Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Ethelred Unraed's Journal: Defending Islam 44

Journal by Ethelred Unraed

I already responded in eglamkowski's journal, but I'll say it again here to make sure it reaches a wider audience.

eglamkowski writes: What sort of religion requires bogus charities to fund terrorist activities? Anybody ever heard of a bogus buddhist temple whose funds were diverted to terrorist groups? A shintoist temple? Taoist? And it's not just an isolated case or two, this happens all the time, all over the world - muslim terrorist groups using charities and mosques to fund terrorism. And yet we're supposed to believe this is a religion of peace...

Given that Islam is not a monolith, any more than Christianity is, it's unfair -- bordering on outright bigoted -- of you to tar all of Islam because of Hamas. Not all, not even most, Muslims are terrorists -- while there have been plenty of "Christian" mass-murderers and terrorists throughout history. (And I say that as a Christian.)

Given that there are over a billion Muslims in the world, if they really were all out to kill us Christians, the world would be far more of a bloodbath than it is, dontchathink?

I suggest this reading [awesomelibrary.org] for a brief overview of Islam WRT murder, abortion, terrorism, etc. One choice quote:

Jihad is an Arabic word the root of which is Jahada, which means to strive for a better way of life. Jihad should not be confused with Holy War. The latter does not exist in Islam nor will Islam allow its followers to be involved in a Holy War.

Or consider the Old Testament, which instructs Jews (and according to some, Christians) to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling" (I Samuel 15:3), or that "happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" (Psalm 137:9), and so on (more here [proislam.com]).

Of course, if you really want an all-out war against Islam with all the slaughter of innocent Muslims and innocent Christians that that implies, by all means, continue to insult a billion Muslims via guilt through association. Meanwhile, perhaps you should consider such "good Christians" as Timothy McVeigh, El Cid, Vlad Dracul, Ivan the Terrible, David Koresh, Slobodan Milosevic, King Edward "Longshanks", Charles Manson, etc. etc. etc.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Defending Islam More

Defending Islam

Comments Filter:
  • It's not just Hamas. I shouldn't have had to point this out, but sometimes the obvious does need stating:

    Al-Qaeda gets funding in this way too. As does the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf and all the rest. It is problem highly endemic to Islam in a way that does not exist in any other religion. This is simple fact, not bigotry.

    Hamas was just mentioned specifically for the simple reason that it is specifically in the news at this time.

    So, can you name any other religion where this sort of thing

    • Re:And I'll repeat my answer here :-) (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ethelred Unraed ( 32954 ) * on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @10:57AM (#8713775) Journal
      So, can you name any other religion where this sort of thing goes on in this endemic way?

      As I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't need to. Religion in general is a powerful weapon that can be used for both good and evil. That many Muslim areas are in dire straits is not up for debate -- so the local demagogues seize on the most powerful weapon they have, religion (which in their case happens to be Islam -- nevermind that Islam also forbids murder, terrorism, oppression of women, etc. etc. etc.).

      There are plenty of Muslims living their lives out in peace, far more, in fact, than those engaged in anything remotely connected to terrorism. Why blame Islam?

      Cheers,

      Ethelred

      • Islam does not forbid murder in general, only the murder of fellow muslims. In fact, it's quite the opposite - it commands muslims to slay infidels. This is fact. I've already quote Surah elsewhere in this thread. There's no real way to misunderstand the use of the phrase "slay the idolaters" (Surah 9:5). This use of the word slay appears in every single translations I've seen, though idolators is sometimes translated as pagans. Do you contend that "slay" means something other than murder?

        Most muslim
        • Islam does not forbid murder in general

          Bullshit. [jews-for-allah.org]

          If the peaceful muslims won't be active in cleaning up the excesses of their own, they absolutely share some of the blame.

          Really? Then you are to blame for what the KKK does? Or what the Serbs did in Bosnia and Kosovo? Or what Rwandans did to each other? You're making zero sense.

          Most muslims may live in peace, but they rarely condemn acts of terrorism.

          Bullshit. [about.com]

          Few nazis were engaged in the killing of jews

          I call Godwin's Law. Thank you for pl

          • jews-for-allah.org?

            Ok, so they say that murder is, in some cases, forbidden. I didn't deny that. In fact, I even noted that murder of muslims by fellow muslims is not well tolerated. My point was the Koran's attitude towards non-muslims. In this I maintain I am correct, as any reading of the Surah makes abundantly clear.

            The Hadith of Bukhari is full of examples of acceptable violence in Islam.

            As for the KKK and others, I don't claim to be a Christian anyways, so it's not my problem :-p
            Although it is
            • Ok, so they say that murder is, in some cases, forbidden. I didn't deny that. In fact, I even noted that murder of muslims by fellow muslims is not well tolerated. My point was the Koran's attitude towards non-muslims. In this I maintain I am correct, as any reading of the Surah makes abundantly clear.

              Fine, then read the speech I linked to from Urban II, where he claimed it was okay to kill Muslims -- based on Biblical quotes. Or explain the Inquisition, witch-burning, etc., none of which is provided for

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) *
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • So, can you name any other religion where this sort of thing goes on in this endemic way?

      Christianity: various supremacist groups, abortion clinic bombers, crazed freaking militia groups, the IRA, the Basques.
      • It is not their religion that teaches them to behave in this way, and only for the abortion clinic bombers could it be suggested that their motivations are religous in nature. The rest are politically motivated.

        In Islam, the Koran itself incites muslims to violence against non-believers. Combine this with the way in which Islam integrates religion with politics and you have a completely different ball game. Politics and religion are the SAME THING in Islam. A politically motivated muslim terrorist is t
        • It is not their religion that teaches them to behave in this way

          Considering that the KKK burns crosses and has crosses all over the place in their symbolism...but no, they don't have any religious angle...and the IRA is Catholic, killing Protestants, but gee, must not be a religious connection there...

          Besides, when any of the so called "christians" you mention above perform an act of terrorism and cite their religion as the basis for their acts, the overwhelming majority of Christians explicitly reject

          • So which verse from the New Testatment is the KKK following when they burn crosses? Be specific - book, chapter, verse.
            • The point is making a sonic boom as it goes over yer head.

              It doesn't matter one whit 'which verse'. The point is, they think it's "Christian" to believe in white supremacy (AFAIK largely on the basis of the "children of Ham" references in the Bible), just as some Muslims claim that it's OK to kill. It doesn't mean that they are right. The point is that they think they are acting in God's name as Christians.

              Cheers,

              Ethelred

              • My point is that the muslims can quote chapter and verse from the Koran to justify their killing of infidels. Even if, as you claim, it is out of context, it is in there and easy for them to use. As such, they can reasonably claim to be acting in the name of their religion.

                The KKK, on the other hand, can not quote chapter and verse from the New Testament to justify their lynching of blacks. They're just a bunch of thugs pretending to be religious, but can't even quote chapter and verse to back up their
                • The KKK, on the other hand, can not quote chapter and verse from the New Testament to justify their lynching of blacks.

                  First, not all strains of Christianity claim that only the New Testament is valid -- many still rely heavily on the Old Testament. Calvinists tend to use the Old quite a lot...

                  But sure they can quote verses from the Bible -- even from the New Testament. Hey boys and girls, for grins and giggles, let's justify some slavery!

                  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in

      • the IRA

        You forgot the protestant paramilitaries. While it's no more excuse for the IRA than for the palestinians, there's some serious centuries of oppression leading to the mess in northern ireland, and it weren't the catholics doing all of it.

    • You've never heard of the Crusades then?

      • Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by eglamkowski ( 631706 )
        Where did Jesus EVER teach people to do anything that even remotely resembles the Crusades?

        Such actions are demonstrably not in line with the religion. There is no theological basis in Christianity for what "Christians" did in the Crusades. Not even a misunderstanding or a twisting of the teachings of Jesus could lead to such actions. The Old Testament could take you there, but certainly not the New Testament.

        The Crusaders had many motivations, but religion wasn't really one of them. It necessarily co
        • The Crusaders had many motivations, but religion wasn't really one of them

          LMAO! Bullshit. [fordham.edu]

          For that matter, that whole speech demolishes your claim that the Bible can't be used to justify violence against non-Christians. The whole speech does exactly that, littered with quotes from Old and New Testaments...

          This is not idle speculation, this is demonstrable fact.

          The only "demonstrable fact" is that you don't know diddly-squat about history...

          Cheers,

          Ethelred

    • Both Protestant and Catholic militant groups in Northern Ireland have been funded like this for decades.

  • I guess (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @12:24PM (#8714832) Homepage Journal
    the most troubling thing about Islam is how the voice of moderation, secularism, and modernism seems to be generally passive. Of course that may be the result of secular society frowning upon public display of religion (see France's take on all of that but everywhere else too). Secularism demands that religion is a internal, self-spirituality.

    Islam isn't that way. Specifically because Islam, in the Islamist perspective, is a political agenda, kin to Democracy, Nationalism or Socialism. This is extroverted, seeped into all aspects of culture and basically the opposite of the Western idea of seperation between church and state.

    So on our side you have secular religious Muslims. On the other the political Islamists. And because they speak Islam everywhere the secularists don't, Islamist begin to dominate the world-form of the Muslim world. It is the rare place where one's view on Israel's right to exist, the way your government runs, and the way the kids your should be schooled are all part of the same thing.

    In Muslim countries with strong secular bases (Turkey) the battle against Islamist fundamentalism is well fought. The problem is everywhere else. By their very idea of religious anonymity, secularists are getting run over by their more bloisterous sibling. What needs to take place is a counter-revolution. One that speaks vocally (and probably violently) against the fascist tendencies of that Islamist segment. That Islam is a spiritual solution; not a political or social one.

    Problem is, who's saying this? And for how long? These are the sort of folks who get assassinated or put in a Tehran jail for dissident students.

    Once more the secular humanist ideal stumbles against brute force.
    • You have a fair point that fundamentalist Muslims are trying to make Islam into a political, as opposed to merely religious, answer for everything.

      However, we Christians have much the same thing in the form of the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority, Ku Klux Klan, and so on; indeed, in Europe the various Churches overtly have their own political parties (parties calling themselves "Christian Democrats" usually are Catholic-based; in Poland the Catholic Church doesn't even bother to hide its involvement an

      • Re:I guess (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sielwolf ( 246764 )
        that is in the end an empty argument, because we "Westerners" have plenty of groups more than willing

        Uh, wrong. Because the Wahhabis aren't who I was talking about. You seem to misunderstand the word 'Islamism'. As Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] states "[The] term Islamism [is often confused] with related terms such as Islam, fundamentalism, militant Islam, and Wahhabism." This seems to be your misstep. Wiki and I are talking about the Caliphates. The Shiras.

        There is a point not getting across. Hopefully it is illust
        • First point: if you want to criticize Islamism as defined on Wiki, fine: no quarrel from me. As the title of the JE clearly says, I'm defending Islam the religion, not Islamism as a political platform.

          However, you also forget that there are groups in the West (and in America in particular) that combine Christianity with politics: the Christian Coalition is the most obvious example. Similarly, in Europe there are plenty of "Christian" political parties -- including ones in government.

          Furthermore, histori

          • Covenanters in England

            A pox on my head...the Covenanters were in Scotland. The English zealots who started the Commonwealth were, of course, the Puritans.

            Anyway.

            Cheers,

            Ethelred

          • Historical examples are fine and good. But I'm not concerned about Innocent III or the Young Turks. Frankly cause they are dead and Cobra has yet to develop that Rise From Your Grave technology. Notice the 'Does' in "Does either the Klan or the NSDAP pull 10 to 30 percent in polls in the West?" As in present tense.

            Likewise David Duke was a reformed Klansman when he ran. He left the clan in '78 and ran in '89. Yeah, its easy to kneejerk and just paint him with the "once a _____ always a _____" but the
            • Historical examples are fine and good.

              Yes, they are. I'm not arguing that Islam is morally superior to Christianity or the West. What I am saying is that historically and presently, we Christians have also mixed politics and religion to fatal effect, just like Islamists want to do. Therefore it is nothing unique to Islam at all, but rather a problem of human beings in general.

              Now look at Iran and its student uprisings. Who in the Muslim world gave a shit?

              Uh, so you're arguing that Islam (and Muslims

              • Uh, so you're arguing that Islam (and Muslims) are by definition against democracy, reform and modernity...and mention the protests in Iran, which would seem to prove the opposite?

                Actually that's the exact opposite of what I said. I thought that it was obvious from the fact that the students are Muslim. And they are for Democracy. So there is a large pro-Democracy Muslim population.

                And although many Muslims live under oligarchies, many do not. The best example is Southeast Asia. Indonesia: 234,893
                • Combined about 1/3 of all Muslims live in Islamic Democracies (not including those who may live in Western states). That's a lot of folks who can speak their mind without reprecussions of returning to some Godfearing land like the US... and don't. Or say how Islamic Shira has failed Muslim women or the youth of Iran. Or that democracy and less Jew-hate would be the salve for countries like Eygpt and Saudi Arabia. That their problems are internal instead of a constantly shifting nebulous bugaboo (i.e. the In
        • 2. Religion X as society.

          To hear some of those on the Christian Right talking about how we were founded as a Christian Nation, and our laws should darn well reflect that by outlawing everything that traditional rightward Christianity considers evil and wrong, that's exactly what they want. They pay lip service to the constitution and proceed to shred it by their actions.

      • the one thing that keeps it from being an empty argument is that the political systems in most western nations do not allow the government to be dominated by religious policy, even if it can be heavily influenced at times. in the past, christianity was more fully pushed by the government, but times have changed. so while it's not a black and white issue of christianity one way, islam another, there are definate differences in the concentrations of violent fundamentalist religious policies in western vs mi
    • the Western idea of seperation between church and state.

      Keep in mind, that idea is relatively young, even in the West. It was not oh so long ago that Britain was ravaged by wars over whose religion was the state's religion. Much less any of the rest of Europe. It is also instructive in history that there were some great Islamic secular empires that were very tolerant. And I would say that the seperation between Church and State has no great love among Christian fundamentalists any more than Islamic one

  • He's got a point (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stargoat ( 658863 ) <stargoat@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @01:06PM (#8715381) Journal
    As difficult as it has become over the past fifty years, sometimes an objective look at religion or culture requires a blanket statement.

    The Koran is indeed a violent book. Muhammad was (later in life) a very violent person. The holy book condones killing, and certainly condones inequality of women. (The Bible does this as well, but we'll get to that later.) It also promotes the killing of people trying to convert Muslims, which can be taken many different ways.

    These are objects that Westerns find incompatible with modern life. And indeed they are. The west has decided, as a society, that women are equal to men, and that men of one race, culture or religion are equal to another. Indeed, this has come to form the very basis of modern western governence.

    But, as alluded to previously, the Bible (the most revelant other holy book in this case) also has passages which are violent, misogonistic, and generally anti-modern western culture.

    So what's the difference then?

    The difference is the culture itself. Religion adapts to culture, and culture adapts to religion. In this case, the west has forced Christianity to adapt to its needs. Now, there were benefits that the Bible offered over the Koran, not the least of which is at least one of Jesus' sermons insisting that all men of all races were equal. But basically, religion adapts to culture.

    So the problem isn't really with Islam, it's with several individual cultures that are using Islam in such a way thatthe west finds incompatable with modern sensibilities.

    I'm not going to offer a solution yet, because I'm sure that much defending of these statements will be in my very near future. ;)

    • The difference is the culture itself. Religion adapts to culture, and culture adapts to religion. In this case, the west has forced Christianity to adapt to its needs.

      You have the cart before the horse in a big way. How did the West "force" Christianity to do anything, when the two are so intimately intertwined? In many ways, religion is part of culture -- one does not adapt to the other, but are parts of a seamless whole.

      The Protestant Reformation (which I presume is what you're referring to) led towar

      • Well, I guess I'll have to ask you to take another look at the article I wrote. I'm afraid you, ah, tripped, over a few buzzwords.

        I pointed out what are incompatibilities with the teachings in the Koran versus Modern Western Culture. And there are many. I then went on to point out that there are problems as well with Christianity as well.

        I then showed that Christians solved many of these problems because the Christian leaders were forced to. Christian sects ran the risk of becoming (or even did bec

        • But all cultures do this. Religion can justify anything.

          Ah. I suppose we're just talking by each other -- I said more or less the same thing here [slashdot.org].

          Still, on the face of it there are plenty of incompatibilities in the Bible with 'modern times' -- try St. Paul's ideas about women, as an example, or recommending to slaves that they should stay slaves. Or all the lurid stuff in the Old Testament (which technically isn't relevant for Christians anymore, but it's still there...). So I don't buy the argument tha

          • Eeek, I forgot to get the exact (infamous) quote regarding slavery:

            Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye mas

            • Well, the problem is when so much is taken out of context. Paul's reference to women (feels odd, being an atheist and defending the Bible) was to a specific cult that was breaking so many norms that it was attracting unwanted Roman attention.

              As for slavery, the Jewish version of slavery was different from the Greek or Roman, but it was only a matter of degree.

              I'm still inclined to believe though that Muhammad was (became) a violent person, and the Koran a violent book. And we'd all do better without t

        • Religion can justify anything. (and should be abandoned, it's time to grow up humanity!)

          Rather disturbingly, to me anyways, Christianity seems to be surging in China. Now, in the sense that 1 billion chinese may swing Christian instead of, say, Muslim, that's a Good Thing. But I'd prefer they didn't go either way.

          *sigh*
  • I bring this out every time I see similar debate here on /.

    Islam :: Islamalic Extremist : Christianity :: KKK

    There are many crafty forms of Christianity that exist all over the globe where the income helps fund the KKK. The same can be said about some Islamic organizations.
    • Sheesh. I HATE it when people sum up arguments like that -- when I spend hours writing page-long theses trying to say the same thing... ;->

      Anyway, 100% ACK. *g*

      Cheers,

      Ethelred

Slashdot Top Deals

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Close