‘I’m Frightened’: backlash after Paris attack

[TSA321]

The fact remains that developed nations such as Japan, Korea, and Taiwan with NO Muslim populations have had NO terrorist attacks, while those countries that do harbour Muslims are prime targets.

Nonsense, they all have a sizeable number of Muslims. They haven't been attacked because they haven't invaded or attacked a Muslim country.

 

[KAL-EL]

Leave it to the Muslims to commit terror against other groups then disclaim all responsibility and talk about nothing but their status as victims.

Pollard was released from jail recently, which pissed a lot of Americans off. Are American Jews also insisting he wasn't Jewish and doing nothing but declaring themselves victims?

Count me as one of those Americans. Pollard being released from jail was an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

 

[Jacob Martin]

Sure, I find weird you assume that I've never taken up that issue among ignorant Pakistanis. I have posts on this very forum where I've spoken out for minorities, religious sects, other religions or ethnic. Some other members may have seen them.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[illusion8]

Sure, I find weird you assume that I've never taken up that issue among ignorant Pakistanis. I have posts on this very forum where I've spoken out for minorities, religious sects, other religions or ethnic. Some other members may have seen them.



This is an odd topic. You're partly right, but take the US for example, if you asked most Christian Americans whether they support the laws of the Bible many would say yes, or simply ask them if they follow the Bible. Does that mean that they would support the punishments of the Bible and judgement systems to be made into law in their country? Nope.
There are many laws of the Bible plenty of Christians chose to ignore. No reform came about as such, only liberalism in wider society, democracy and civil liberties, entirely political changes.

Now if you were to declare that the laws of the Bible ought to be changed or Christianity reformed, no doubt people will call you a heretic and all sorts.

It's similar with Islam. Only it is worse on our side because of the higher numbers of extremists and literalists. We also aren't nearly as developed as even the US, nor as liberal, the US has had some 200+ years of steady evolution, expansion of civil rights, economic development, education and their own societal enlightenment. We Muslim nations are hardly half a century past Colonial rule, we still suffer from sectarian conflicts as a result of the colonial mess, we've had non-stop war, and hardly any economic development, no enlightenment.

So, reforming Islam is not the issue here. Take Afghanistan for example, it was 10 years of occupation, total near 100% brain drain, all politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, cultured intellectuals fled, entire generations grew up without any education or opportunities in a war environment. Then came the radicalisation through various means, some of it foreign and through Pakistan, the US, Saudi Arabia.

My point is, the lack of room for reform of Islam, did not cause the Taliban, hell on earth caused by politics left them vulnerable to this sort of thing, and all it took was a bit of sustained effort by some powers to make use of that situation in radicalising the country. Again, political circumstances we're talking about here, not Islam. In fact, I would be so bold to say that had Christianity have been in place of Islam in Afghanistan in 1979, we would see the Christian taliban today, if all political factors remained unchanged ceteris paribus.




Please tell us what planet you've been living on these last 30-40 years, clearly signals from earth are hard to come by up there?

Hmmm...that's quite a solid argument. Quite a different perspective to ponder on. Come to think of it..You are quite right..But Islamic world does need a reformation. Biblical laws have undergone reform by their leaders and they have differentiated between spiritual and societal laws.

How sure is one that Islam can make that distinction too.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Hmmm...that's quite a solid argument. Quite a different perspective to ponder on. Come to think of it..You are quite right..But Islamic world does need a reformation. Biblical laws have undergone reform by their leaders and they have differentiated between spiritual and societal laws.

How sure is one that Islam can make that distinction too.

This is a discussion I've not looked into, or considered for that matter. But it is unlikely. The Biblical reforms you are talking about were not the result of the enlightenment era or willing efforts to improve, but rather accidental, unintended consequences of sects, translations, omissions, and also wilful alteration as in the case of Henry VII for personal gain.

But truly, every form of Islam that can exist does exist already, there's the ultra liberal extremist that has nothing to do with Islam at all, right down to the literalist, and the extremist on the other end. The question is not to ask whether it is possible... it is possible, and these versions exist already, it is to ask whether it is possible for different versions or interpretations to gain momentum and popularity in the Muslim world.

 

[Aestu]

Denial is a disease. Most of the rich muslim nations invest in US corporations. Buy weapons and basically give countless pay checks to americans. The analogy of bread being baked might be the other way around.

The Arab states get an economic return that they could not generate domestically. They bring nothing to the table except the oil they export which the US chooses not to take by force outright.

The oil embargo in the 70s, if it were to happen again, would you accept it? We all remember how a coup in iran was planned. So lets not go there.

It's funny how all these arguments about Islamists valiantly fighting the West (which is why they all want to live here!) come down to "wouldn't happen again," "planned," "almost," "were going to." It's what Americans call "coulda shoulda woulda."

The fact of the matter is that raw materials are infinitely less important than the capacity to process them. The US has fracking now (for better or worse), and if that weren't an option, electric vehicles and genetically engineered plant-derived synthetics (e.g., corn plastic) are fully viable now.

At the end of the day, the fundamental problem is that the Islamic world has nothing to offer but oil, terrorism and warm bodies. Until that changes, Muslims will continue seeking to emigrate to the West and being blamed for the evils associated with their powerless culture.

It's really that simple, and it's unfortunate, because it doesn't have to be that way. The axiom that European Christians were living in caves while Jews were priests in the Temple of Solomon could just as easily apply to Muslims a few centuries from now. Ultimately, as one Muslim once said, the future belongs to those who prepare for it today. That isn't currently the case.

1. We did not cause the mess in Syria, and aren't involved in it. You however, are involved and partly to blame.

As I said, this is a strange argument. So the victims of a conflict should become citizens of the enemy power? Aggrieved Chinese victims of the Japanese occupation should move to Japan? Homeless Russians should move to Germany, or vice versa?

Can you give me any practical example of this principle?

We are a poor nation, we do not have the resources as it is to cope with refugees. You however, have money enough to bomb the place, and spend billions on that, why not take some of the refugees in?

What is your moral or factual basis for your premise that a wealthy country that has poor people living in it owes anything to poor countries with rich people living in them?

Bangladesh left Pakistan because of a perception that it wasn't getting its fair share of the pie...do you think Pakistan owes Bangladesh anything? Why not demand favors from the KSA or Qatar? After all, they're significantly responsible for this mess. Or is this just bigotry talking?

3. We already have had millions of Afghan refugees in our country since the 80's, even to this day we have millions more than any European nation. We also have internally displaced persons, Pakistanis, resulting from our own war.

Why haven't they been resettled? Your basic premise seems to be that Western countries are inherently more capable of solving problems. Do you think Pakistan should rejoin the British Empire? To be clear, that's a rhetorical question. My point is that all your arguments seem to in some way be premised on a total denial of national responsibility.

This is an odd topic. You're partly right, but take the US for example, if you asked most Christian Americans whether they support the laws of the Bible many would say yes, or simply ask them if they follow the Bible. Does that mean that they would support the punishments of the Bible and judgement systems to be made into law in their country? Nope. There are many laws of the Bible plenty of Christians chose to ignore. No reform came about as such, only liberalism in wider society, democracy and civil liberties, entirely political changes.

Such as?

You don't understand Christianity or the West. You live in the UK because it's better than Pakistan but you don't understand what makes it tick. Western civilization is fundamentally based on Judeo-Christian values - Ten Commandments, Golden Rule, Noahide Law, doctrine of salvation / tikkun olam, etc.

Now if you were to declare that the laws of the Bible ought to be changed or Christianity reformed, no doubt people will call you a heretic and all sorts.

Utterly false. It happens every day. Western civilization is awash in splinters and reforms of Christianity and Judaism. We don't go around screaming heretic at each other.

It's similar with Islam. Only it is worse on our side because of the higher numbers of extremists and literalists. We also aren't nearly as developed as even the US, nor as liberal, the US has had some 200+ years of steady evolution, expansion of civil rights, economic development, education and their own societal enlightenment. We Muslim nations are hardly half a century past Colonial rule, we still suffer from sectarian conflicts as a result of the colonial mess, we've had non-stop war, and hardly any economic development, no enlightenment. My point is, the lack of room for reform of Islam, did not cause the Taliban, hell on earth caused by politics left them vulnerable to this sort of thing, and all it took was a bit of sustained effort by some powers to make use of that situation in radicalising the country. Again, political circumstances we're talking about here, not Islam.

You confuse effect with cause. The entire Third World hit the starting line at the same time the Islamic world did - China, Brazil, Korea, India, on and on. The problems you describe are largely unique to the Islamic world (possible exception being Africa).

In fact, I would be so bold to say that had Christianity have been in place of Islam in Afghanistan in 1979, we would see the Christian taliban today, if all political factors remained unchanged ceteris paribus.

This has been tested and failed in both Israel (Christian Arabs settling down, while Hamas and Fatah become radical Islamic movements) and places like Latin America where there is both poverty and chaos and evangelical Christianity.

So, reforming Islam is not the issue here. Take Afghanistan for example, it was 10 years of occupation, total near 100% brain drain, all politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, cultured intellectuals fled, entire generations grew up without any education or opportunities in a war environment. Then came the radicalisation through various means, some of it foreign and through Pakistan, the US, Saudi Arabia.

So long as Muslims believe this, there is no future for Islam.

Blaming others is never a recipe for success in the life of an individual nor the history of a nation. It's really that simple.

This is a discussion I've not looked into, or considered for that matter. But it is unlikely. The Biblical reforms you are talking about were not the result of the enlightenment era or willing efforts to improve, but rather accidental, unintended consequences of sects, translations, omissions, and also wilful alteration as in the case of Henry VII for personal gain.

This is a core fallacy ubiquitous in the Islamic dialogue, and it is why so many Westerners feel quite comfortable blaming Islam for terrorism. The Islamic belief that success and wealth on the part of infidels are cosmic accidents, and that all that can be done by Muslims is to appropriate said wealth and success.

A fundamental difference in Judeo-Christian versus Islamic belief that runs right to the core of our respective societies is the concept of personal responsibility, mea culpa, vs insha'allah. The distinction defines us as individuals, it defines us as cultures, and it defines the outcomes of our entire civilizations.

But truly, every form of Islam that can exist does exist already, there's the ultra liberal extremist that has nothing to do with Islam at all, right down to the literalist, and the extremist on the other end. The question is not to ask whether it is possible... it is possible, and these versions exist already, it is to ask whether it is possible for different versions or interpretations to gain momentum and popularity in the Muslim world.

It seems to me you are self-consciously making an argument at odds with itself. Is Islam organically different from other religions such that it struggles with liberalization or isn't it?

Count me as one of those Americans. Pollard being released from jail was an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

I am Jewish, but I would also agree. Actually I think the release was timed to make Israel look bad. I don't see myself bearing my country's government a grudge. I don't think any substantial number of American Jews will either.

 

[SQ8]

A fundamental difference in Judeo-Christian versus Islamic belief that runs right to the core of our respective societies is the concept of personal responsibility, mea culpa, vs insha'allah. The distinction defines us as individuals, it defines us as cultures, and it defines the outcomes of our entire civilizations.



It seems to me you are self-consciously making an argument at odds with itself. Is Islam organically different from other religions such that it struggles with liberalization or isn't it?



I am Jewish, but I would also agree. Actually I think the release was timed to make Israel look bad. I don't see myself bearing my country's government a grudge. I don't think any substantial number of American Jews will either.

And in that bold lies your utter lack of understanding of Islam. There is no lack of mea culpa in Islam either, Inshallah is a WHOLLY UNRELATED concept to mea culpa; albeit abused.

Your whole premise is based on trying to compare the evolutionary process of Judeo Christianty to the process of Islam. Whereas Islam initially embodied an evolutionary and liberal spirit throughout the initial 600 or so years of its existence, the other Abrahamic religions went backward during those timeframes beyond their initial enlightenment. The treatment of scriptures too is completely different within the two with regards to preservation of originality and concept of exegesis. Whereas the Bible(starting with the Torah and onto the old testament) that exists today is essentially just the various exegesis of what might have been an original scripture in hebrew or Aramaic.. it is retains very little of what Moses or Christ may have related originally as the word of god. Instead, the bible has gone through revisions and rewrites by scholars throughout history depending on their social and political interpretations of society. In other words, we have no way to verify if the claim of the Earth being 10000 years old is actually the exact terms used by the Prophets is simply unverifiable. That also ended up leaving institutions like the Catholic Church making every effort to defend its exegesis as the correct one which lead to purges of scientists and artisans whom they considered heretics that would undermine the power of the Church.
Quite simply, there is very little authentic left in the bible that can be taken as a control or benchmark from which to gauge any existing, previous or future exegesis.
What that entails is exactly what you stated. There is nothing in Judeo-Christian thought that can go back and argue on the spiritual, moral or legal correctness based on any control scripture as the word of god. That creates very little control in terms of what it may be interpreted as and hence you get the KKK and many other race based puritans who can argue based on a complete lack of control as to what is the limits of interpretation. At the same time, there is the same need to cling to scientifically impossible claims on world events that lead to a growing ridicule of religion among young Christians

On the other hand, the Quran is EXACTLY as it was 1400 years ago without changes to a single letter. Any exegesis on it is taken as a completely different subjective opinion
Whereas in Islam, every claim must reconcile with the Quran and any claims on the meaning of the Quran must be reconciled with intellectual introspection before it is considered worthy of being taken as a possible meaning. This process had since the passing of the Prophet Mohammad that the closest disciples would consult with each other and if applicable invite an expert in a particular field (trading with an alcohol consuming society for e.g, invite the emissary to learn about their practices,customs and finances) when faced with a new occurrence that they had not encountered and would reference the scripture to see if any guidance would fit, reference an action of the prophet in any similar circumstance.. and if one or the other did not exist, decide based upon their best intellectual capacity. At no point could they go ahead and introduce their interpretations of the times into the Quran. All they could do was document it as to what they believed was correct for their times.

What changed over the years after the supposed golden age (and in spaces between) was the type of people interpreting the Quran and those imposing their political will upon these interpretations. At no point did the Quran change, but the exegesis and the popularity of that genesis did. So if during the Crusades as the papal state could state "God wills it", the Saracens could interpret that Jihad was required to cleanse Jerusalem based on their own ambitions and ideals.

In short words, to quote Reza Aslan.. religion is only so much as what you bring to it. Today as a resident of the United States find more than enough evidence in the Quran that compels me to care for you as one of my own and to protect you where I can. It provides no evidence to declare you an infidel or declare Jihad against you. And I am a regular reader of various compilations of exgesis.
Yet, at the same time there are other who will also use the very same verses or others in the Quran to state that not only are you an infidel; you are likely to hold only ill will toward muslims and must be killed before you hurt them. The Quran is still the same, the only thing that changes is the intellect, the morals, the ethics and the exposure of the person interpreting it.

 

[Aestu]

In regards to the contrast between the Christian Reformation and the challenge of contemporary Islam:

The Christian Reformation was built on two basic trends: the development of the printing press, mass printings of Bibles, mass literacy and ultimately mass religious enlightenment, and the gradual improvements in economic conditions that had been ongoing for centuries, due largely to increases in domestic security, regional trade and the establishment of a middle class. Islam today trips over these two trends, mass religious enlightenment and bourgeois culture, for reasons unique to Islam.

During the Christian Reformation, Christians substituted the word straight from the Bible from various dogmas advanced by the Church and its agents. Christians were exposed to the ideas of Jesus straight from the horse's mouth. This led to Christian values becoming the basis for developed and mature societies.

Now, you can go buy a Quran from any street vendor. The reason there isn't an "Islamic Reformation" is twofold. First, Ataturk correctly assessed that the Arabic alphabet is fundamentally bad. My proof to this effect is not anything about Turkey or the Arab world but rather high literacy rates amongst American rednecks with almost no schooling. The Latin alphabet is inherently intuitive enough that people can pick it up without formal education. Not so for most of the alphabets used in the Islamic world. I believe this is the actual reason that Western white trash people have so much higher literacy rates than Muslim peasants worldwide.

The other problem is with the Quran itself. The Quran lacks the liberal values that define the Bible or Torah. Most liberalizing forces in Islam come from hadiths or fatwas rather than the content of the Quran. There is probably no way to fix this without recompiling the Quran in a way that effectively nullifies the principle of nullification that is itself cited in the Quran and re-emphasizes Muhammed at Mecca over Muhammed at Medina. In practical terms, this is probably impossible and would be tantamount to a willful desecration of Islam.

As to the economic angle, the reasons that the Islamic world hasn't undergone an economic revolution necessary for an "Islamic Reformation" and the establishment of a strong liberal Islamic bourgeois are familiar - political tyranny, the stranglehold of Islamism on the political dialogue, reliance on oil, insha'allah mentality, and above all else emigration and brain drain.

Ultimately, I believe, it comes down to a matter of national will - do or die. As it stands, I think "die" is looking increasingly likely. I believe the real game-changer will be global climate change and how it will totally undermine the capacity of the Islamic world to get by under the status quo.

 

[SQ8]

In regards to the contrast between the Christian Reformation and the challenge of contemporary Islam:

The Christian Reformation was built on two basic trends: the development of the printing press, mass printings of Bibles, mass literacy and ultimately mass religious enlightenment, and the gradual improvements in economic conditions that had been ongoing for centuries, due largely to increases in domestic security, regional trade and the establishment of a middle class. Islam today trips over these two trends, mass religious enlightenment and bourgeois culture, for reasons unique to Islam.

During the Christian Reformation, Christians substituted the word straight from the Bible from various dogmas advanced by the Church and its agents. Christians were exposed to the ideas of Jesus straight from the horse's mouth. This led to Christian values becoming the basis for developed and mature societies.

Now, you can go buy a Quran from any street vendor. The reason there isn't an "Islamic Reformation" is twofold. First, Ataturk correctly assessed that the Arabic alphabet is fundamentally bad. My proof to this effect is not anything about Turkey or the Arab world but rather high literacy rates amongst American rednecks with almost no schooling. The Latin alphabet is inherently intuitive enough that people can pick it up without formal education. Not so for most of the alphabets used in the Islamic world. I believe this is the actual reason that Western white trash people have so much higher literacy rates than Muslim peasants worldwide.

The other problem is with the Quran itself. The Quran lacks the liberal values that define the Bible or Torah. Most liberalizing forces in Islam come from hadiths or fatwas rather than the content of the Quran. There is probably no way to fix this without recompiling the Quran in a way that effectively nullifies the principle of nullification that is itself cited in the Quran and re-emphasizes Muhammed at Mecca over Muhammed at Medina. In practical terms, this is probably impossible and would be tantamount to a willful desecration of Islam.

As to the economic angle, the reasons that the Islamic world hasn't undergone an economic revolution necessary for an "Islamic Reformation" and the establishment of a strong liberal Islamic bourgeois are familiar - political tyranny, the stranglehold of Islamism on the political dialogue, reliance on oil, insha'allah mentality, and above all else emigration and brain drain.

Ultimately, I believe, it comes down to a matter of national will - do or die. As it stands, I think "die" is looking increasingly likely. I believe the real game-changer will be global climate change and how it will totally undermine the capacity of the Islamic world to get by under the status quo.

Seems more like a sanctimonious whitewash than actual analysis there. As if the dark ages of Christianity never happened. Moreover, the Bible was never "liberal" either. Both it and the Quran contain ideals of consequences and rewards. I have already explained as how both have come up entirely different in their theological evolution. So beyond clutching on straws, I see little in your argument that is worth a revision of what has already been said about it.

You seem to be hyping on some preconceived ideals rather than one looking for actual knowledge or introspection. For such cases, I would thank you and request you to please keep such opinions to yourself.

 

[Aestu]

And in that bold lies your utter lack of understanding of Islam. There is no lack of mea culpa in Islam either, Inshallah is a WHOLLY UNRELATED concept to mea culpa; albeit abused.

"Don't blame me. Blame yourself or God."

Your whole premise is based on trying to compare the evolutionary process of Judeo Christianty to the process of Islam. Whereas Islam initially embodied an evolutionary and liberal spirit throughout the initial 600 or so years of its existence

Islam spread through military conquest fueled by the promise of booty during that period.
Any claim to the contrary is revisionism.

the other Abrahamic religions went backward during those timeframes beyond their initial enlightenment.

Aristotle would disagree. So would the history of the Byzantine Empire.

The treatment of scriptures too is completely different within the two with regards to preservation of originality and concept of exegesis. Whereas the Bible(starting with the Torah and onto the old testament) that exists today is essentially just the various exegesis of what might have been an original scripture in hebrew or Aramaic.. it is retains very little of what Moses or Christ may have related originally as the word of god. Instead, the bible has gone through revisions and rewrites by scholars throughout history depending on their social and political interpretations of society.

You don't know anything about Judaism or Christianity.

The original language of the Bible was Koine Greek, not Aramaic. The authenticity of the Bible as the word of Jesus is approximately comparable to the authenticity of the Quran as the word of Muhammed. Muhammed was probably not present at the authorship of the Quran and hadiths, nor was Jesus present at the authorship of the Bible, but there is an internal consistency in the oral accounts of the character in question. It doesn't matter anyway because ultimately the message is more important than the man.

The Bible and Torah have remained largely unchanged since their authorship about two and three millenia ago, respectively. The reasons this is so would be obvious to you were you familiar with Jewish technical practices regarding the transmission of the Torah.

The exegesis of the Torah is the Talmud. The exegesis of the Bible is Catholic doctrine and the writings of various Christian philosophers. They are highly comparable in structure and authority to their Islamic equivalents.

In other words, we have no way to verify if the claim of the Earth being 10000 years old is actually the exact terms used by the Prophets is simply unverifiable. That also ended up leaving institutions like the Catholic Church making every effort to defend its exegesis as the correct one which lead to purges of scientists and artisans whom they considered heretics that would undermine the power of the Church.
Quite simply, there is very little authentic left in the bible that can be taken as a control or benchmark from which to gauge any existing, previous or future exegesis.

Again you do not understand. Catholics did not actually rewrite the Bible to any substantial extent; Anglicans did. The issue was that prior to the Reformation, very few Christians could or had read the Bible. The Bible itself, however, changed very little if at all during the Middle Ages.

What that entails is exactly what you stated. There is nothing in Judeo-Christian thought that can go back and argue on the spiritual, moral or legal correctness based on any control scripture as the word of god. That creates very little control in terms of what it may be interpreted as and hence you get the KKK and many other race based puritans who can argue based on a complete lack of control as to what is the limits of interpretation. At the same time, there is the same need to cling to scientifically impossible claims on world events that lead to a growing ridicule of religion among young Christians

It is very clear from this statement you have not read the Torah or the Bible. The Noahide Law, Golden Rule, Ten Commandments, fear of God and pursuit of righteousness are written in the text. Most hate and superstition creep in through malicious additions by ill-intentioned priests and rabbis, not the other way around as in Islam, where the immediate meaning of troublesome passages (what Jews call "peshat" in the context of Torah study) relating to topics like jihad or jizya or the like have to be explained away in favor of liberalism.

On the other hand, the Quran is EXACTLY as it was 1400 years ago without changes to a single letter. Any exegesis on it is taken as a completely different subjective opinion

All three holy books went through a period of oral transmission followed by transcription and consolidation. Some Jews believe the same thing you do about the Torah, but they're incorrect in the most absolute sense for the same reasons. It is a truthful statement to say that both the Torah and Quran have been as they have been since being consolidated at some point in history a long time ago.

Whereas in Islam, every claim must reconcile with the Quran and any claims on the meaning of the Quran must be reconciled with intellectual introspection before it is considered worthy of being taken as a possible meaning. This process had since the passing of the Prophet Mohammad that the closest disciples would consult with each other and if applicable invite an expert in a particular field (trading with an alcohol consuming society for e.g, invite the emissary to learn about their practices,customs and finances) when faced with a new occurrence that they had not encountered and would reference the scripture to see if any guidance would fit, reference an action of the prophet in any similar circumstance.. and if one or the other did not exist, decide based upon their best intellectual capacity. At no point could they go ahead and introduce their interpretations of the times into the Quran. All they could do was document it as to what they believed was correct for their times.

Jews have the same law, and in practice, it often gets pretty far amok. The Talmud has completely surpassed the Torah as a direct authority in more reactionary sects of Judaism, and part of efforts to liberalize Judaism has been to reverse this trend. Islam can't easily do this because of the inherently extreme nature of the Quran's content.

What changed over the years after the supposed golden age (and in spaces between) was the type of people interpreting the Quran and those imposing their political will upon these interpretations. At no point did the Quran change, but the exegesis and the popularity of that genesis did. So if during the Crusades as the papal state could state "God wills it", the Saracens could interpret that Jihad was required to cleanse Jerusalem based on their own ambitions and ideals. In short words, to quote Reza Aslan.. religion is only so much as what you bring to it. Today as a resident of the United States find more than enough evidence in the Quran that compels me to care for you as one of my own and to protect you where I can. It provides no evidence to declare you an infidel or declare Jihad against you. And I am a regular reader of various compilations of exgesis. Yet, at the same time there are other who will also use the very same verses or others in the Quran to state that not only are you an infidel; you are likely to hold only ill will toward muslims and must be killed before you hurt them. The Quran is still the same, the only thing that changes is the intellect, the morals, the ethics and the exposure of the person interpreting it.

The proof is in the pudding. Anyone can twist any religious text into pretzels and make it whatever they want to pretend it is, but ultimately there are fundamentals unique to individual religions that define the overall bent of its culture. Islam has unique problems for that reason, simple as that. Arguably Judaism and Christianity do too, albeit different and probably less crippling ones.

Seems more like a sanctimonious whitewash than actual analysis there. As if the dark ages of Christianity never happened.

The dark ages of Christianity were largely related to the downfall of and transition from Roman authority. Students of Roman history understand that in fact those dark ages were in motion long before Christianity even existed and were ultimately the very long-term effects of moral and political degeneration caused by Roman greed. Go read Tacitus or Caesar/Cicero and you'll see what I mean.

Moreover, the Bible was never "liberal" either.

Both it and the Quran contain ideals of consequences and rewards. I have already explained as how both have come up entirely different in their theological evolution. So beyond clutching on straws, I see little in your argument that is worth a revision of what has already been said about it.

I'm a Jew and I'm struggling to understand how you can claim Jesus and his teachings were anything but liberal unless you've never read a word of the Bible. Perhaps you can cite some passages of the Bible to explain this to me.

You seem to be hyping on some preconceived ideals rather than one looking for actual knowledge or introspection. For such cases, I would thank you and request you to please keep such opinions to yourself.

I think this itself is sufficient proof of all that I've said.

 

[illusion8]

This is a discussion I've not looked into, or considered for that matter. But it is unlikely. The Biblical reforms you are talking about were not the result of the enlightenment era or willing efforts to improve, but rather accidental, unintended consequences of sects, translations, omissions, and also wilful alteration as in the case of Henry VII for personal gain.

But truly, every form of Islam that can exist does exist already, there's the ultra liberal extremist that has nothing to do with Islam at all, right down to the literalist, and the extremist on the other end. The question is not to ask whether it is possible... it is possible, and these versions exist already, it is to ask whether it is possible for different versions or interpretations to gain momentum and popularity in the Muslim world.

The Catholic Church is much much more organized with proper systems in place as compared to Islam..I don't think any of their clergy members can change rules or laws in the fashion how a Muslim clergy changes it with fatwas to his liking.

As @Aestu said, Christianity took shape after the death of Jesus based on his sayings..The sayings which no one can claim to be radical or extremist.

The pre BC history doesn't play a part in how the church operated...the dark ages was most likely a manifestation of the local culture and distortion of religious laws.

 

[Lonely Hermit]

Yes agreed. kindly include those that harbour Hindus also suffer ( until defeated and put down like vermin ) like Hindu Tamil LTTE in Sri Lanka.

Lanka was an ethnic conflict between sinhalese and tamil in fact their top leadership where Christian

 

[Clutch]

Islamic terrorism is unique to Islam. The terrorists and their goals have broad support in the Islamic community. The very fact ordinary Muslims claim to be victims of all this, and are only ever interested in protesting perceived outrages by kaffirs, proves as much. Europe is awash in Muslims who demand to live in countries they hate.

not really... most victims of terrorism are Muslims not other people. Its more of a civil war... between your buddies the Saudi Wahabbis and the rest of the Muslims. Wahhabi being almost a cult that perverted the teachings of Islam. Thanks to decades of unchecked unopposed Saudi funding of their House of Saud and Wahaab ideology has brought us here.

Your arguments are valid for the most part...but islamic history is replete with violence and war, I am no scholar of history. But there is something seriously seriously wrong.

Indian muslims who will be the world's largest muslim population in the world shortly are supposedly the most peaceful group in the world. .but then..there come wahaabist preachers in their thousands trying to turn them into maniacal fanatics, ISI inciting them to turn into traitors, Internet filled with propaganda from isis which will turn a few eventually.

When you say that muslims want isis dead....then why is there no muslim army or muslim airforce attacking them and taking care of the issue?..I hear pakistan refused to join an anti isis coalition..If isis really troubles muslims so much then why did pakistan turn is back?.

.

Umm... most of the fighting against ISIS on the ground is being done by muslims... just FYI...

 

[Pandora]

Leave it to the Muslims to commit terror against other groups then disclaim all responsibility and talk about nothing but their status as victims.

Pollard was released from jail recently, which pissed a lot of Americans off. Are American Jews also insisting he wasn't Jewish and doing nothing but declaring themselves victims?

With people like you out there with blind hatred no wonder people dont feel safe.People like you probably come out with absurd logic about a crime happening infront of your own eyes.

 

[Jf Thunder]

and obviously the people doing these things are not terrorists but only angry citizens, because after all, only Muslims can be terrorists