by kpop 233 Replies latest watchtower bible
All very grand. But there are numerous places which are thoroughly controller by Islamic regimes, have no bombs dropped on them by "the evil west" and who's populations are terrorized because of Islam and Sharia.
So I'm sorry, but bringing up a few crimes by the west doesn't do anything to help the state of Islam.
The issue of who follows the teachings of the Quran most closely is very different than being a "good muslim".
No, you would like it to be different, because it's an inconvenient truth. But it's no different to saying that a "good Catholic" follows the teachings of Catholicism more closely than a less-good Catholic or a good Jehovahs Witness follows the WTS instructions more closely than a less-good JW does.
You are literally trying to redefine what basic words mean to wriggle out of a simple admission.
Then you just blah blah blah about nothingness and nonsense, all to avoid answering a very, very simple question.
Your 'god' Obama made statements about it, but you simply cannot explain the basis for them, because there is no basis for saying that ISIS are not among the closest followers of Islam currently on the planet.
That makes them "good Muslims" whether you, Obama or any one else likes it or not and the reason that you don't is that it's a damning indictment of Islam.
But it's no different to saying that a "good Catholic" follows the teachings of Catholicism more closely than a less-good Catholic or a good Jehovahs Witness follows the WTS instructions more closely than a less-good JW does.
I think that only serves to reinforce my point: Both the JW and the Catholic are Christians; what it means to be a "good Catholic" and a "good JW" are very different things.
Why can't we allow the same for Islam?
Why can't we say that the ISIS militant is a good Muslim according to their idea of what Islam should be and e.g. a Dancing Dervish too is a good Muslim according to whatever they believe in? Why can't we allow for a cosmopolitan interpretation of Islam that takes the "religion of peace"-part serious?
Sure none of this is going to be true or very consistent (this goes for the Catholic and JW to BTW...), but that is because it is a religion.
Your 'god' Obama made statements about it, but you simply cannot explain the basis for them.
I am an atheist.
I disagree with Obama on several points regarding the relationship between ISIS and Islam. I think he says what he does for tactical reasons but that does not make them any more true. My views on Islamic terrorism and ISIS are aligned with those of Bernard Haykel. You can find a recent summary here:
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/testimony-haykel-2016-01-20
to ignore the Islamic background and
content of the Islamic State’s ideology or the material factors that led to its rise is to fail
in the scholarly enterprise and to fall short in providing the policy maker, the student, and
the public with an adequate understanding of the global phenomenon of jihadism.
(...)
But no one should be fooled into thinking that the society and state established by the
Islamic State is a perfect reproduction of the past, as its ideologues and recruits would
want everyone to believe
Haykel is one of the foremost scholars on Islam. Is he wrong?
I think that only serves to reinforce my point: Both the JW and the Catholic are Christians; what it means to be a "good Catholic" and a "good JW" are very different things.
YES! Because both are based on how well each set of followers adheres to their own unique teachings.
Why can't we allow the same for Islam?
YES! Because to be a good muslim doesn't entail being a good catholiic or a good JW.
Why can't we say that the ISIS militant is a good Muslim according to their idea of what Islam should be and e.g. a Dancing Dervish too is a good Muslim according to whatever they believe in? Why can't we allow for a cosmopolitan interpretation of Islam that takes the "religion of peace"-part serious?
Because it makes no sense outside of the crazy world of liberals to ignore reality. It's falling for the "self identify as ..." madness, where men make the best women and non-Muslims can be the best at Islam.
Sure none of this is going to be true or very consistent (this goes for the Catholic and JW to BTW...), but that is because it is a religion.
No, it's not consistent and it simply makes no sense other than for you to avoid the question you cannot face.
I am an atheist.
It appears you worship Obama though.
I disagree with Obama on several points regarding the relationship between ISIS and Islam.
Good for you.
I think he says what he does for tactical reasons but that does not make them any more true.
No, he was an apologist. A suck-up like Trudeau now is in Canada. There was no tactical benefit to refusing to call Islam what it is. But I note you admit his lies, that were tactical, were lies.
Haykel is one of the foremost scholars on Islam. Is he wrong?
He can be, for all I know he's a "foremost scholar on Islam" like Reza Aslan is - many Islamic scholars are apologists or preachers of it more than informers of what it contains. But I don't see what he says strengthen your (non) argument or contradicts mine.
So, are ISIS more or less Islamic than Maajid Nawaz? It's a simple question, but you have to explain some reasoning beyond "I wish that it were so".
Simon:
YES! Because to be a good muslim doesn't entail being a good catholiic or a good JW.
I don't really know what you mean here. My point was that just as there are different branches within Christianity, there are different branches within Islam. Can we agree so far?
Then if we accept that, we can say that you can be a "good muslim" according to your particular branch of Islam, similar to how you said you could be a "good catholic" or a "good JW"; both are in that sense "good christians" (I still don't accept this "good Muslim/Christian" business is all that well-defined but here goes..), but believe very different things. Do you at least see the analogy I am trying to draw here?
If we can accept this kind of definition, I think someone like Majiid can say he is a "good Muslim" according to his particular style of Islam, where by "good" he means a mix of "virtuous" and "adherence to whatever values he associate with his brand of Islam".
I accept this is not a 100% rigorous definition and you are going to have to do violence to some ideas found in Islamic scriptures, but I think that is inherent because Islam is based on something false and contradictory; I think every Muslim (Or Christian, or Jew, ...) has that problem.
Because it makes no sense outside of the crazy world of liberals to ignore reality. It's falling for the "self identify as ..."
Did you read Haykels article? How is he wrong?
many Islamic scholars are apologists or preachers of it more than informers of what it contains.
Haykel is certainly not an apologists. Did you read what he had to say? His views form the basis of the Atlantic article "What ISIS really want". Didn't you agree with that article?
We can't hope to solve this by simple declaration of who is right/wrong. If you are aware of other academic work on Islam and ISIS I will be happy to read it, but I am going to stick to the academic literature on this one...
It appears you worship Obama though.
I certainly do not. I just wrote about something on which I disagree with Obama.
So, are ISIS more or less Islamic than Maajid Nawaz?
ISIS is more aligned with a particular ideological branch within Islam than Maajid Nawaz (see Haykels article). It is in my view a confusion to use that to say he is a more or less "good Muslim" than the ISIS sympathizer because of that.
I saw a great word on Twitter to counter the "islamophobia" label: it's "islamophilia"
I think you're an Islamophile. For some reason you are attracted to it and want to defend it.
You should get help.
ISIS is more aligned with a particular ideological branch within Islam
Well finally at least an answer! (of sorts)
Now, is that "particular ideological branch" based on an exact reading of the Islamic texts or not?
The problem you have is that despite all the "scholars" (who want to sell you on needing them to interpret things) it's actually very very simple to interpret. It has to be, it's designed for dumb people.
It's very clear what it says it means to be a good Muslim: to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed.
So, who follows the example of the murderous Jihadist Mohammed the closest?
The murderous Jihadists of ISIS or Maajid Nawaz who, with the best of intentions, is trying to reform Islam?
Does any Islamic scholar claim that Mohammed didn't do any of the things documented or that the Quran doesn't say he is the example to be followed?
How do you try to argue that black is really white ... and why do you insist on trying?
Islamophilia is disgusting IMO.
Muslims even redefine the world domination/conversion scenarios - when a state allows them to live in peace within their borders that state is seen as practicing the righteousness of Islam and seen as being Islamic with no further need for enforcing Islam. so even this world domination/conversion that utra rightwing people fear and spread via Bannon has a harmless interpretation side to it.
Meanwhile, while living within the borders of western states they bring to the table the very strategies of debate and questioning that they admire the West for as they also have such qualities latent within themselves.
Btw I'm not arguing for any open door policy. Most discussions on this forum I approach as thought experiments to see how far moral/ethical imagination can go - for me this is a luxury
At the end of the day we get to the problem that all of it is 100% made up bullshit - this isn't actually any problem.
I don't believe in Allah, Muhammad or Islam - neither do you or Simon - but the religion still exists and controls the lives of hundreds of millions of people globally. We have the Qu'ran and the Hadiths to measure people/groups against.
As Simon says, it is starting to get amusing, reading your word-salad responses to very simple, basic questions.
Anyway the following summary is basically how it is ...
Maajid Nawaz: believes showing images of the prophet is ok; believes Muslims in the West should not try to force Sharia onto us, believes gays, adulterers, and blasphemers should not be killed, etc. What he's trying to do is meld Western values with the Islamic faith. It could be said he's trying to water down Islam. All this means he is only weakly Islamic.
ISIS (& other groups), with their Sharia punishments, etc. are very, very Islamic. They are much more Islamic than Maajid Nawaz.
The following hits the nail on the head and is worth asking again:
who follows the example of the murderous Jihadist Mohammed the closest?
The murderous Jihadists of ISIS or Maajid Nawaz who, with the best of intentions, is trying to reform Islam?
