muslims PART 2

[Lief Erikson]

One of the tricky things is that even if we became completely independent from Venezuela's oil, globalization would be such that if Iran and Venezuela closed their oil resources from the rest of the world, global oil prices would skyrocket and thus they would in the US too, even if we didn't get much at all of our oil from Venezuela.

So we really need to find a way to get off of oil completely, but such a technology or alternative resource would take decades to implement.

[hectorberlioz]

Indeed, and even though Ethanol has worked for Brazil I keep hearing that it won't for us, for some strange reason...

ANWR supposedly didn't have that much oil, but recently I heard that there is an enourmous amount there.

Chavez by himself coudln't cut his oil off from us without his own economy plummeting...but seeing there might be a special deal between him and Ahmadinejad, I can see how they might try to strangle us...

[Lief Erikson]

If we attack Iran, I expect that they would.

[Nurvingiel]

Lief, I can email you the PDF file. The links will only work if you access them from my university's computers. PM me your address if you want.

This could be any religion, but here we're talking about Islam.

What makes a religion violent (or not violent)? Can an abstract concept such as religion be violent, or does it condone violence? If a religion is violent (or not violent), what is gained by knowing this?

Personally, I try to judge people only by their actions. That's why I've taken the Muslims' "side" in this thread. I don't find generalizations very useful in this situation.

Lastly, if we decide that Islam is violent, well, what are we going to do? I think we should try to build positive relationships so that people reject acts of violence condoned by religion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lief, I can email you the PDF file. The links will only work if you access them from my university's computers. PM me your address if you want.

Sorry if I'm being thick . . . what PDF file? What were we talking about?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This could be any religion, but here we're talking about Islam.

What could? Sorry . I really lost this train of thought, whatever it was.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What makes a religion violent (or not violent)? Can an abstract concept such as religion be violent, or does it condone violence?

It can. The Aztec religion is the most bloodthirsty one I know of. Their religion said that if their people ceased to conquer, the world would end. The sun had to be supplied with blood through their sacrifices and conquests. Their religion made violence necessary for the world to continue.

The Muslim religion is violent too, as its texts call for violence. We can also see that it is violent because that is how Muhammad and his earliest supporters interpreted it. The way I judge religions is by looking at what the texts say and then at how their earliest supporters interpreted them. That shows how it is supposed to be interpreted and what its nature is. Unless the religion is supposed to be one of those that evolves with time, in which case it's a rather different matter.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If a religion is violent (or not violent), what is gained by knowing this?

A stronger understanding of the enemy we face, and how it fits into history. Then one can see Islam as violent and the actions of Al'Qaeda and modern jihadis in the context of the broader conflict between Islam and the rest of the world that has taken place throughout history. That knowledge better enables one to see where they're coming from and just how serious the threat is. Too often I see them underestimated on this website, called the "tip of the elephant's trunk," and the tiny minority. Looking at this threat from the broader perspective of history and looking at their religious teachings on jihad, as well as the current political context, I believe that this is a much more serious threat than that. Like Spock was saying, many Muslims are taught violent jihad, only they don't follow it at present. There is a very large number of Muslims who believe in violent jihad- we're only seeing a minority of them presently fighting, IMO. I read books by peaceful Muslims also that sometimes interpret jihad violently, but argue against the extremists' actions on other grounds. But if the militants gain victories in Afghanistan and Iraq (as they did in Lebanon), and if the crisis in the Middle East deepens more and more as it currently is, we'll see the threat just escalate and escalate and escalate. There are huge numbers of people joining the side of jihad right now. If we don't understand that Islam is violent, we aren't so likely to see the need to remain in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Personally, I try to judge people only by their actions.

Unless they're in the womb . Sorry, couldn't resist mentioning that.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That's why I've taken the Muslims' "side" in this thread. I don't find generalizations very useful in this situation.

I tend to judge people by their actions too. That's why I think Islam is violent- because of the actions of Muhammad and his earliest followers.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lastly, if we decide that Islam is violent, well, what are we going to do?

Stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, for starters. Be willing to pay the heavy price in blood that will have to be paid for victory. Stop lamblasting President Bush as he does what he can to stop our enemies. Be ready to dig in for the long haul, and brace ourselves as a community for a very, very long and very difficult war. According to the Qur'an, Allah promises victory for the pure jihad. We would be playing right into enemy hands by retreating, (the recently released US intelligence report has confirmed this) and would be giving them one of the most oil rich countries in the world.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think we should try to build positive relationships so that people reject acts of violence condoned by religion.

Agreed. This is also extremely important and necessary. Pointing out strongly the good points of Islam as well as the violent is important, for this gives us a point of contact with which to bond with Muslims and agree with them. There are many positive teachings in Islam, and their culture also, IMO, supports a much stronger form of morality than we experience here in the West. To a large extent, we as a society are very loose of morals here. Islam is much better than that. Praising the strong points of Islam and pointing to them as places where we should improve as a society would be useful.

Increasing awareness of the danger of the enemy we face is essential to defeating them. Otherwise we'll be lured into the belief that this is another Vietnam, a mere civil war that we're bogged down in and which we can pull out of without harming our long-term security to a terrible extent. I think that the Dominoe Theory was incorrect as regards Vietnam, (hindsight) but is probably much more likely to be valid as regards Iraq. Again, that view has recently been confirmed in a US intelligence report released by 16 intelligence agencies.

We should praise the strengths of Islam that are positive, and warn our people about its strengths that are negative.

I realize that to fully alert the public as to the nature of the threat we face is partly to expand that threat also, for it would increase the rift between civilizations. For if Westerners believe that Islam is violent, it is more likely that the public will do stupid things to antagonize Muslims. And a significant number of Muslims never will become terrorists or extremists!

But at the same time, I fear that our society is critically weakened by looking back at Vietnam and failing to understand the terrible danger face by viewing the situations as identical. Understanding the nature of Islam would strengthen our society to deal with the threat as it is. Thus understanding is important for the long-term, and keeping our people from understanding will give the jihadis successes in the Middle East.

As for myself, I don't believe the public will become aware. I fear that in 2008 we'll elect somebody who pulls us out of Iraq too fast, and probably submits in Afghanistan too. Then the extremists will win victories in both countries, their numbers will multiply at obscene rates and countries in the Middle East will spin out of control as all those jihadis begin attacking other moderate governments in the region. I fear that Israel will also be destroyed.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Sorry if I'm being thick . . . what PDF file? What were we talking about?

You're not being thick, I forgot to mention what the file was. I have a PDF file (a type of document file that you view with Adobe Acrobat Reader) called "Copernicus was not a Priest", if you want.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What could? Sorry . I really lost this train of thought, whatever it was.

I meant the stuff about "Can a religion be violent" etc. which followed the statement.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It can. The Aztec religion is the most bloodthirsty one I know of. Their religion said that if their people ceased to conquer, the world would end. The sun had to be supplied with blood through their sacrifices and conquests. Their religion made violence necessary for the world to continue.

Well I'm going to have to agree with you on that one! But what about liberal non-violent Aztecs?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Muslim religion is violent too, as its texts call for violence. We can also see that it is violent because that is how Muhammad and his earliest supporters interpreted it. The way I judge religions is by looking at what the texts say and then at how their earliest supporters interpreted them. That shows how it is supposed to be interpreted and what its nature is. Unless the religion is supposed to be one of those that evolves with time, in which case it's a rather different matter.

Why would Islam not evolve with time? Christianity has.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A stronger understanding of the enemy we face, and how it fits into history. Then one can see Islam as violent and the actions of Al'Qaeda and modern jihadis in the context of the broader conflict between Islam and the rest of the world that has taken place throughout history. That knowledge better enables one to see where they're coming from and just how serious the threat is.

"A stronger understanding of the enemy we face" because the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Muslim, not because Muslims are the enemy... right?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But if the militants gain victories in Afghanistan and Iraq (as they did in Lebanon), and if the crisis in the Middle East deepens more and more as it currently is, we'll see the threat just escalate and escalate and escalate. There are huge numbers of people joining the side of jihad right now. If we don't understand that Islam is violent, we aren't so likely to see the need to remain in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We need to stay in Afghanistan because the Taliban attack civilians, not because Islam is or is not a violent religion.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Unless they're in the womb . Sorry, couldn't resist mentioning that.

But then they're not people! Ha!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I tend to judge people by their actions too. That's why I think Islam is violent- because of the actions of Muhammad and his earliest followers.

Is it fair to judge the actions of present-day Muslims based on the actions of early Muslims?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Stay in Iraq and Afghanistan, for starters. Be willing to pay the heavy price in blood that will have to be paid for victory. Stop lamblasting President Bush as he does what he can to stop our enemies. Be ready to dig in for the long haul, and brace ourselves as a community for a very, very long and very difficult war. According to the Qur'an, Allah promises victory for the pure jihad. We would be playing right into enemy hands by retreating, (the recently released US intelligence report has confirmed this) and would be giving them one of the most oil rich countries in the world.

I have many criticisms of Bush, mainly centred on his administration's criminally incompetent handling of Hurricane Katrina, but I support our (US, Canada, and other nations) troops in Afghanistan. (And you guys in Iraq, though I'm still not sure how I feel about the invasion, it's too late to pull out now, but that's a thread for another day).

We are helping affect positive change in Afghanistan. (Though, it would be awesome if the American Air Force would stop shooting at us, cheers.) Girls are in school right now in Afghanistan and there is elected government in power. The Taliban would send this wonderful country back to the Middle-ages in human rights, and they attack Afghani civilians. Only a few days ago Safia Ama Jan was assassinated. We need to stay and help Afghanistan to rebuild.

But why would thinking of Islam as violent help this? Was Safia Ama Jan violent?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Agreed. This is also extremely important and necessary. Pointing out strongly the good points of Islam as well as the violent is important, for this gives us a point of contact with which to bond with Muslims and agree with them. There are many positive teachings in Islam, and their culture also, IMO, supports a much stronger form of morality than we experience here in the West. To a large extent, we as a society are very loose of morals here. Islam is much better than that. Praising the strong points of Islam and pointing to them as places where we should improve as a society would be useful.

Yes, there is much to admire about Islam. I wouldn't say our own society's morals are loose, per se, but Islam certainly has social justice entrenched in society (see: Charity as one of the Five Pillars).

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Increasing awareness of the danger of the enemy we face is essential to defeating them. Otherwise we'll be lured into the belief that this is another Vietnam, a mere civil war that we're bogged down in and which we can pull out of without harming our long-term security to a terrible extent. I think that the Dominoe Theory was incorrect as regards Vietnam, (hindsight) but is probably much more likely to be valid as regards Iraq. Again, that view has recently been confirmed in a US intelligence report released by 16 intelligence agencies.

What's the Domino Theory?

Also, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are dangerous because they are armed, desperate, and have no compunction about using civilians as shields in their attempt to submit the world to a fundamentalist regime. That the fundamentalist regime would be a Muslim one is really not the danger here.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We should praise the strengths of Islam that are positive, and warn our people about its strengths that are negative.

Negative strengths? You mean, aspects that are negative that appeal to people?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I realize that to fully alert the public as to the nature of the threat we face is partly to expand that threat also, for it would increase the rift between civilizations. For if Westerners believe that Islam is violent, it is more likely that the public will do stupid things to antagonize Muslims. And a significant number of Muslims never will become terrorists or extremists!

But at the same time, I fear that our society is critically weakened by looking back at Vietnam and failing to understand the terrible danger face by viewing the situations as identical. Understanding the nature of Islam would strengthen our society to deal with the threat as it is. Thus understanding is important for the long-term, and keeping our people from understanding will give the jihadis successes in the Middle East.

I completely agree with your first paragraph.

I'm not sure why you're comparing Afghanistan and Vietnam. The two situations are very, very different.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As for myself, I don't believe the public will become aware. I fear that in 2008 we'll elect somebody who pulls us out of Iraq too fast, and probably submits in Afghanistan too. Then the extremists will win victories in both countries, their numbers will multiply at obscene rates and countries in the Middle East will spin out of control as all those jihadis begin attacking other moderate governments in the region. I fear that Israel will also be destroyed.

Why would all those things happen? Do American people want to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Also, Israel seems quite capable of defending itself (not that I don't think they should have allies, though) - they have some of the most highly-trained soldiers in the world IIRC.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You're not being thick, I forgot to mention what the file was. I have a PDF file (a type of document file that you view with Adobe Acrobat Reader) called "Copernicus was not a Priest", if you want.

Ah yes. That was actually someone else's conversation. Gaffer and somebody else on this thread were talking about Copernicus. I never really read those posts.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I meant the stuff about "Can a religion be violent" etc. which followed the statement.

Oh, right. Well, I see Islam as by nature violent rather than violent because of manipulators because of the actions of Muhammad and his early followers. Any religion can be manipulated to violent purposes by violent people. But some religions are actually naturally violent. Islam plainly was one of these in birth, and looking at the bloody path it has continued to carve in the world throughout history, I think it should still be seen in that way.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well I'm going to have to agree with you on that one! But what about liberal non-violent Aztecs?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why would Islam not evolve with time? Christianity has.

More's the pity. Another weakness in the West. Revelation of new doctrine was concluded with the Book of Revelation, and any new doctrine or flawed and newfangled interpretations of Christianity weaken the religion, IMO. Society makes mistakes. God doesn't. When we follow society's morals rather than God's revealed morals, we make critical errors. That's actually one of the reasons I'm also rather defeatist as regards our conflict with Islamic extremism. We are too morally weakened to be supported by God much longer, in my view. I think militant Islam is partly gaining ground as a judgment against us.

As for the evolved version of Islam, I have no problem with that. When people interpret jihad spiritually, I have no problem with them. That's great, and actually, it turns out, completely in line with Christian views about the struggle against sin.

I'm a fundamentalist, so I don't agree with Muslim liberalism. If I was a Muslim, I'd be a fundamentalist Muslim, because to me, liberalism just means you make up your own religion. So I think that fundamentalist Islam makes more sense than liberal Islam, personally. But that's completely irrelevant. The bottom line (as far as I'm concerned) is that when Muslims are liberals, they are not a threat to our society. They have peaceful beliefs with which they can mesh pretty well with modern society. That is why we need to support the liberal Muslims.

But many, many Muslims are not liberals. For them, Islam has not evolved. There are also large numbers of Muslims that believe in violent jihad, but aren't fighting the West. Many who believe in violent jihad are very angry with Al'Qaeda nonetheless, because Al'Qaeda is using many immoral methods to engage in warfare that they don't approve of.

Hezbollah, for example, certainly believes in violent jihad. Yet they have condemned Al'Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center because, according to them, it involved killing innocent civilians. So Al'Qaeda has made many mainstream Muslims angry at it because of the methods it uses, more than anything else.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

"A stronger understanding of the enemy we face" because the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Muslim, not because Muslims are the enemy... right?

Fundamentalist Islam, the old Islam, the Islam of Muhammad and all the early Muslims, is the enemy. Liberal, evolved Islam is not.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

We need to stay in Afghanistan because the Taliban attack civilians, not because Islam is or is not a violent religion.

I'd say we partly need to stay there because Islam is a violent religion, also. I'll explain myself shortly in more depth.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Is it fair to judge the actions of present-day Muslims based on the actions of early Muslims?

When they have the same belief system as the early Muslims, then yes. We are essentially fighting the same Islam that the Byzantines and Sassanids fought. Many Muslims still believe in very similar ways. It's not like 90% of Muslims are all liberal, though probably 90% are all currently peaceful. Many of those Muslims believe in violent jihad, but don't believe in what Al'Qaeda is doing. There is also a significant percentage that not really practicing Muslims, and a significant percentage that are liberal. I'm just saying that the old Islam is still broadly believed in among currently non-violent Muslims, as the rapidly growing number of jihadis is proving.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I have many criticisms of Bush, mainly centred on his administration's criminally incompetent handling of Hurricane Katrina, but I support our (US, Canada, and other nations) troops in Afghanistan. (And you guys in Iraq, though I'm still not sure how I feel about the invasion, it's too late to pull out now, but that's a thread for another day).

I don't actually know enough about the handling of Hurricane Katrina. President Bush says that the reaction was too slow though, so I believe him. But like you say, that's all off-topic.

I'm glad we can agree on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

We are helping affect positive change in Afghanistan. (Though, it would be awesome if the American Air Force would stop shooting at us, cheers.) Girls are in school right now in Afghanistan and there is elected government in power. The Taliban would send this wonderful country back to the Middle-ages in human rights, and they attack Afghani civilians. Only a few days ago Safia Ama Jan was assassinated. We need to stay and help Afghanistan to rebuild.

Definitely agreed.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But why would thinking of Islam as violent help this? Was Safia Ama Jan violent?

Again, I'll shortly explain.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yes, there is much to admire about Islam. I wouldn't say our own society's morals are loose, per se, but Islam certainly has social justice entrenched in society (see: Charity as one of the Five Pillars).

Their emphasis on social justice is very laudable.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's the Domino Theory?

If this country falls, others will fall as a consequence.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Also, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are dangerous because they are armed, desperate, and have no compunction about using civilians as shields in their attempt to submit the world to a fundamentalist regime. That the fundamentalist regime would be a Muslim one is really not the danger here.

Negative strengths? You mean, aspects that are negative that appeal to people?

No, I mean negative strengths. For instance, believing that death is the gateway to paradise, and thus embracing death. This makes them fearless and willing to take very, very substantial casualties in their effort against us. Those are strengths for their cause, even though they are negative ones. That is a strength that comes from religion, from the violent old Islam. That is also one of the great strengths that Muhammad and his followers have. People can't really resist others who have that kind of power. The only way is to kill every one of them, for as long as there is one left, that one will be willing to blow himself up against you to go to paradise. This is a great and terrible strength.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not sure why you're comparing Afghanistan and Vietnam. The two situations are very, very different.

Agreed. I'm thinking more of a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam that I've heard people try to draw.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why would all those things happen? Do American people want to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Also, Israel seems quite capable of defending itself (not that I don't think they should have allies, though) - they have some of the most highly-trained soldiers in the world IIRC.

I'll explain.

The American people, and the people of England, want their people out of Iraq. There is a majority in both countries that want a withdrawal. However, according to the Islam, God will give victories to his faithful jihadis. Thus victories in battle (especially against great military powers like the US or Israel) prove to many Muslims that the cause was just in Allah's eyes. Thus the religion is an enemy, and giving in in Iraq would bring Al'Qaeda and all the radicals a great boost in popularity. People would join to them.

Sixteen US intelligence groups have all agreed, after careful consideration of the situation in Iraq, that if we pull out, radicalism will be strongly reinforced as a consequence. That's the strong new evidence that just came up, backing what I'm telling you.

The US people don't understand this. They think Iraq is like Vietnam. To many people in the US, we are bogged down in a civil war that will not quit but will only intensify, so we are just going to lose men in a hopeless fight. But I believe that we must stick the fight out in spite of the losses, because otherwise Al'Qaeda would win a great victory not only over a highly valuable oil region, but over the minds of fellow Muslims. We can't afford to let that happen.

If we pull out of Iraq, many Muslims will believe that Allah gave Al'Qaeda victory. This is what the American public doesn't understand.

If the jihadis believe God has given them a victory in Iraq, they will be even more convinced he favors them and they will gain many more recruits. Then they will simply change their focus. They will move on to focus instead on other countries nearby.

Saudi Arabia knows this. That is why, out of fear that jihadis might start coming out of Iraq to fight Saudi Arabia, they have begun to construct a fence, a long defense barrier between them and Iraq's north, not to keep jihadis from crossing their border into Iraq, but rather to keep them from launching attacks from Iraq into THEIR country.

In Afghanistan too, we need to understand the nature of the religion. This is because again, our enemies there are powered by the motivation of religion and as a consequence they will be very, very difficult to beat. The fact that they are protecting the country's opium economy also bodes very bad for us. But again, if we end up pulling out of Afghanistan because we are unwilling to accept any more casualties, Allah will be seen as having favored Al'Qaeda and the Taliban.

The religion also is part of what drives the enemy to attack us. Even if Israel was no more and the West had no more troops anywhere near the Middle East, they would still come for us. This is because of Muhammad's teachings in the Qur'an and the Hadith. They believe Allah is on their side, and IMO, he is. Obviously I don't see him as the Christian God .

I have here emphasized one factor in the struggle: the religion. The religion is not the only factor, to be sure. There are many factors involved in this struggle, including politics and economics, etc. But the public needs to know about the religious factor and what its nature is, or they will misjudge their enemies and misunderstand them, and consequently will make the worst decisions they can make for their own security.

I fear for Israel partly because of the proliferation of WMDs in the world. Israel has built a big wall cutting themselves off from the Palestinians, and have enacted embargos on the Palestinians that keep them from working on their land. Thus, even though there still is a significant number of Palestinians in Israel, Israel has sealed its Jews in and sealed large numbers of Muslims out. That may temporarily be helping Israel against terrorism, but it makes them a ripe target for a nuclear bomb. All of those Israelis are united on one small patch of land, in a close bunch all together. One bomb could destroy the country. And it doesn't even have to be Iran, though Iran certainly is a grave threat to Israel.

I personally am afraid of what North Korea may choose to do with its nuclear arsenal. They might sell one to Al'Qaeda or the black market.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Ah yes. That was actually someone else's conversation. Gaffer and somebody else on this thread were talking about Copernicus. I never really read those posts.

Oh, never mind then.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Oh, right. Well, I see Islam as by nature violent rather than violent because of manipulators because of the actions of Muhammad and his early followers. Any religion can be manipulated to violent purposes by violent people. But some religions are actually naturally violent. Islam plainly was one of these in birth, and looking at the bloody path it has continued to carve in the world throughout history, I think it should still be seen in that way.

I think I get what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

More's the pity. Another weakness in the West. Revelation of new doctrine was concluded with the Book of Revelation, and any new doctrine or flawed and newfangled interpretations of Christianity weaken the religion, IMO. Society makes mistakes. God doesn't. When we follow society's morals rather than God's revealed morals, we make critical errors. That's actually one of the reasons I'm also rather defeatist as regards our conflict with Islamic extremism. We are too morally weakened to be supported by God much longer, in my view. I think militant Islam is partly gaining ground as a judgment against us.

More's the pity!? Say, is that a cotton-polyester blend shirt you're wearing? You know that's not okay right? But to update you with some happy news, I dealt with my idol-worshipping neighbours. I told them they couldn't worship idols (they called their god "Marcus Naslund" or something) so I forced them and their children to drink molton gold. I don't know why I was arrested, this is completely condoned by the Old Testament.

Okay, I'm having a bit of a go at some of the stuff in the Old Testament. However, I did that also to say, that Christianity has evolved, a lot.

Of course, I'm one of those loose-moralled liberal Anglicans so I know we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but I would assert that many changes to Christianity over the years have been positive.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As for the evolved version of Islam, I have no problem with that. When people interpret jihad spiritually, I have no problem with them. That's great, and actually, it turns out, completely in line with Christian views about the struggle against sin.

Yes, I'm continually surprised about how much we have in common. (Very nearly equalling what we don't have in common. )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm a fundamentalist, so I don't agree with Muslim liberalism. If I was a Muslim, I'd be a fundamentalist Muslim, because to me, liberalism just means you make up your own religion. I'd rather follow God. So I think that fundamentalist Islam makes more sense than liberal Islam, personally. But that's completely irrelevant. The bottom line (as far as I'm concerned) is that when Muslims are liberals, they are not a threat to our society. They have peaceful beliefs with which they can mesh pretty well with modern society. That is why we need to support the liberal Muslims.

I agree that we should support liberal Muslims.

Since you did mention it's not relevant, I'll only add a small comment about fundamentalism. The way I see it, fundamentalism is where you interpret religious teachings literally. This is not necessarily correct or in line with what God wants of us.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But many, many Muslims are not liberals. For them, Islam has not evolved. There are also large numbers of Muslims that believe in violent jihad, but aren't fighting the West. Many who believe in violent jihad are very angry with Al'Qaeda nonetheless, because Al'Qaeda is using many immoral methods to engage in warfare that they don't approve of.

Hezbollah, for example, certainly believes in violent jihad. Yet they have condemned Al'Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center because, according to them, it involved killing innocent civilians. So Al'Qaeda has made many mainstream Muslims angry at it because of the methods it uses, more than anything else.

I think I understand what you're saying about Islam. I don't totally agree with you, but you do have a point.

If Hezbollah says Al'Qaeda's methods are reprehensible, I have no problem agreeing with them on this. Does it really matter why we agree, so long as most people renounce Al'Qaeda?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Fundamentalist Islam, the old Islam, the Islam of Muhammad and all the early Muslims, is the enemy. Liberal, evolved Islam is not.

Because of the "City of Faith" "City of War" thing I guess eh?

The rest of your post I'm going to have to leave for tomorrow, as it is one o'clock in the morning.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll respond when you've finished .

It's getting really late for me to be up too.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Not Muslim Scholars, but Muslim clerics. As far as I know, the Muslims that made great contributions.......

Prince Feisal: But you know, Lieutenant, in the Arab city of Cordoba were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village?
T.E. Lawrence: Yes, you were great.
Prince Feisal: Nine centuries ago.
T.E. Lawrence: Time to be great again, my lord.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why would Islam not evolve with time? Christianity has.

Could you please define "evolve with time"?

[Spock]

..EVOLVE...????!!!! They've had freekin centuries to do that, same as Jews and Christians.................#@$!#$!$!#@$!#~

[Gwaimir Windgem]

They've had six less centuries than Christianity, and a helluva lot less time than Judaism, in all fairness.

[Lief Erikson]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5393892.stm

Originally Posted by BBC News

France's anti-terrorism authorities have launched an enquiry into death threats against a philosophy teacher who wrote an article criticising Islam.
Robert Redeker has been forced into hiding after making controversial marks about the Prophet Muhammad.

Writing in France's Le Figaro, Mr Redeker described the religion's founder as "a merciless war leader".

Since publishing the article, he has been under police protection and forced to move between safe houses.

On Friday, the Paris prosecutor's office said it had opened a preliminary investigation into the threats to see if they were linked to terrorist activity.

French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin described the threats as "intolerable".

"We are in a democracy, everyone has the right to express his views freely - of course while respecting others," he said.

This is freaky. The man essentially stated my views, and now he's forced into police protection. Does that mean that if I had some influence and spoke my views, I'd receive Islamist death threats?

It is rather worrisome.

[Spock]

Yeah, Lief, even Jon Stewart-this week-interviewed Musharif and served him jasmine tea-went out of his way to make the point by saying "I've made you tea, does this offend you"...."it's jasmine tea does this offend you"....."do you like this brand, does it offend you"......

You can't give up who you are....you just have to be more vigilant.

OH, and *centuries* are enough to change-remember Muhammed wasn't a 17th century person!!
These radical are still spouting and fighting medievil ideas.

[Nurvingiel]

I love Jon Stewart so very much. Does my asking if this offends you offend you? He should have said that too. How did the other guy respond?

Don't worry Lief, you'd join great people like Salman Rusdie!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

They've had six less centuries than Christianity, and a helluva lot less time than Judaism, in all fairness.

Yeah, sheesh Spock.

By "evolve with time" I meant change or adapt to new ideas. For an example of what I mean, I will turn to the Bible for an example.

Leviticus 19:19, King James Version Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

Now, do we Christians regard someone who wears a suit of wool and linen to be going against the Bible? No, because that's stupid. If someone plants a garden of wildflowers from a mixed seed packet do we burn their house in retribution? Definitely not, because again: stupid.

Here's an example of something that has evolved over time. When Leviticus wrote this verse, people probably did practice what he had to say here. This is no longer the case (people can if they want, but it is no longer widespread).

I shudder to think what Christianity (and Judaism, since this verse is in the Torah too) would be like if they had not evolved over time.

EDIT: Just to point out that Leviticus isn't completely full of crap, some of the good stuff:
Leviticus 19:11, King James Version Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.

EDIT 2: People (at least some, probably a lot) do take Leviticus seriously. See?
My fiance would like to point out that the author makes a couple good points about textiles, but blending wool and mohair, for example, will generally make a suit lighter and have a softer hand. A light-weight suit of that nature, blended or otherwise, will not last as long as, say, a Harris tweed. His point is that, it doesn't matter what the textile is made of, but that it was made to be lightweight and breatheable, as opposed to heavy, stuffy, but durable. The blend of material, related to the life of the textile, is irrelevant.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, sheesh Spock.

By "evolve with time" I meant change or adapt to new ideas. For an example of what I mean, I will turn to the Bible for an example.

Leviticus 19:19, King James Version Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee.

Now, do we Christians regard someone who wears a suit of wool and linen to be going against the Bible? No, because that's stupid. If someone plants a garden of wildflowers from a mixed seed packet do we burn their house in retribution? Definitely not, because again: stupid.

Here's an example of something that has evolved over time. When Leviticus wrote this verse, people probably did practice what he had to say here. This is no longer the case (people can if they want, but it is no longer widespread).

That's not a matter of evolving with time. That's a matter of Old vs. New Covenant. The only relation that has to time is that it occured in time, but it was not in anyway an effect of it.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Nurv; I went to the link, and was surprised to find that they seemed to not acknowledge the abrogation of the Old Law. I started to suspect something fishy. I continued looking at the site (after first clicking the link at the bottom of your article, naturally ), and found an article about how Sunday worship is unjustified. This confirmed my suspicions; this is a Seventh-Day Adventist website; they are some of/the only Christians to believe that the Old Testament Law is mandatory for Christians.

Pay them no heed.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I love Jon Stewart so very much. Does my asking if this offends you offend you? He should have said that too. How did the other guy respond?

He just laughed and said it was a fine tea, and thanked him for making it.