muslims PART 2

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that there is probably a large mainstream current of Muslims who are taught violent jihad. Most of them aren't on a jihad right now, though.

THAT is exactly what is frightening. If they suddenly decide to abide by the teachings-boom!

I agree we have many muslims who are 'in name only' or just for high holy days, as we have in all religions. The fact that for the most part we have not heard them speak out against violence, speaks danger to western civilisation.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Doing so can be interesting, though I agree that it isn't proof of anything.

Interesting yes; as a guide to policy or action, dodgy as hell. A bit like Galadriel's mirror.

Originally Posted by spock

The fact that for the most part we have not heard them speak out against violence, speaks danger to western civilisation.

But they HAVE spoken out, it's just that nobody listens. And then every time something else happens, they have to apologise again for someone else's actions.

Can no-one else see the massive racial slur in demanding that ALL muslims have to apologise constantly and on an ongoing basis for the actions of a few extremists?

[GrayMouser]

I haven't heard any of the Christians here condemning the actions of the Christians against the Mulims in Bosnia- I guess that means you condone this violence in the name of Jesus.

If not, better get those apologies pouring in....

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But they HAVE spoken out, it's just that nobody listens. And then every time something else happens, they have to apologise again for someone else's actions.
Can no-one else see the massive racial slur in demanding that ALL muslims have to apologise constantly and on an ongoing basis for the actions of a few extremists?

1. If it doesn't get reported enough or at all then how the heck are we to know about it.

2. For every one small cleric who urges peace, we get dozens of riots, dances in new clothes, bombings, etc. It kind of reinforces what we think of them.

3. Islam is a religion not a race therefore, there can be no racial slur.

4. It's not that we're asking for an apology, ala Clinton, we want a denouncing and a renouncing of violence by Muslims.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I haven't heard any of the Christians here condemning the actions of the Christians against the Mulims in Bosnia- I guess that means you condone this violence in the name of Jesus.

Basically because the Christians and Muslims have been at it for hundreds of years in that region.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Spock

1. If it doesn't get reported enough or at all then how the heck are we to know about it.

2. For every one small cleric who urges peace, we get dozens of riots, dances in new clothes, bombings, etc. It kind of reinforces what we think of them.

Good points. The reason we don't hear too much about it is the same reason you don't hear much about the schools, etc being built in Iraq: it doesn't sell too many papers.

Originally Posted by Spock

3. Islam is a religion not a race therefore, there can be no racial slur.

Sure, but a person can still be prejudiced towards them in the same kind of way. I am certain that many muslims feel that they have been prejudiced against in this way.

[Spock]

So, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, we're prejudiced against them?

I'm not prejudiced against ducks, only those who wear shoe bombs, carry liquid explosives, or plot against our citizens.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Hehe. Nicely done Nurv.

Aren't we at risk of attempting to evaluate an entire religion from a neo-Protestant viewpoint? Islam is not, to my knowledge, a religion where one would pick up the Qu'ran and decide for oneself how to interpret it, in the same way that Prostestants (are supposed to) do. Islam has not been through a Reformation, to my knowledge. Rather, the (deep and profound) divisions within Islam have arisen for other reasons.

Looking at a holy book and counting the numbers of words to prove a point seems a bit like counting the leaves on the trees and trying to talk about forests.

EDIT: Oh, and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus was banned by the Catholic Church until about 300 years after its publication.

Citation, please? Wiki indicates the opposite:

The book caused only mild controversy at the time, and provoked no fierce sermons about contradicting holy scripture; Osiander's preface, therefore, may have had some success. In 1546, however, a Dominican, Giovanni Maria Tolosani, wrote a treatise denouncing the theory and defending the absolute truth of scripture. Tolosani also claimed that Bartolomeo Spina, the Master of the Sacred Palace, had intended to condemn the theory but had been unable to press the issue because of ill health.

Further Reading

The interesting thing, though, is that it was not "fact" in a sense. It presented a mathematical account of the solar system based on the observations available which put the Sun at the centre. There already were equivalent (Ptolemaic?) accounts which put the Earth at the centre, and which also fit with the observations, but which were more complex.

This is true.

Clerics have a long and distinguished history of discovery and the sciences, not surprising, perhaps even disappointing given the amount of time they had on their hands.

They have better things to be doing. The clerical contribution is not disappointing.

In fact, as far as I know, there is nothing like the same contribution in the sciences from Muslim clerics. What about rabbis?

[The Gaffer]

Don't know about rabbis, but I'm surprised a student of the classics is unaware of the role of muslim scholars in, for example, mathematics. But that was meant to be tongue in cheek anyway.

As for Copernicus, no, I think what I wrote is right. However, his book wasn't banned until 50 or so years until after his death; if memory serves this was when Galileo started to popularise it, in Italian rather than just Latin, and going around insisting it was actually true, as opposed to "just another theory" (resonance of the ID/evolution debate there).

It remained banned until the 1800s.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Gaffer.

Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, though its science articles are better than history and other articles because they are reviewed and edited more often.

Copernicus was not a Priest
This paper is available at JSTOR, I hope the link works. It seems that Galileo was the first to refer to Copernicus as a priest in order to convince the Catholic church not to condemn his ideas as heresy. You could read only the first few pages to get the idea - the paper is also about how there's a debate as to whether he was German or Polish, and other issues.

EDIT: Download here.

EDIT2:
Gaffer, did you just write 1800s in Arabic numerals? I think you did!

[Lief Erikson]

It looks as though Turkey and Egypt are going for nuclear power too, and probably in response to Iran's nuclear build-up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5378148.stm

[Spock]

Wonderful, our female service people already have to dress 'local' off base in Egypt and our 9-11 people came from there; Turkey - useless and cost us $ and men in the initial ramp up of the war.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Don't know about rabbis, but I'm surprised a student of the classics is unaware of the role of muslim scholars in, for example, mathematics. But that was meant to be tongue in cheek anyway.

Not Muslim Scholars, but Muslim clerics. As far as I know, the Muslims that made great contributions were not possessed of a clerical status. The philosophers among them especially tended to deny tenets of Islam.

As for Copernicus, no, I think what I wrote is right. However, his book wasn't banned until 50 or so years until after his death; if memory serves this was when Galileo started to popularise it, in Italian rather than just Latin, and going around insisting it was actually true, as opposed to "just another theory" (resonance of the ID/evolution debate there).

It remained banned until the 1800s.

Again, could you provide a citation?


Nurv, neither link works. Also, not only priests are clerics.

[hectorberlioz]

Indeed, Deacons count as clergy...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

THAT is exactly what is frightening. If they suddenly decide to abide by the teachings-boom!

True. I think that this is part of the explanation for the rapid growth of radical Islam in modern times.

Originally Posted by Spock

I agree we have many muslims who are 'in name only' or just for high holy days, as we have in all religions.

And a lot of liberals, as we have in all religions nowadays. But I don't consider them or the voice of pacifism to be the true nature of Islam because of the history of Muhammad and his early supporters.

Originally Posted by Spock

The fact that for the most part we have not heard them speak out against violence, speaks danger to western civilisation.

It would certainly help if they more publicly protested against the Islamic radicals, rather than only one-sidedly protesting against the comments of the pope or the Danish cartoons. If they put a more public face on their repulsion to Muslim extremists' words and deeds, bridges of trust could be built on them. The large scale protests they have engaged in have only intensified the distrust, which has a profoundly negative effect on relations between the East and the West.


Yet in the midst of all this, we would certainly do well to remember that there are many, many Muslims who have laid down their lives fighting Al'Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. A Syrian security officer also died protecting our embassy a week or two ago, when extremists attacked it. This is largely a war of Muslim fighting Muslim, and we do have many allies in the war on terror. Though we may debate how fully they are doing their part in stifling extremism, it is certain that people from their countries have died fighting it. In view of the price many Muslims in the Middle East has paid for supporting the US-led war on terror, it is certainly wrong to condemn all Muslims, and I think wrong to condemn the majority.

Dying in battle against Al'Qaeda is the strongest kind of anti-extremism message you can make.

[Butterbeer]

well said.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Let's talk about the rumors that Chavez is letting terrorists train in his country...just a hop-skip over Mexico, and voila!

I would not be even the slightest bit surprised. It would be totally in line with the rest of that guy's rhetoric.

Is this extremism Chavez is supposed to be supporting leftist terrorist groups or radical Muslims?

[hectorberlioz]

Well, I don't know for sure, but if his pal-ship with Ahmadinejad is any clue...
...news of latino terrorists training wouldn't be news, they've been doing it forever...

[Lief Erikson]

Here we go:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...6venezuela.htm
Yep, Islamic terrorists, as well as other terrorist groups, according to US officials.

This story doesn't look as though there's really solid evidence for it, and the US hasn't gone public in denunciations of Venezuela on this front. They have said that Venezuela isn't fully cooperating with anti-terrorist activities, but that's not the same as supporting terrorism. Most major papers haven't mentioned these rumors, though there is one senior US official who said stated these things.

I personally believe this story though, because of Chavez's strongly radical political leanings and rhetoric.

[hectorberlioz]

Well, certainly not open support, but Endorsement...yes; even open endorsement.

If it wasn't for us buying his oil, his economy would be really bad and in the dumps...yet he thinks he can trample us.

I'm really praying for our independence from oil bought from these countries...I just can't stand it anymore.