently distant possibility.
I disagree (on theoretical grounds) with anyone that would invariably "talk" in a way that completely excludes this possibility from all future time frames.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2014).]
In the same thread we're treated to being told not to judge Islam's prophet because he lived in older times and we should imagine what he would be like today, and at the same time all Christians are crazy because of things some did hundreds of years ago.
Here is the simple answer for every single person on the planet; Stop caring WHY someone does something. Punish the perpetrator for what HE did, not for WHO or WHY he sez he did it. Because anybody can say they did what they did for ANY reason. The Holy Book, Nobody loved me, I hear voices, etc. etc.
When did we start giving consideration for WHO the bad guys blame or claim who they are doing it for? Are we trying to punish the deed or the reason?
Why should we even care why or who some loser sez he's doing it for?
In the same thread we're treated to being told not to judge Islam's prophet because he lived in older times and we should imagine what he would be like today, and at the same time all Christians are crazy because of things some did hundreds of years ago.
Like everyone who posts here (except for Internet spambots), I have a backstory. It's not one that I would like to share (in full). But referring to me as a "Muslim" is ROFLMAO hilarious (at my end). Nothing could be further from the truth.
What do I hope to change? Nothing. I don't think that message board posts on the Internet, especially on the O/T section of a specialty automobile forum, are a viable form of political or quasi-political or faith-related activity.
Anyone who thinks that they are changing anything in the real world with their PFF forum posts is clearly delusional. Aside from certain exceptions, like the campaign to support that cancer victim, or some of our other members who have met with misfortune. That's very separate from the thematic discussions and debates that often take center stage here on O/T.
Again, a post about MILLIONS of victims PER ANNUM of Islamist instigated or peculiarly Muslim related violence: That number is in the 10s of 1000s (woeful indeed), and the persistence of this blatant hyperbole is symptomatic of a dogma-dominated and distinctly non-empirically based narrative, born of a disturbingly brash (but unjustified) self-assurance that crosses the boundary into the domain of intellectual bravado.
Some here still don't "get me".
For me, this is an academic exercise. It's a personal resurrection of the ethos of a four-year, university college, dormitory residence, liberal arts education.
Here's a nugget: I had a passing acquaintance with the late Benazir Bhutto (a very young Benazir Bhutto) when I was a college student.
I'm just having what currently passes in my world for some fun. There might be a cure for this, but I don't have it.
I'm not sure you get yourself... this reply was literally all over the place. And what exactly does having a bachelors degree have to do with talking about Muslims?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
My thinking has slowly evolved since I started posting on this topic. I credit "maryjane" for some (considerable) in this regard.
I am not talking about Islam as it is. I am talking about what Islam would look like if it improved itself. It has the "right stuff" in its foundational texts and scholastic traditions to be amenable to significant internal reform and modernization. Its theological foundations and historically articulated methods of debate, self-examination and discovery are inherently progressive. The realization of a large scale reformation of Islam, however, is only theoretical: a currently distant possibility.
I disagree (on theoretical grounds) with anyone that would invariably "talk" in a way that completely excludes this possibility from all future time frames.
The right stuff? You mean the golden rule? Right... like every other religion doesn't have the golden rule in it's foundational texts.
Originally posted by Formula88: In the same thread we're treated to being told not to judge Islam's prophet because he lived in older times and we should imagine what he would be like today, and at the same time all Christians are crazy because of things some did hundreds of years ago.
Makes perfect sense.
I did not say not to judge Mohammed because he lived in a much earlier time. I said that anyone who thinks about him should also consider the customs and conditions of the time (and place) in which he lived, before making a judgement about any particular thing that he said or did.
I didn't say that other thing about Christians.
No contradiction in what I said.
I hope this isn't starting to sound like a case of "I said, I said".
Do you care why someone is stealing your car? Or breaking into your house?
Would it make a difference to you if they told you that a book told them to do it?
Yeah, it would make a huge difference. If someone stole stuff from my house, and I found out later it was going to be sold off to feed 1000 poor kids in Central America, I would be far less upset.
If I knew that the stuff in my house being stolen was going to be used by some Mc.Donalds eating section 8 welfare recipient who didn't have a job and just kept having kids so they could get more Obama cash, then yeah, I'd be even more ****ing pissed.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The right stuff? You mean the golden rule? Right... like every other religion doesn't have the golden rule in it's foundational texts.
More than just the Golden Rule. At the top of my list, that the specifics of Islamic guidance are not inflexible and fixed for all time. The foundations do not change, but the specifics that are derived from the foundations can (and should) evolve in accordance with the continual process of Islamic debate, self-examination and discovery that I previously alluded to.
For example: the age at which a female should be considered eligible for marriage.
Islam as I think it is properly defined--not as it is all too commonly practiced.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-23-2014).]
I will go by what I have dealt with in life. That is my guide.
