Why are they different matters? They're criticising an ideology, why is exactly what I'm doing. They've done exactly the same thing with other ideologies, too. You've literally cited another Islamic sect to show that ISIS aren't True Scotsmen, er... Muslims. What were they a sect of? Pretty sure it was Islam. Given that they were around before the Quran had even become standardised, I struggle to see why they're supposed to be completely unIslamic. And I'm sure you'd also understand why those outside the faith would class all of those concerned as Muslims. They see themselves that way and seem to follow some version of the religion. Everybody's someone's heretic. Hostages with some experience of some members of ISIS. We have no idea how representative those experiences were. And why would they? You certainly don't care what Muhammad Al-Munajjid thinks and he's supposed to be a respected scholar. So if even the adherents of a faith can't agree about what most of it means, then how can those who interpret things differently be told that they're definitely wrong? Quite simply, they can't. They can look at things in context and still come to different conclusions. The Quran's supposed to be the infallible word of God. You'd have thought that he'd be able to communicate his points well enough to be understood, wouldn't you? It seems a bit strange that he'd fail at something so simple. So we're supposed to look for context and correct interpretation from scripture, but those criticising it can be taken out of any context and hauled over the coals? Seems like rather a double standard, doesn't it? I've already given the context for the nuclear deterrence comment. The current weapons would be of no use against the likes of ISIS or the Taliban if they were to acquire nuclear capabilities. He's right. Claiming that Muslims are right to be offended by his claims might carry some weight, if a wide variety of other Muslims didn't make him look right. Nothing has damaged the image of the religion more than the actions of some of it's followers. Your faith isn't one person who has a clear position, though. It's not a cohesive entity. Which those that study it can't even agree on and the interpretation of which changes over time. Then how can you criticise those that take parts that they believe accurately represent the faith? And what makes him wrong? Islam is not a democracy. It doesn't matter if he's "outvoted".
please log in to view this image Some of them were, rather bizarrely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian) The enemy of my enemy is my friend, I guess?
Because the manner in how they do it is confrontational, aggressive and they make statements about things that they clearly have little understanding of. They've refused to engage with other Muslim scholars about the issue which leads to me to believe that they're not very honest about their criticisms of Islam. At the very least, you've criticised the faith in a way that is genuine from a non-Muslim and haven't made the same scale of fallacious statements. This is where you and I differ. The Khawarij were not seen as muslims. Everyone would tell you this. Ultimately, what you or I or anyone thinks about someone being Muslim or not doesn't matter. It's God's decision to judge whether they should go to Heaven or Hell. But there are also certain clear-cut things that you just simply do not do from a moral and Islamic perspective - you've pretty much alluded to this yourself in a previous post. It's better than complete guesswork and speculation. It's real evidence that people can use, so I would say based on the knowledge that we have from these hostages, these experiences were and are representative of IS. You can't say to me you want me to use evidence to corroborate my claims and then when I do, be like "well, we don't know how accurate that is...". That's just being intellectually dishonest. But respected in the eyes of whom? The Al Saud family? There are even people in Saudi Arabia who find his views ludicrous. Islam isn't just a belief system, it's a way of life. There's not one regimented, strict way to live your life, but there are certain moral principles that are established that you just do not do, as with every way people live their life, be it religious or not. ISIS clearly violate these principles. You know it and I know it. Your arguments are disingenuous. It was/is. But people are guilty of mistranslating and decontextualising/cherry-picking/distorting the text to suit their own agenda. As average Muslims, not all of us have time to analyse every single verse and understand whether its allegorical or whether one meaning is literal. To understand the text in its entirety and what it means takes years - but everyone has their own trials and tribulations in life. That's why we're meant to seek knowledge. That's meant to be the purpose of going to scholars, but even some of them, such as Amina Wadud, seem to have been led in a very bizarre and unconventional direction. In some respect, Muslims are to blame for this. But I wouldn't say Islam is. It's important to distinguish between the two. Why's it out of context? Even in context, his statements don't bode well for him. If you want to get rid of these groups and make sure people of safe, take away their main source of funding and resources. Bashar Al-Assad, for example, has to be toppled before ISIS are defeated and the people of Syria are liberated. I find it unlikely that they will acquire nuclear capabilities unless they get significant funding from wealthy donors or countries. I agree. Why does that mean it's still not been misrepresented? There's different schools of thought. Not agreeing on one particular version doesn't mean that the other is wrong. But there are certain rules and laws that are accepted to be mainstream and correct. There's a clear difference between this and a group like IS or Al-Qaeda who clearly don't give a damn about the faith. Having a big beard and wearing a turban isn't a sign of religiosity. There are rulings in Islam that are democratic by definition. Not entirely, but that depends on whether you believe in maximising democracy or not. It's not as if we live in a true democracy now. We live in a polyarchy.
I don't know about Harris, but Dawkins has a set of rules about who he'll debate and how. He's been pretty consistent with it, as far as I know. There's a limit to how many he can do and I'd also suggest that his knowledge of Islam is a lot more limited than that of Christianity. He'd have to argue broadly, though the faithful would still hit the same problems, in my opinion. The Abrahamic faiths have a lot of crossover, both in terms of the stories themselves and the issues for non-believers. The same arguments seem to come up repeatedly, regardless of the religion in question. William Lane Craig is a commonly referenced Christian apologist, yet his (supposedly) most compelling evidence for god is an old Islamic piece of sophistry. They're very specifically heretics. It's even used as that now. In order to be a heretic you have to be part of the group in the first place. And what those things are is constantly changing and will always have exceptions. There are very few clear lines and you've already stated that it's not our place to judge who is or isn't a proper Muslim, despite having done so repeatedly. It's a very limited piece of evidence. They were prisoners of a small group. We have no idea how representative either those experiences or that group are of the whole of ISIS. The group itself claims to be very Islamic. I wouldn't accept that without evidence, either. So who are we supposed to accept the views of? Not this scholar or others who agree with him, clearly. He's constantly referencing the Quran and Hadith, though. Why is he wrong, but these other scholars right? Everyone says that about their own faith. Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship with our lord and saviour, Jesus Christ. It's funny, but even those that are a part of each faith can't agree on what those principles are. Given that this is the case, why should any non-believer set apart some sections of each group? I'd agree that it's important to distinguish between the two. Criticism of Islam is not criticism of Muslims. I find it hard to believe that you can't see an issue with God having a communication problem, though. If he intended everyone to follow a perfect faith, then perhaps he could've made it a bit easier to understand? That makes little logical sense. In what way? They're taken out of context for a reason. There's a distinct difference between "Nuke the Mussis!" and "ISIS having nuclear capabilities would be a big problem", isn't there? They've already had significant funding from somewhere, though. That's why it's an issue. It's difficult to misrepresent something that means so many different things to so many different people. If you ask for an Islamic perspective on something, then you often get a hundred different answers. This is true of most religions. Ask a Christian what they think about gay marriage and it can vary between being having the wedding in church and stoning them to death. What would be a misrepresentation of that? How can something be correct and something different also be correct? If people hold diametrically opposed ideas on the same subject, then they believe that someone's wrong. And yet they'd point to various things about your Western lifestyle that would indicate your lack of religiosity and their devotion. Either would be supported by various interpretations of the scripture. It's debatable whether a true democracy is even desirable, but religion by democracy just sounds a bit silly. This is supposed to be an infallible god handing down unchangeable words. It simply shouldn't be open to interpretation or vote, unless that's by design. If Muslims all across the world have trouble understanding the rules of god, despite their best efforts, then how did that come about? God is all-knowing. He must've known how to avoid that happening. God is all-powerful. He had the ability to prevent it from happening. Did he want people to be confused about his rules?
It's debatable whether a true democracy is even desirable, but religion by democracy just sounds a bit silly. This is supposed to be an infallible god handing down unchangeable words. It simply shouldn't be open to interpretation or vote, unless that's by design. If Muslims all across the world have trouble understanding the rules of god, despite their best efforts, then how did that come about? God is all-knowing. He must've known how to avoid that happening. God is all-powerful. He had the ability to prevent it from happening. Did he want people to be confused about his rules? #164 PleaseNotPoll, 21 minutes ago Just to add, exactly! If the people of any religion have trouble interpretating their God's intentions, or those supposed intentions are twisted to the extreme - as they have been so often throughout history - then it's because God seems very reluctant to give clarification!
@PleaseNotPoll This is getting tiresome and repetitive, so this is going to be my last post on the matter. Ultimately, I think we're just going to have to accept that this an area where we fundamentally disagree. You say Dawkins has been consistent with who he'll debate, but that doesn't explain his unwillingness to discuss such matters with imams or scholars such as Ajmal Masroor or Hamza Tzortzis. When he's been in other countries, there have been a whole host of other scholars who he doesn't seem to want to engage with. Omar Suleiman, Yasir Qadhi and Mufti Menk to name a few. He seems to engage with the ultra-conservative individuals who have a very warped vision on the world, even separately from their theological understandings. I understand that he is a busy man and he is old, so he will have to limit who he can speak to and where, but he's never seemed to debate with someone that is less militant and more rational in their views. Whether he's done that intentionally or not is certainly debatable. In regards to the Khawarij sect, they are seen as deviants from the faith who ended up killing other Muslims and asserted that anyone who committed any sin whatsoever should be stoned to death. This is not justifiable in the eyes of the scholars or in the Qur'an. Otherwise the whole of humankind would be wiped out in an instant. To label them as Muslims is wrong, frankly. I've already explained to you why they're obviously not, but you're refusing to acknowledge this. There is a clear difference between those who interpret Islam differently, yet live their lives as normal, law-abiding and peaceful citizens, regardless of creed or colour, and a vicious group like IS or Al-Qaeda. You're subliminally equating them. If you honestly think that both types of individuals at their core are the same in their outlook and their interpretation of what will please their God, then this whole argument has been futile from the very beginning because you've held this opinion for a lengthy period of time and no amount of discussion or evidence will shift your view. The prisoners of IS were indeed a small group, but that is all we have and we can only base it on the evidence that has been given so far. None of them have any allegiance to the Islamic faith and if anything, you'd expect their views on Muslims to be more cynical, when the opposite seems to have occurred. You say that you don't necessarily believe IS to be Islamic just because they claim they are - this is what I've said from the beginning and you contradicted it. You were either arguing for the sake of it or you were trying to make a point that wasn't relevant. It's one or the other. It can't be both. Because he's manipulating the discourse in a way that suits his lifestyle and many others within the region who follow a patriarchal, mysogonistic way of life. It's an abuse of power. It's wrong. The fact that he was educated in a country where members of their Royal Family have been caught having orgies and homosexual intercourse should say something about the double-standards of the heads of the state, the man and his followers. He also believes that it's un-Islamic for women to drive. He's so obviously a nutter. There are Islamic principles all Muslims should abide by that I outlined in an earlier post, in regard to praying, giving charity, fasting, not consuming alcohol or non-halal foods etc. It's some of the other, less clear issues where there's a divergence of views. As for your question, if you're suggesting that there's validity on all sides of the spectrum that all groups can be Muslim, why should someone like myself be treated or spoken to the same way someone over here would speak to a member of IS/Al-Shabab/Al-Qaeda? I'm not entirely sold on the whole God communication problem thing because things were clear to begin with and then there were deviant sects and individuals who would pursue their aims in the name of religion. Humans were guilty of corrupting it. Not the religion itself. RE: Harris and Dawkins and statements out of context: what's the context needed for the quotes I gave above? They're making crystal clear sentences about Islam and Muslims and how they need to be prevented from spreading. Like it's a disease. If you want to give Islamophobes more fuel, these guys give them the license to do so. Absolutely. And this is why, in additional to scholarly thought, ijtihad is also important among Muslims too. That you don't kill people based on their own life choices? You wouldn't say that the average person who lives their life differently to you is living their life wrong. Even if this was the case, you can still disagree with the way someone does something and accept that there's not just one way of doing things because the outcomes could be different for each person. It varies for each individual, but as with most things in life, there are constraints on human behaviour. Islamically, you respect the law of the land that you live in providing it doesn't infringe on your rights to practise your faith properly. So no, they wouldn't be able to support it. This is exactly why Muhammad Al-Munajjad was wrong with what he said about muslims living amongst non-muslims being sinful. The Prophet Muhammad and the other caliphs lived among non-Muslims and had good relations with them. Would he call them sinful too? Deviation. This is going into a matter that is deeply philosophical and beyond my scope of understanding. Certain things happen or do not happen for a reason that perhaps you or I may not be able to fully comprehend. I've already stated that the guidelines were clear to begin with and then people decided to try and alter and form new sects and groups which also led others to different directions. I suppose you could argue that if humans got themselves into the mess into the first place, then God gave them a chance to try and get out of it. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet, but this is leading deeper into a complete separate discussion about free will and theological determinism that I honestly don't know much about. On that note, I await your reply, but shall leave it there.
Fair enough, BG. No hard feelings if anything I've said (or will say) has offended you. I'll just pick one there, as I know the name and he's a ****bag, frankly. Hamza Tzortzis condoned child marriage and got caught on Ashley Maddison, the cheating site. He denied the latter, claiming that it was some sort of fraud. He's also a member of iERA, which I'm sure you're aware of. I'd suggest that he's an extremist posing as a moderate and I've been aware of him for several years. Lawrence Krauss debated him a while ago and there were some major issues. The organisation attempted to enforce gender segregation within the crowd. The problem with this though is that the Quran wasn't widely available at the time and there was a distinct lack of Islamic scholars. They were following Islam as they knew it. They were Islamic heretics, but easily fall under the umbrella of the faith. Given that the teachings hadn't even been properly compiled at the time, it's hard to argue otherwise. Of course there's a difference. I've never denied that. That doesn't mean that they're not members of the same faith, though. The Inquisition were Catholics. They're not similar in outlook to the pacifist Quakers. Both were Christian. If an individual claims to be a member of a faith, then I take them at their word, for the most part. If a Muslim says it while eating a bacon sarnie and drinking a pint, then I think that he's probably a **** Muslim, but still a Muslim. It's not for us to disqualify members of the faith, as you say. Organisations are slightly different, but if they claim to be backed by scripture and can back it up, then I accept their claims. I'm sure that they have scholars that will back them. That Saudi bloke, for example. They probably get paid by the same people, frankly. He may be a nutter, but is he a nutter that can back his lunacy with scripture? You claimed earlier that's it's not your place to question such scholars, but that's exactly what you've done. I don't agree with any of his principles, but that's not the point. I didn't suggest that you should be treated like a terrorist. I questioned why non-believers would choose to view some members of the faith as being outside it. I know a lot of Muslims. They vary dramatically in how faithful they are to the principles that you've outlined. I'd say that only one is basically putting on a front and isn't really a Muslim. At what point should I start cutting others out of their own religion? Missed Friday prayer? Out you go. Didn't give to charity? Bye. Ate during a fast? Sorry. Where's the cut off, as it seems to be people that you don't like, at the moment. Things weren't clear at the start and you've repeatedly referenced the most obvious example of this. Leaving aside the Khawarij, you've ended up with a dramatic split almost instantly after the prophet's death. If God wanted to have it understood, then it must've been in his power to do so. It makes no sense that this didn't happen. Dawkins and Harris both want to destroy religion in general, not just Islam. Those quotes aren't actually referencing them making those sort of statements, though. Harris in particularly was talking about particularly dangerous extremists. And why it's extremely controversial. The Bible and Hadith would beg to differ. Both would have you kill apostates and homosexuals, as well as a variety of other people. People can live their lives differently, but you're talking about interpreting scripture. It's either saying something and some people are wrong or it's so vague that it's useless. His website says something else: https://islamqa.info/en/13363 Sorry? Deviation in what? God moves in mysterious ways? Sorry, but I've always found that answer to be deeply unsatisfying. A flawless, omnipotent being that makes mistakes doesn't add up, to me. Cheers for the debate though, BG. [/QUOTE]
Just to take this back to politics for a bit, it's nice to see that this year's mortality rate is expected to get it's biggest rise since the 60s. It's nice to see the Tories taking the housing shortage seriously and emptying a bunch of them. Radical policy.
Yeah, for decades now people have been living longer because of misguided policies of stopping people drinking and smoking. The obvious downside is that many people end up living in nursing homes for 20 years or more with their health, both physical and perhaps more worrying mental health deteriating at a rate of knotts. Both my step father, who died not even knowing me and now my mother, who is religious and prays every day for god to take her have found themselves in this position. As she is religious so would never consider euthanasia, but what are peoples opinion on this? I sincerely hope that if I ever end up in that state I will have the option. Notwithstanding the above I am taking precautions to avoid this situation. I still drink 8-15 units of alcohol every day and although my smoking is electronic ćigs only, I use about 10 ml per day. I enjoy my food and by definition I am clinically obese.
The other thing about stats crime going up, mortality rates going up etc etc 2 things i try to apply - whos reporting and the biasedness, especially when its government statistics as a lot of it is a tick box exercise or covered up (i understand we do need to start somewhere) when people quote actual numbers, the population is rising so of course you expect actual figures to go up year on year.
To a large extent, health is down to personal responsibility. It's easy to blame the government and adopt the poor me attitude. In some cases personal circumstances restrict what a person can eat or drink, but for most it's down to personal choices. After half a lifetime of drink and drug fueled shenanigans in the music business and in The City, I was not in good shape. One day my body kind of signaled that it had had enough of my antics and wasn't prepared to put up with much more of it. Sensibly ( for once) I listened and am now lighter, fitter, and healthier than I've been in many, many years. The drugs I used to have to take for high blood pressure and blood sugar, I no longer need. I know it's not always easy to do regular exercise when you have work and family commitments, but if you try to be kind to your body it will usually be kind to you.if you abuse it, get ready for the consequences!
Euthanasia's a sensitive issue, but a sensible approach to it is the only way to go, for me. It's going to be problematic for a variety of reasons, but we've seen some of the suffering that has been caused by it's absence. I don't envy the people that try to write the legislation for it when it's introduced, though. There's bound to be some **** ups along the way.
Very true. However, if complete verification of the person's wishes is there. Assuming they're of sound mind and medical evidence backs up their case, then it should be legal to comply with that person's request.
Right, that's religion and death covered. What's next? These big issues are a piece of piss really, aren't they?
Some of the comments on here are far too long if anyone other than the person directly responded to is expected to read them. I did note though in scanning through, that Brunelgooner appeared to state that President Assad is a major sponsor of ISIS. This is absolute nonsense. ISIS were originally funded by Saudi, as a way to export Wahabi Islam. And that is what ISIS's religious belief is btw : the form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia.
The problem there is that people may not decide that they want to die until they have realised that they have lost their marbles and their body is giving too much pain and would never be described as being 'of sound mind' or 'sound body.'. I think that people ought to be able to make a 'living will',i.e. when one is younger and of sound mind and body, one could legally record at what state of mind and/or body, euthanasia should be enacted. It would then be up a committee perhaps comprising a doctor, one's solicitor and perhaps a close relative to make the decision in one's stead,
