Islamic fundamentalism

[TomOfSweden]

I read the Koran a while back and found the Muslim fundamentalist movement very confusing because they explicitly break a lot of the rules in the Koran, at the same time as claiming to be following the Koran to the letter.

It wasn't until I read, A short history of Islam by Karen Armstrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Armstrong) that all the bits fell into place.

Just a few things that are strange. Suicide bombers is explicitly forbidden in Islam. Anybody committing suicide for any reason goes to hell. Taking non-military hostages is also a one way ticket to hell. Not to mention executing them.

There's other funnyiness. Like the Sharia. Mohammed saw Judaism, Christianity and Islam as the same religion, only tailored to different cultures. So Muslims who follow Mohammed's words has to be super tolerant of other religious traditions, as long as they follow the commandments. This brings us to the Sharia. Mohammed said that each city/tribe should develop its own Sharia, since we all need common laws. As long as it was in accordance with the Koran all was good. This thing about a common Sharia for all Muslims is an invention of the Abbasids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasids) who had the first cohesive Muslim empire in the 750'ies and onwards. They basically threw out most of the Koran and based the Sharia on the old Persian laws, which had just been conquered, and just paid lip service to the Koran. There's still plenty in the Sharia today which are remanents of this. Not to mention all the bits added by the Ottoman pashas to make their rule easier.

Another thing which amuses me infinitely is that the use of Burqa/chador is an import from Christianity and only started when the Ottomans started conquering the christian Byzantinian empire ca 900 onward.

So back to fundamentalism. Karen Armstrong claims that the values held by the muslim fundamentalists, and all fundamentalists of all creeds are all very modern inventions. She claims that they are simply a reaction to the advent of the rise of secularism in the 20'th century. Since secularism and modernity has been linked, fundamentalism was created to combat this. It's not simply that they are Luddites but reacted to the often very brutal forced modernisations of middle-eastern dictators in the beginning and middle of the 20'th century.

The values that Islamic fundamentalists and all fundamentalists hold are just the values that where prevalent during the pre-modern agrarian culture. Complete with agrarian age gender roles and the whole kit. And they're seeing the pre-modern age through rose tinted glasses.

Why religious fundamentalism is so strong in the middle-east is because they've historically had a very elitist attitude toward the west. Up until the 18'th century western Europe was seen as a backward backwater without the ability to do anything impressive, which at the time was true. The east had been the centre of research and the arts for 8000 years. The idea that the west had anything to come up with was quite a shock to them when in the 18'th century western modern production techniques completely dominated their markets, and later when colonialism swept over their lands after the fall of the Ottoman empire in 1914. The Ottomans had tried to reform Turkey but where hopelessly behind and didn't realise that they also had to reform it politically. Anyhoo, now comes fundamentalism which takes pride in being backward, and suddenly being backward is seen as a virtue and not a problem. Since everybody wants to be proud fundamentalism became a major political force.

But Karen Armstrong aptly points out that fundamentalism is already on the way out and was mostly a 50'ies to 80'ies phenomena. Today fundamentalists are a fringe movement in all parts of the world including the middle-east. As with all strong actions, we'll get a re-action and a backlash. Fundamentalism is the backlash to the forced modernisations. Now when they're gone the middle-east is back on track again and as a whole probably quite a lot closer to democracy in the whole middle east.

She also points out that just because fundamentalists get all the press, doesn't mean they're the biggest force out there. In USA Nation of Islam gets all the attention but doesn't even represent a percent of all US Muslims.

I still think people who believe in the supernatural are confused, and who assume that because a person agrees with the ethics from a religion they're somehow intrinsically linked with its obsolete scientific claims on the nature of the universe. But that book put it all in perspective for me. Religion can still be a positive force in the world. And I believe that historically it has. By necessity, or it would have died out a long time ago.

Anybody else read it? Anybody who is a Muslim who can comment? I found it a very fascinating read. Anything that woman writes is frikkin' amazing.

[_ID_]

Fundamentalists of any religion are usually breaking the rules of their roots.

[Alex Bragi]

Excellent thread, Tom—very thought provoking.

I also agree completely with ID, "breaking the rules" is, ironically, what all fundamentalists seem to have in common. That, and a very narrow-minded attitude that what they believe is totally right and what everyone else beleives is totally wrong. As physicist and Nobel laureate Stephen Weinberg once said: "“Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion”. Unfortunately, I believe he’s right.

However, I can’t agree with this assessment: “But Karen Armstrong aptly points out that fundamentalism is already on the way out and was mostly a 50'ies to 80'ies phenomena. Today fundamentalists are a fringe movement in all parts of the world including the middle-east.”

You need not look further than the USA’s “Bible Belt” (where the separation of Church and State has become so blurred), to realise how strong fundamentalist Christianity is today and, more importantly, how politically powerful it’s become.

[Eponine]

Tom, thanks for bringing this topic up.

Being first generation Egyptian-American, born to parents raised in Egypt, in the midst of discrimination by the imposed Muslim society against their Christianity, I will admit I personally have strong, biased opinions towards the religion.

But having said parents, I do have some knowledge that most Americans or other westerners may not. The Quran is used as literary text there, from which to study the formal, written Arabic, and so, both my parents know the book very well in its original language.

My mother has shown me the specific Sura in the Quran, read the Arabic to me (of that high speech, I cannot understand much) and given me the conversational Arabic words. There is a specific part that says to crush the nonbelievers under their feet or to make them pay with tribute. There are also stronger sentiments than this which advise specifically, explicitly to kill the nonbelievers. There is controversy over the word translated as "kill" there- just as there is controversy over the meaning in English of "Islam". I think it stems from the vast differences between the high, formal Arabic and the conversational one.

Last note, I did read a book- but this was at least five years ago, and goodness I cannot remember the title or the author's name, but I'm not lying really! lol- that exposed Islam as a cultist ideology rather than a true spiritual religion. For example, the "burka" is taken from the harem times of Saudi Arabia.

Tom- I don't know what translation you read, however, we have to admit that translations can be quite skewed. I do believe that any Muslim translator would certainly rewrite the book in English to present Islam as a peaceful, loving religion. Because of the language differences I referred to above, it would be easy to do so.

Now, yes, I have not read the Quran myself in Arabic, but either my mother is lying or does not understand. Well, certainly anything's possible. However, she is not the only one to believe as she does.

So, yes, this is only my two cents' worth of input that may even be worth less... but I would just like Americans or English-speaking westerners or anyone who really cannot read and understand the Quran in the original language to think about the possibilities I presented.

I mean, if it's true- that the Quran does advocate violence against nonbelievers of its faith, it would make smart sense that its followers would not share this truth openly with the world. Certainly, they would want to fit in with the other big two monotheistic religions as another "peaceful" religion so they could have their isolated fanatics doing all the dirty work with the religion not getting blamed.

***ok last note for real-- total side note, it irritates the shit out of me when Americans say "Allah" when talking about Islam, like it's another name of another god, but it simply _means_ "God" in Arabic. You can go into a Coptic Orthodox (that's a Christian sect) church, and hear "Allah" many times- because they are praising or thanking or worshipping or whatever they do to/ for God.

[TomOfSweden]

Fundamentalists of any religion are usually breaking the rules of their roots.

well, yeah. But I don't see how that's relevant. She argues that all fundamentalists are a new and a separate religion. Christian bible-thumpers in the bible belt and Islamic fundamentalists in the caves of Afghanistan are pretty much the same new religion and have the same values. They just have different symbols. The difference between the Koran and the Bible, in what actually is being said are minute.

Don't forget the audience. It isn't really fair to read the Bible and the Koran today to find the words of the prophets. It's probably better to look at how people of the time actually reacted to them.

Our world is a radically different place then it was 600 AD. A person following the Koran to the letter in 600 AD will read a completely different book than a person following it to the letter today. Our brains and minds are a product of the times we live in. The words have radically different meanings today. Dictionaries get redefined all the time.

Because of evolution all religions have probably broken with their roots. I don't see how that is an intrinsically bad thing.

[TomOfSweden]

However, I can’t agree with this assessment: “But Karen Armstrong aptly points out that fundamentalism is already on the way out and was mostly a 50'ies to 80'ies phenomena. Today fundamentalists are a fringe movement in all parts of the world including the middle-east.”

You need not look further than the USA’s “Bible Belt” (where the separation of Church and State has become so blurred), to realise how strong fundamentalist Christianity is today and, more importantly, how politically powerful it’s become.

I'll buy that. Karen Armstrong's theory is that the root of all religious fundamentalism is the stress of the new modern culture and the perceived assault of the secular world on it. If we accept her theory and think of all our new technology and it's increasing complexity it becomes understandable.

Her focus in this book was Islamic fundamentalism. She covers the Christians fundamentalists in "God's warriors". I haven't read that one, so I can't really say in detail what she mentions about it, and me personally; I don't know more than what I see in sensationalist press, which paints a picture of USA as extremely backward spiritually, (like in Kansas for example) which I just don't accept. I personally think it's just journalism focusing on the extremes

[TomOfSweden]

Tom- I don't know what translation you read, however, we have to admit that translations can be quite skewed. I do believe that any Muslim translator would certainly rewrite the book in English to present Islam as a peaceful, loving religion. Because of the language differences I referred to above, it would be easy to do so.


I read a highly criticised Swedish translation so I think it's a bad source to quote anything from.

And then we have the benefit of knowing pretty much everything about Mohammed's life. It's even possible to check out his complete wardrobe in Topkapi palace in Istanbul. They even have letters that he's written, and foot, handprints and even shavings off his beard. I've been there myself and checked them out. It's amazing.

We know how he lived and what opinions he had. We know that plenty of the decisions where purely political. The move with turning around and facing Mecka instead of Jerusalem when they prayed was purely political. The three Jewish tribes in the area chose to align with Mecka instead of the Muslims. It was about showing them how seriously he took it. And once Mecka was conquered, there was no compelling reason to tell everybody to face Jerusalem again.

We also know that Mohammed saw Judaism, Islam and Christianity as the same religion with the same values, only catering to different cultures. So if Christianity doesn't have passages about killing infidels then chances are that "kill" means something different in ancient Arabic.

Another amusing thing Karen Armstrong points out is the distorted view of the crusades.

The Arabs at the turn of the last millennia paid very little attention to what was happening in western and northern Europe. When the crusaders took Jerusalem in 1099 the Arab/Muslim reaction was nothing. It's hardly mentioned anywhere in their texts from the time. Much less was seen as a problem. Jerusalem sat at the time just north of the large Fatamid muslim empire. They ignored it completely even though they where probably richer than all of western Europe put together and could easily have crushed the crusader states like a bug.

When Saladin retook Jerusalem in 1170 it was only because it was on the way to Syria. Politically he had used the crusader states as a buffer between him and the rest of the muslim world but now when he wanted to expand his empire they had outlived their usefulness. Saladin was just one lone Emir. He wasn't commanding any united Muslim army.

The focus and importance of the crusades as a deeply wounding attack on Islam is purely a 20'th century construct. It has no historical support or basis.

The western world as a economic and political superpower is a relatively new thing. The Arabs in 1099 saw the Christian crusaders as the little guy trying to at best annoy the giant. But they wheren't even very good at that.

[Rhabbi]

Tom,

I have not read this book, but I have read some of Karen Armstrong's other books. In my opinion she has a tendency to focus on what she sees, and will often let critical thinking go out the window to make her point. Some of the stuff that she writes is from an extremely Fundamentalist Christian POV, which she apparently had a split with recently in God's Warriors. I have not read that eithet, but the reviews among the press that used to slavishly quote her indicates that she departed from the things they support.

That said, I agree that Fundamentalism is a relatively modern invention for the most part. But she seems to be ignoring the fact that throughout history there were revivals in Christianity that tried in various ways to get back to the church that Jesus founded. These were usually the result of scientific and cultural differences that got out of hand in the opinion of some people.

The rise of Islamic Fundamentalism could be viewed as an Islamic revival. It has moved to the fringes now, but Islam as a whole has changed as a result. The passages in the Koran that call for converting of the unbeliever by force are being reevaluated. the ones that call for tolerance are also being reevaluated. Where this will all shake out in time is beyond anyones guess at this time.

[_ID_]

Tom - It was only relevant in that I was speaking about how fundamentalists of any religion, not just Muslims, break the rules of the book they are so fanatical about. Fundamentalist *insert chosen faith* rarely stay true to the original teachings they began with. I don't know enough about Scientology to say that they never do. I do agree with you that fundamentalists are a fringe faction, but I don't know if they are on the way out. Way too much elitism still around for that too happen.

[TomOfSweden]

Tom,

I have not read this book, but I have read some of Karen Armstrong's other books. In my opinion she has a tendency to focus on what she sees, and will often let critical thinking go out the window to make her point.


I'd love to hear some examples. You being in a position to actually know. My knowledge of the religious world is mostly from text books. I don't actually know anybody religious personally to ask.



Some of the stuff that she writes is from an extremely Fundamentalist Christian POV, which she apparently had a split with recently in God's Warriors. I have not read that eithet, but the reviews among the press that used to slavishly quote her indicates that she departed from the things they support.


This is confusing. Has she departed from things that the press support?

[Rhabbi]

Originally Posted by Rhabbi View Post
Some of the stuff that she writes is from an extremely Fundamentalist Christian POV, which she apparently had a split with recently in God's Warriors. I have not read that eithet, but the reviews among the press that used to slavishly quote her indicates that she departed from the things they support.
This is confusing. Has she departed from things that the press support?

My fault Tom, I should have said that she departed form the things that the Fundamentalist press supports. Her Book God's Warriors was panned by the same critics that loved her earlier writing, though I admire her for telling things the way she sees them.

As for the other examples, please allow me some time to go back through the books she has written that I have read and pull up some examples. I do not want to do this from memery and misquote her.

[Stone]

Eronine is right the muslem/islam does advocate violence ive studied islam imformally on my own personal quest to find myself

Islam veiws on every no muslim is pretty simple

House 1. for muslims
House 2. the house of treaty i.e people who pay them tribute to be left alone
house 3. The house of war

So tell me which house you fall into?

What i dont understand is muslims kill fellow muslims

well but on my quest i studied all majpr religons and decided they are all full of shit its all about control power money greed basically everything in the good book(s) described as evil

[ElectricBadger]

Very good topic! A few thoughts:


Taking non-military hostages is also a one way ticket to hell. Not to mention executing them.

Yes, lots of things -- murder, mayhem, general abuse of innocents -- are quite horrid under Islam. They're also rather frowned upon in Western cultures, and yet a glance at, say, world war II and the large-scale slaughter and abuse of civilian targets (carpet and fire bombings, targetting of civilian industrial/transportation targets, rocket attacks, concentration camps -- by both sides -- and of course, nuclear weaponry) shows how easily heinous crimes are excused by the "necessities of war." Understanding how an 18 year old caucasian Texan star quarterback, cub scout and altar boy could firebomb Hamburg and return to a hero's welcome will probably help in understanding the violence -- and acceptance -- of eastern extremists today. I'm not saying they're right -- nor that we were wrong in the 40's -- but there is a large grey area that's often ignored.


"breaking the rules" is, ironically, what all fundamentalists seem to have in common.

True, but it's also good to keep in mind that non-fundamentalists are pretty good at this too. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? Honestly, the entire idea of following ALL the religious rules is pretty ridiculous from any Christian perspective: that whole "Reformation" and "Counter Reformation" thing ensured that every Christian is throwing out some of the rules.


Another amusing thing Karen Armstrong points out is the distorted view of the crusades.

That's...an interesting perspective on the Crusades; can't say it's one I agree with.

With a loose alliance with the Byzantine empire and the rather spastic west, not to mention incomparable heavy knights who dominated battlefields, the Crusader States were much more than they seemed. They were definitely noticed, there just wasn't much to do about them; the best way to deal with the wacky Franks was to let them keep the only city they were motivated to take. Nor were the Islamic empires they faced in any shape to squish them. But the capture of Jerusalem in particular was very well documented and widely resented, still creating enough political pressure a century later to force Saladin (against his own preferences -- he wanted to head north or east, to richer and easier conquests) to retake the city as part of his effort to unify the Middle East (he wasn't just one emir, he was bringing everything together, thus his astoundinglyawesomeness) -- which led to some spankings by Richard of that huge squashing army you mentioned. So, yeah, the European religious wackos made an impact; they just made a much bigger one in Europe, where every king and pope made explicit efforts towards publicity.

[nk_lion]

Just seen this now, and probably going to be the first Muslim posting in this thread.

There is nothing in the Koran that says that women have to wear a veil.
There is nothing in there that says that killing anyone but the soldiers of your enemy during the time of a war is allowed. It actually emphasises that even cutting a single tree of your enemy is a crime. The basis of a war is only permissable if an attacking group is trying to extuingish the religion. There is no other valid reason for war.
There is a passage in there that specifically states that the choice of religion is upto the individual.
Jihad does not mean kill all westeners, it means inner struggle, self improvement.

At least this was the Islam that I was taught, I know that not many Muslims follow even the basic principles any more. Eponine, the discrimination that you and your mother faced in Eygpt is inexcusable, it is a black mark on my religion when every time, someone claiming to be Muslim kills someone or does something completely against the basic laws.

[sexerali]

Just seen this now, and probably going to be the first Muslim posting in this thread.

There is nothing in the Koran that says that women have to wear a veil.
There is nothing in there that says that killing anyone but the soldiers of your enemy during the time of a war is allowed. It actually emphasises that even cutting a single tree of your enemy is a crime. The basis of a war is only permissable if an attacking group is trying to extuingish the religion. There is no other valid reason for war.
There is a passage in there that specifically states that the choice of religion is upto the individual.
Jihad does not mean kill all westeners, it means inner struggle, self improvement.

At least this was the Islam that I was taught, I know that not many Muslims follow even the basic principles any more. Eponine, the discrimination that you and your mother faced in Eygpt is inexcusable, it is a black mark on my religion when every time, someone claiming to be Muslim kills someone or does something completely against the basic laws.



Absolutely right brother

[TomOfSweden]

True, but it's also good to keep in mind that non-fundamentalists are pretty good at this too. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? Honestly, the entire idea of following ALL the religious rules is pretty ridiculous from any Christian perspective: that whole "Reformation" and "Counter Reformation" thing ensured that every Christian is throwing out some of the rules.


Sorry being late in the answer here. Yeah, but the non-fundamentalists have the excuse for not following all the rules. They're not fundamentalists.

I can't really give a retort about anything else because I know far too little about both Islam and the Crusades. Apart from the fact that all the symbology in every culture and religion meant something different today, than it did back then.

You seem to be the Libraries resident history buff so I'm going to assume you're making these comments for good reason and not pick a fight :)

[Platonicus]

Great thread Tom. I think the gist of it is that radicals of any stripe are very dangerous people. One thing that I find interesting is that those educated religious leaders who declare Jihad always seem to look to the less educated (and apparently easily dupped) to actually serve as suicide bombers. Wouldn't you think if it were true that those who blew themselves up for the cause were actually going to get seven virgins in the after life that Osama would be all over it? :)

[Ozme52]

Fundamentalism is the backlash to the forced modernisations.

Exactly. Look at the rise of Creationism as the backlash to Natural Selection, and thereby evolution. Not because the theory questions the bible but because some obscure biblical scholar wrote a treatise on the age of the world and a "strict" interpretation on the meaning of 'God created the world in seven days."

Whereas if I were a theologian I would see evolution driven by natural selection as obviously devine.

[Ozme52]

Eronine is right the muslem/islam does advocate violence ive studied islam imformally on my own personal quest to find myself

Islam veiws on every no muslim is pretty simple

House 1. for muslims
House 2. the house of treaty i.e people who pay them tribute to be left alone
house 3. The house of war

So tell me which house you fall into?

What i dont understand is muslims kill fellow muslims

well but on my quest i studied all majpr religons and decided they are all full of shit its all about control power money greed basically everything in the good book(s) described as evil

Remember, Mohammad was tolerant of all the worshippers of the one true god... including jews and christians. All three belong in the first house. Don't confuse the "names" used by the local language as having been meant to be exclusive.

It is the modern fundamentalists (of all three religions) who preach hate for the others.

Same answer. Modern fundamentalists are so self-rightious that they even denigrate sects of their own religion over minor differences. I've even attended christian services where the minister denigrated people from his own congregation who attended the alternate, "more convenient" time, to attend services.

In my opinion, fundamentalists are just too full of themselves and are incapable of tolerance.

[TomOfSweden]

Great thread Tom. I think the gist of it is that radicals of any stripe are very dangerous people. One thing that I find interesting is that those educated religious leaders who declare Jihad always seem to look to the less educated (and apparently easily dupped) to actually serve as suicide bombers. Wouldn't you think if it were true that those who blew themselves up for the cause were actually going to get seven virgins in the after life that Osama would be all over it? :)

I think it's the other way around. It's the less educated who are more likely to go and look for the fundamentalist Imams. I don't think the Imams are preying on them. I think they're the ones who are desperate to find meaning in their lives. Having a down and out job with no prospect of ever getting ahead in life is a good motivator to seek meaning in something else than monetary gain and a comfortable life.

One thing that often gets confused is that a Jihad is a war war. Suicide bombing and general Islamic terrorism is a modern invention which isn't really covered in the Koran, and certainly isn't what Mohammed had in mind. Off-course. For one, they didn't have bombs or any of the tools needed for a small force to terrorize a majority at the time.

That whole thing about the 72 virgins for suicide bombing needs a very liberal reading of the Koran. Martyrdom for the cause sure gets you into heaven but suicide gets you into hell. And far from all Islamic scholars believe in 72 virgins. I think it's generally accepted to have some alternate meaning rather than to mean 72 untouched and willing hot chicks.

here's an article on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html

[mkemse]

I do not believe that Islamic Extermists or Terrorist, use your own choice of words, have any more requard for the teaching in the Koran, then they do for the value of life itself, to me they are all self serving people Terrorists, not Islamics in general), with NO regard to the value of human life be it American, Israeli, Islamic, Christian ect.
They will kill who they want for what ever reason they want, the can, do and will continue use any reason under the sun for why they killed this person or that person, but the reality is as I just mentioned, they will kill who they want when they want for what ever reason

[Ozme52]

I do not believe that Islamic Extermists or Terrorist, use your own choice of words, have any more requard for the teaching in the Koran, then they do for the value of life itself, to me they are all self serving people Terrorists, not Islamics in general), with NO regard to the value of human life be it American, Israeli, Islamic, Christian ect.
They will kill who they want for what ever reason they want, the can, do and will continue use any reason under the sun for why they killed this person or that person, but the reality is as I just mentioned, they will kill who they want when they want for what ever reason


So long as you realize that the christian fundamentalist sects, which rose during the Reformation, were just as brutal and had just as little regard for the lives of those around them who didn't conform to their ideals. They likewise ignored their teachings in their crusade to impose their will on those around them.

They were notorious because of their use of assasination to influence those in power.

The modern christian fundamentalists in this country scare me no less than the Islamic fundamentalists do. Perhaps more. They can affect my life much more directly.

[mkemse]

So long as you realize that the christian fundamentalist sects, which rose during the Reformation, were just as brutal and had just as little regard for the lives of those around them who didn't conform to their ideals. They likewise ignored their teachings in their crusade to impose their will on those around them.

They were notorious because of their use of assasination to influence those in power.

The modern christian fundamentalists in this country scare me no less than the Islamic fundamentalists do. Perhaps more. They can affect my life much more directly.

I agree, my only point to my post is that the Islamic Extremists are only serving themselvees and nobody else
If for example Iraq put a Soccer Team together for International Competition and Extremeists did NOT believe the Koran allowed this, I would not be suprised to see or hear the Team kidnapped and or killed for just that reason, they felt like killing the team, but most extremists regardless of faith have no regaurd for life any or their own for if they did they would not have suicide bombers

[_ID_]

most extremists regardless of faith have no regaurd for life any or their own for if they did they would not have suicide bombers

This part of your post I believe to be accurate, however to play devils advocate for the sake of discussion. The Muslim extremists you refer to believe their acts to be sanctioned by Allah (god) and that they will receive holy rewards for their selfless act. So you could say they value life so much, that they give up precious life for the ultimate reward.

[Thorne]

So you could say they value life so much, that they give up precious life for the ultimate reward.

I think rather that they value life so little, especially their own, that they are willing to commit ANY atrocity just for the POSSIBILITY of rewards in the afterlife. Yet the vast majority of religions (including Islam, I believe) preach that the rewards in the afterlife are spiritual rather than physical. Without the physical body there is no need for material rewards, including some indeterminate number of "virgins."

And when you think about it, what kind of "reward" would that be for the virgins? Here they've gone and kept themselves pure, only to have to give themselves to some asshole who hated himself enough to kill himself? Some paradise!

[Ozme52]

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Koran that suggests one should sacrifice oneself in this manner. Just the opposite in fact. It's a lie the "political leadership" foists off so they can recruit young men desparate for any kind of attention from their elders.

That's simplifying things too much... but I think the essence of it is ture,

[Thorne]

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Koran that suggests one should sacrifice oneself in this manner. Just the opposite in fact. It's a lie the "political leadership" foists off so they can recruit young men desparate for any kind of attention from their elders.

That's simplifying things too much... but I think the essence of it is ture,

I think you're right. Like the early Catholic church, Islam is supposed to be a religion of "peace" which has been perverted by its leaders for their own purposes. You don't see Osama blowing himself to pieces, do you? They show him firing guns at targets, but have you ever seen any vids of him in actual combat? Not likely!

[mkemse]

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Koran that suggests one should sacrifice oneself in this manner. Just the opposite in fact. It's a lie the "political leadership" foists off so they can recruit young men desparate for any kind of attention from their elders.

That's simplifying things too much... but I think the essence of it is ture,

Ozme52,

Not only do I agree with you, but if i am not mistaken and correct me if iam wron,g The Koran acutaly prohbits acts of violence from what I have heard and read, so the fact that these so called "Fundemetalists" Terorsits use the Koran as a reason to commit the crimes they do, actualy violates the 1 Book they so strongly believe in, I have heard Islamic Scholor or so they claim on TV and have read that the Koran is very specific in saving the Koran prohibits any form of violence or murder, which is wht the Terorists have only their own sell intrest in mind when they do what they do, they even violate what they claim is their Holy Book
I would appriciate anyone correcting me onthis if I am wrong

[mkemse]

Found this while surfing:

Koran doesn't condone killing innocents, experts say

By Raju Chebium, Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — Despite television images showing some Muslims rejoicing over carnage in New York and Washington, most of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims don't support the holy war accused terrorist Osama bin Laden is said to be waging against the United States, Islam experts say. Mainstream Muslims derive a message of peace, not unprovoked violence, from the Koran, Islam's holy book. Most Muslims condemn radical clerics and militant fringe groups like bin Laden's organization for twisting the sacred words of peace for their own violent end, scholars say.

[Ozme52]

True. All over the world, the majority truly is silent.

[mkemse]

True. All over the world, the majority truly is silent.

Thank you, how true

[Moonraker]

A lengthy post so, much as I would like to, I cannot comment on all points. Just 2 comments (for now):

Like most holy books and indeed, many modern law books, a lot is left open to interpretation. The term fundamentalist is used to describe those who choose to apply the strictest interpretation. You mention the burqa and other poster agrees mentioning the veil. The Quran states:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to..."

So we are left to interpret what guarding modesty and displaying beauty means. I would suggest that anything that can arouse a man is displaying beauty, and I don't know about you but a pretty face certainly arouses me.

Regarding the various points you made concerning war (terrorism) strictly speaking you may bee correct. But you do not take into account the "merit" system in Islam. I cannot quote you offhand the details of the scoring system but basically at the pearly gates your good and bad deed scores are totalled up to determine your rewards in paradise. I understand that one of the 911 bombers rented porno tapes the night before the event. He probably calculated that the minus points for porn and suicide were minimal compared to the massive bonus points he would get as a martyr dieing to defend the faith. (My apologies to any muslim reader for this oversimplification and perhaps bad analagy). But I think you all get my point. The good deeds outweigh the bad. And are we so far off that principle when dropping atom bombs.

The bottom line is, that's why we call it religion or faith. It depends on belief and what is in your heart, not simply following a clear and precise rule book.

[Ozme52]

A lengthy post so, much as I would like to, I cannot comment on all points. Just 2 comments (for now):

Like most holy books and indeed, many modern law books, a lot is left open to interpretation. The term fundamentalist is used to describe those who choose to apply the strictest interpretation. You mention the burqa and other poster agrees mentioning the veil. The Quran states:

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to..."

So we are left to interpret what guarding modesty and displaying beauty means. I would suggest that anything that can arouse a man is displaying beauty, and I don't know about you but a pretty face certainly arouses me.

Regarding the various points you made concerning war (terrorism) strictly speaking you may bee correct. But you do not take into account the "merit" system in Islam. I cannot quote you offhand the details of the scoring system but basically at the pearly gates your good and bad deed scores are totalled up to determine your rewards in paradise. I understand that one of the 911 bombers rented porno tapes the night before the event. He probably calculated that the minus points for porn and suicide were minimal compared to the massive bonus points he would get as a martyr dieing to defend the faith. (My apologies to any muslim reader for this oversimplification and perhaps bad analagy). But I think you all get my point. The good deeds outweigh the bad. And are we so far off that principle when dropping atom bombs.

The bottom line is, that's why we call it religion or faith. It depends on belief and what is in your heart, not simply following a clear and precise rule book.

That's as bogus an approach to living as the Catholics who believe a lifetime of evil can be negated by a deathbed confession and the absolution of a priest.

[Moonraker]

Ozme52

Hey mate, I wasn't promoting the concept, just explaining how you persuade a devout muslim to fly a plane into an office building. I agree with you.