Religious Interpretation & Militant Islamic Extremism

[Neo-Logic]

YmirGF,

Your condescending tone aside, why are you perceiving Islam to be the problem? You suggest that it is too vague, but isn't this the double edged sword with all religions, not just Islam? You don't give any apparent or compelling reasons as to why this would be the case, instead you unconvincingly reply "no" to everything I've suggested at face value.

Your argument that the crisis is in Islam, the religion in it of itself, hasn't met any burden of proof from what you've presented in your post.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Care for another try? Feel free to just answer with a 'no' as you've eloquently done.

 

[RamaRaksha]

It does matter, the intent matters, motive matters, cognizance matters, and reaction matters. All of these are discerning factors. If you want examples, look at the American justice system and jurisprudence.

The fact that civilian death happens from American bombings is a fact, but the difference is that that was not our intention, where as terrorist acts definitely seek to cause civilian damage, after which they take responsibility and praise God and rejoice. If that doesn't matter, what does?

I seriously doubt your jurisprudence if you think these things don't mean anything. The very same things you think doesn't matter are the same factors that is the difference between justifiable homicide versus murder. If you kill someone breaking into your house with a knife versus if you were the intruder killing someone in their bed, does the intention or reason for killing matter? Of course it does! The end result is the same, yes! But not all deaths are murders and not all murders are deaths.

Sure try explaining our great intentions to the victims. This kind of talk is all well and good when you are not the victim - would you accept a bombing and killing of all your loved ones with the explanation that they were seeking a terrorist and your loved ones just got in the way? How do you know that they are speaking the truth? If it is a poor muslim he should accept what we say but when the roles are reversed, you don't accept their explanations? They are simply being evil?

What you describe is exactly what the terrorist is thinking - he thinks he is right, his killing are justified, we are the ones that are in the wrong. Can't you see that?

 

[challupa]

Sure try explaining our great intentions to the victims. This kind of talk is all well and good when you are not the victim - would you accept a bombing and killing of all your loved ones with the explanation that they were seeking a terrorist and your loved ones just got in the way? How do you know that they are speaking the truth? If it is a poor muslim he should accept what we say but when the roles are reversed, you don't accept their explanations? They are simply being evil?

What you describe is exactly what the terrorist is thinking - he thinks he is right, his killing are justified, we are the ones that are in the wrong. Can't you see that?

I would have to say that each side does justify it's own position. That is human nature. However, I also see what Neo-logic is saying. We may approach it from a bit different mindset initially, but with the same outcome and we quickly justify what happens coming from that mindset.

 

[England my lionheart]

Not always the case. The recent 'under wear bomber' was from a wealthy background -- his dad a prominent banker. Osama Bin Laden himself came from a privileged background where he never had to work a day in his life if he didn't want to.

This is what i find very interesting,even apparently educated and afluent people become Fundies,Hasan Al Banna the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and arguably the Father of Islamist Terrorism was reasonably Educated as was Sayeed Qutb one of the members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
From the Muslim Brotherhood it is possible to trace the Family Tree of Islamist Terrorism,Al Qaeda,Hamas and Hezbollah are just a few,it is of course not the common aim of all Muslims,there are many sects and even secular Muslims who have nothing in common with the Islamist view so IMO it is not fair to generalise and say Islam in itself is a problem,if it was then all Muslims would be militant.

 

[YmirGF]

YmirGF,

Your condescending tone aside, why are you perceiving Islam to be the problem?

The religion would seem to be the overall linking factor. These folks are getting their inspiration from somewhere, after all. I don't believe for a second that the "radical" Muslims ARE misunderstanding and misinterpreting Islam. To understand my reasoning you will have to dig very deeply into Islamic thought. If anything, it is the radicals who exemplify the Medina era teachings of their Prophet. The lovey-dovey Muslims represent the Mecca era teachings. In Islamic thought, wherever there are discrepancies, the latter ayat is used to settle any differences due to the concept of abrogation. In essence, Medina ayats supercede Mecca ayats. In simpler terms, the more extreme ayats, from the later period, supercede the more peaceful ayats from the Mecca period when Muslims were decidedly weaker and had to attempt to get along with others. That changed when Muslims were "in charge".

You suggest that it is too vague, but isn't this the double edged sword with all religions, not just Islam?

I understand. First, it really isn't all that problematic with other religions, as for the most part, Christians for example are not in open warfare with other Christians, on a variety of fronts. The "troubles" in Ireland notwithstanding, one could argue that the Irish would have fought simply for the love of fighting and that religion simply added fuel to the fire.

I think your counter-point is what confuses so many people. Since it isn't a real problem in other religions it shouldn't be a problem in Islam either. That position would seem quite reasonable. The problem with it is that being Muslim, to Muslims, is open to interpretation. If one exhibits behavior or thoughts that are not in sync with ones views of what a Muslim is, then sparks begin to fly. This oddity is somewhat peculiar to Islam and has been a feature of Islam since moments after the death of their prophet. In some regards, this division is predicated on the thought of ones group being the best of humankind. Obviously, if one is not in your group, and your group IS the best, it follows that the other groups are not genuine and are the loathed hypocrites that can be killed in a heartbeat. I have read Muslim scholarly opinions that state that "true" Muslims are doing such "Muslims" a great favor by killing them.

Sorry, if I sounded a bit condescending, but this is a VERY complex issue and folks should not expect to understand it even after a cursory glance at Islamic dogma and religious texts.

You don't give any apparent or compelling reasons as to why this would be the case, instead you unconvincingly reply "no" to everything I've suggested at face value.

I understand, Neo-Logic. You will need to eat, sleep and drink Islam for awhile to get into its seamy underbelly. Superficially, it is indeed, peace, love and beards, however once one begins to look under the hood, as it were, all is not particularly well. For example, I would love to hear a reputable psychiatric appraisal of Islam. From my dwarfed understanding, Islam is simply not good psychology and I perceive some especially troubling symptoms that seem to result from strict adherence to its teachings. To understand where I am coming from, do read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. This is a study written about the Christian right wing, but has rather stunning implications in regards to Islam - in my view.

Your argument that the crisis is in Islam, the religion in it of itself, hasn't met any burden of proof from what you've presented in your post.

Understood. The difficulty here is that it would take several pages to explain my thinking and it would get far deeper into Islamic theology than the average reader could possibly be expected to handle. Think of this "crisis" as hypothetical, for the time being. In short, I perceive that the forces driving towards modernity in Islam will eventually run smack into the brick wall of "mainstream" and "fundamentalist" Islam and will likely create yet another division within the Muslim world. I perceive this split being accompanied by the usual blood letting due to the issues touched on in my second paragraph, re: dealing with hypocrites.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Care for another try? Feel free to just answer with a 'no' as you've eloquently done.

Again, I am sorry if I came off a bit condescending, Neo-Logic. I believe it was in reaction to your somewhat naive suggestion that "we" can do anything about this. The simple fact is that it is like we are watching a spat between two former lovers. It isn't wise TO intercede and it isn't likely that either party would take kindly to our intercession. If anything, like most of us, you suffer from the delusion that we can just talk all this out. The bottom line is that it isn't particularly intelligent to think that you can reason with the insane or with religious fanatics. You can try - just don't expect them to be inclined to listen to your points. That is what I am trying to say.

 

[Sahar]

The religion would seem to be the overall linking factor. These folks are getting their inspiration from somewhere, after all. I don't believe for a second that the "radical" Muslims ARE misunderstanding and misinterpreting Islam. To understand my reasoning you will have to dig very deeply into Islamic thought. If anything, it is the radicals who exemplify the Medina era teachings of their Prophet. The lovey-dovey Muslims represent the Mecca era teachings. In Islamic thought, wherever there are discrepancies, the latter ayat is used to settle any differences due to the concept of abrogation. In essence, Medina ayats supercede Mecca ayats. In simpler terms, the more extreme ayats, from the later period, supercede the more peaceful ayats from the Mecca period when Muslims were decidedly weaker and had to attempt to get along with others. That changed when Muslims were "in charge".

I'd like to point out that this has nothing to do with digging deeply in the Islamic thought. This is absolute rubbish and represents incredible ignorance of their author who needs to educate himself and better not to talk about concepts he doesn't grasp. Yet, it does represent the propaganda of falsehood that the anti-Islamic websites spreads out to the ignorant.

 

[YmirGF]

I'd like to point out that this has nothing to do with digging deeply in the Islamic thought. This is absolute rubbish and represents incredible ignorance of their author who needs to educate himself and better not to talk about concepts he doesn't grasp. Yet, it does represent the propaganda of falsehood that the anti-Islamic websites spreads out to the ignorant.

So abrogation does not exist?

Edit: I am currently double-checking my facts and the first one that jumped out is that modern scholars tend to "many modern scholars now reject it outright". The point is that quite obviously not everyone is listening to said scholars. Aside from that minor detail it appears that my explanation above is actually fairly accurate in regards to abrogation or naskh. Though I regret I haven't uncovered anything, of slightly better quality, the wiki entry on naskh reflects my explanation well. Do bear in mind that I did not look at Wiki prior to this point and rarely use it as a resource for discerning finer points in Islam. (It does serve rather well as a springboard however.)

 

[Sahar]

So abrogation does not exist?

You haven't covered anything, you only spread out falsehood.
"Medina ayats supercede Mecca ayats", what is this rubbish?! :areyoucra
Again, don't talk about concepts that you don't have the slightest idea about.

 

[YmirGF]

You haven't covered anything, you only spread out falsehood.
"Medina ayats supercede Mecca ayats", what is this rubbish?! :areyoucra
Again, don't talk about concepts that you don't have the slightest idea about.

Since you understand the term, perhaps you could enlighten me. Is that too much to ask? In all fairness, if I have this wrong, show me where I am wrong. Did you even look at the Wikipedia article? Personally, I wouldn't call Wikipedia an anti-Muslim site, but prone to incorrect information, perhaps. I stress, this is not information I have garnered from anti-Muslim sites, not4me.

My thinking is that if some Muslims are under the illusion that verses are abrogating other verses (the more peaceful one), it does make the militancy of the radicals somewhat more understandable.

 

[Kenect2]

As a person who, according to the Quran is supposed to be executed by Muslims, I agree that the Muslims who are supposed to execute me are interpreting the Quran incorrectly!