Islamic Terrorism in the West ( Mega thread)

[Brad Sallows]

Religion and culture can not really be separated.  Each drives and provides excuses for the shortcomings of the other.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I promised myself to stay out of this discussion, but I do need to comment on two of your points, the ones I highlighted:

    First ~ I agree with both; and

    Second ~ I think you're the one who is missing the point.

I have said many times and over many years in these fora that the problem with the Islamic Crescent is cultural, not religious. I have little knowledge of and no brief for or against Islam ... I simply regard it as wholly inconsequential, on about a par with, say, Shinto or Sikhism but with more adherents. What I have spoken about, at some length, is that culture matters.

My assessment based on 70+ years of living, working, visiting in too many countries to count on five or six continents and several island regions is that people, regardless of race, creed or sex, are all roughly alike: smart and stupid, honest and venal, brave and cowardly in pretty much the same proportions everywhere. So why do some "cultures" dominate others? The answer is in the question: culture matters. In my opinion the cultures of Africa, all of it, the Middle East and West Asia and of the pre Columbian Americas were ~ and still are ~ weak, even retarded, in the sense of lagging "behind" others. My simplest definition of cultural retardation is the notion of people as property. If your culture treats women, for example, as inferior to men, for whatever reason, then it is a retarded culture and it will not succeed in and beyond the 21st century. If your culture condones or, worse, practices slavery then it, too, is retarded, or worse, and, perhaps, should be put out of its misery if it will not reform itself. Those markers are not, in themselves, overly "cultural" they are, in fact, measures of societal "efficiency," efficient societies make the best possible use of all their human resources and that means that men and women must be treated as equally valuable resource elements and we all know, from economics 101, that slavery is an inefficient use of resources. Many, many smart people in the Islamic Crescent and in other regions know that to be true and they are trying to make changes but the cultural weight is too heavy and, in some cases, religion reinforces or, more often, simply conforms to cultural norms.

    (One of the first things Zhou Enlai needed to do in 1949 was to (temporarily) suppress Confucianism while he forced equality on to China... Confucianism adapted and returned,
      accepting, as has most of Christianity and much of Judaism, the basic principle of equality.)

So I am with Brad: the problem is that we need to protect and promote our strong, "right" cultural norms here at home ... and that may mean insisting that people who come here adapt their beliefs to suit our environment. After all, we didn't conscript anyone from Indonesia, Pakistan, Eqypt or Algeria and force them to come to Canada, they all wanted to be here rather than there, for whatever reason, and it is not unreasonable to expect, even demand that they contribute to our ways rather than to try and change them holus-bolus. I do  not believe that Islam, per se, is a problem ... it's just another superstition, one amongst many. I do not believe that Muslims are, inherently, less able or less law abiding or less (or more) anything. I do believe that Muslims in Canada must adapt themselves and Islam in Canada to suit Canada, not try to make Canada fit Saudi Arabian cultural norms. That, in my opinion, is the point.

:goodpost:  Thank you for your input, ER, well said as always.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit on tone, here ...

Therefore, benighted peoples, as a reciprocal favour stop coming here to f*ck up our institutions by bringing in selected bits and pieces of your medieval ways.  We can't tell in advance which ones are going to erode whatever it is that makes our society so desirable to live in, so either stay in the Old Country or leave all of your customs and practices in the Old Country.

Furthermore, to all the self-aggrandizing religious and cultural triumphalists citing laundry lists of grievances in half the countries most people don't even know exist, take up your grievances with the governments of those countries.  If you envy our prosperity and freedom, emulate us rather than trying to drag us down into your cesspool of misery.

Good points (if some folks don't like country X exporting their values to country Y, then kindly keep Y values out of country Z, please, and if you don't like whazzup in country Z, take it up with Z's government), if a bit harshly put.  That said ...

... Now Brad, your ignorant and narrow view of the world is why I pity you. You seem to only think a half dozen Islamic countries exist or are worth citing, which is quite pathetic. There are many Islamic countries in the world and they range from Progressive to regressive, from liberal to conservative, from rich to poor. Most people know and understand this, which makes a lot of people shake their head at your arguements. Quickly google up Islamic countries in the world and realize that we are contributing a lot to this world. Take a look at how Muslims helped shape your so called western world. Whenever you make general statements about billions of people, you tend to look the fool ...

... we can do better than this, too, in our discussions here.  AbdullahD, we appreciate your useful input, but others have fallen on their sword for having a less-than-ideal "how they share" in spite of having sometimes-decent "what they share".

Let's keep it civil, folks - attack positions/arguments, not people.  Thanks, all.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=AbdullahD]
yet I expect her to practice Islam as much as she is able to.[/quote]

As a parent what would you do if your daughter told you she was a christian or atheist?

 

[AbdullahD]

As a parent what would you do if your daughter told you she was a christian or atheist?

I have no need, nor desire to discuss what I would do in hypothetical situations with you.  In fact I am not sure why you would even bring this up in a thread were we are discussing general Sharia matters, but each to their own.

Abdullah

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I believe the point was brought up for the following reason, Abdullah:

One of the cultural concept we, in the "West", consider a basic tenet of our "culture" is freedom of religion, which includes by necessity freedom from religion. This means that we consider the "holding of one's religious beliefs" and the "following of one's religion's practices" not otherwise incompatible with the general laws of the land applicable to all, is a personal, individual matter.

One has no right to impose one's religion or one's religious obligations on anybody else. Those anybody else include your wives/husbands/children. Each of these individuals has the absolute right to chose their religion or absence of religion and to practice any religion they chose the very exact way they chose to. My personal opinion here, BTW, is that for any parent to raise their children in their own religion is wrong and constitutes child abuse. Teach your kids to think for themselves, let them be exposed to all points of view on all religions (you yourself said earlier that people should look at issues from all angles before deciding) and, when they are old enough to make their own choices - and only then - let them chose what they want and endorse it. Remember that "religion" is not a human characteristic, like the colour of your eyes or hair, your height or weight - it is a personal decision to believe or not in something.

But Sharia law does not permit this freedom: Leaving Islam in any way makes you an apostate, and the punishment for apostasy in Sharia is death. Don't tell us otherwise, it is written black on white in the koran.

So the question remains, how would you react if your daughter told you she doesn't believe in Allah anymore, or wishes to become a Buddhist?

Aslo, remember that in all places and times where religion was able to impose the death penalty, and that includes most of Africa and the middle east Muslim countries these days and the Inquisition era Europe for Christians, for not following the religion, it becomes impossible to acknowledge the simple fact that in all times and all eras, the majority of "religious" people were religious because it was imposed on them. By and large, humans couldn't care less about following religions, but in all eras, have had no choice but to outwardly follow the obligations because the consequences for not doing so are too harsh.

If you don't believe that religion disappears when the power of imposition of the priest caste is removed, just look at Western Europe and in Quebec here: probably the least religious places in the world these days.

Disclosure statement: After a Catholic upbringing that saw me study at two seminaries, I have been for the longest time what is described as a "radical" atheist, just so there is no possible confusion. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

:goodpost:

Another excellent post OGBD, thanks for chipping in.

I was forced to church until I was old enough to cease and desist.  I'm a rabid Atheist,  married to a Muslim convert, however our children have never been forced one way or another.  They seem to be neutral as far as I know, but that is their business.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I have no need, nor desire to discuss what I would do in hypothetical situations with you.  In fact I am not sure why you would even bring this up in a thread were we are discussing general Sharia matters, but each to their own.

Abdullah

I thought we were discussing general Sharia matters.  You know, not the hard core murder the infidel types but "every day peaceful" Muslims. That kindlier gentler Shaira Law we spoke about earlier, which is what I assumed you were talking about supporting in North America.

I thought it would be a very relevant and telling question actually.  I get the feeling you wouldn't support your daughters right to choose her own religion.


[quote author=Oldgateboatdriver]

One of the cultural concept we, in the "West", consider a basic tenet of our "culture" is freedom of religion, which includes by necessity freedom from religion.
*
But Sharia law does not permit this freedom: Leaving Islam in any way makes you an apostate, and the punishment for apostasy in Sharia is death.
[/quote]

Exactly.


One needs only commit adultery, or be accused of committing adultery under Shaira law for a death sentence, as this father proudly carries out.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=770_1413890712

 

[AbdullahD]

I promised myself to stay out of this discussion, but I do need to comment on two of your points, the ones I highlighted:

    First ~ I agree with both; and

    Second ~ I think you're the one who is missing the point.

I have said many times and over many years in these fora that the problem with the Islamic Crescent is cultural, not religious. I have little knowledge of and no brief for or against Islam ... I simply regard it as wholly inconsequential, on about a par with, say, Shinto or Sikhism but with more adherents. What I have spoken about, at some length, is that culture matters.

My assessment based on 70+ years of living, working, visiting in too many countries to count on five or six continents and several island regions is that people, regardless of race, creed or sex, are all roughly alike: smart and stupid, honest and venal, brave and cowardly in pretty much the same proportions everywhere. So why do some "cultures" dominate others? The answer is in the question: culture matters. In my opinion the cultures of Africa, all of it, the Middle East and West Asia and of the pre Columbian Americas were ~ and still are ~ weak, even retarded, in the sense of lagging "behind" others. My simplest definition of cultural retardation is the notion of people as property. If your culture treats women, for example, as inferior to men, for whatever reason, then it is a retarded culture and it will not succeed in and beyond the 21st century. If your culture condones or, worse, practices slavery then it, too, is retarded, or worse, and, perhaps, should be put out of its misery if it will not reform itself. Those markers are not, in themselves, overly "cultural" they are, in fact, measures of societal "efficiency," efficient societies make the best possible use of all their human resources and that means that men and women must be treated as equally valuable resource elements and we all know, from economics 101, that slavery is an inefficient use of resources. Many, many smart people in the Islamic Crescent and in other regions know that to be true and they are trying to make changes but the cultural weight is too heavy and, in some cases, religion reinforces or, more often, simply conforms to cultural norms.

    (One of the first things Zhou Enlai needed to do in 1949 was to (temporarily) suppress Confucianism while he forced equality on to China... Confucianism adapted and returned,
      accepting, as has most of Christianity and much of Judaism, the basic principle of equality.)

So I am with Brad: the problem is that we need to protect and promote our strong, "right" cultural norms here at home ... and that may mean insisting that people who come here adapt their beliefs to suit our environment. After all, we didn't conscript anyone from Indonesia, Pakistan, Eqypt or Algeria and force them to come to Canada, they all wanted to be here rather than there, for whatever reason, and it is not unreasonable to expect, even demand that they contribute to our ways rather than to try and change them holus-bolus. I do  not believe that Islam, per se, is a problem ... it's just another superstition, one amongst many. I do not believe that Muslims are, inherently, less able or less law abiding or less (or more) anything. I do believe that Muslims in Canada must adapt themselves and Islam in Canada to suit Canada, not try to make Canada fit Saudi Arabian cultural norms. That, in my opinion, is the point.

I agree with you in the most part. My arguement is that the disgusting things  these countries do is cultural not religious. So I must really be failing if that position is not apparent.

Now I further agree that many things in the so called Islamic crescent specifically is very disturbing. But they are not Islamic in nature and the prophetic teachings show that.

There are many Islamic nations and some are very fair and equal to all peoples. But many have work to do. No argument there, it's just when people see a culture and blame the religion i find that incorrect.

Its like blaming Christianity for Nazis or the witch burnings.

Abdullah

 

[jollyjacktar]

You must be joking.  Of course the witch burning etc can be placed fairly at the feet of Christianity.  The Inquisition and Salem trials were under their watch.

 

[AbdullahD]

You must be joking.  Of course the witch burning etc can be placed fairly at the feet of Christianity.  The Inquisition and Salem trials were under their watch.

In my opinion, it can be placed at the feet of so called christians. Not Christianity, ask the majority of christians if witch burning in the way they did it back then is a Christian thing to do and they will say no.

In my view Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all peace loving religions. So when assesing acts done by people claiming to be from these religions. Once must look over their belief systems.

I always found that love out weighed the hate in religious texts, so the wrathful verses must be considered in full context.

But I see your point and understand. I can accept that is what you believe and will remember it god willing in future exchanges.

Abdullah

p.s I am at work, so doing short replys until I can manage the lengthier ones.

 

[jollyjacktar]

You're looking back at events from 300 - 500+ years ago with 21St century eyes, education and morals.  I believe it clearly states in the Bible they were following that they shall not suffer to let a witch live.  I also believe it is covered in Quran as well that witches are a no no. 

Of course we both know, real witches don't exist any more than Santa or Tooth Fairies.  They were not so enlightened as we are today and witchcraft was as real to them as modern medicine is to us.

I'll further say that the Inquisition in particular was an official, sanctioned program of the Catholic Church.  It doesn't get more Christian than that.  Thankfully Christianity has evolved (fundamentalists notwithstanding) from ignorance and intolerance are more understanding, forgiving and loving.  Better Christians if you will.

At the end of the day, regardless of which faith you follow, it is still interpreted by mortals and led by mortals.  As such it is open to abuse, deceit, misuse and mismanagement as the mood takes their leaders or the polar opposite. The proof which can be seen today with the barbarians of Daesh or the current Pope who seems to be trying to correct mistakes of the past.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'm curious to as to what you would do AbdullahD.

My parents made us go to church [Sunday school] until we were around 13 and then we got to choose.......came up with 2 believers and 2 nons.
It never, ever came up again.

If family doesn't top religion/culture then I would not have the time of day and ................well, lets just stop there I shall.

EDIT
PS:  I have no idea if my 2 Daughters go to church or not.

 

[Jarnhamar]

In my view Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all peace loving religions.

That's a very creative view which conveniently ignores all the violent direct quotes about murder, revenge, maiming people and various punishments found in the aforementioned holy books.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

EDIT
PS:  I have no idea if my 2 Daughters go to church or not.

You mean you don't have a male member of the family escort them everywhere they go  ???

Sorry, bad joke but I couldn't resist.  [

 

[AbdullahD]

I'm curious to as to what you would do AbdullahD.

My parents made us go to church [Sunday school] until we were around 13 and then we got to choose.......came up with 2 believers and 2 nons.
It never, ever came up again.

If family doesn't top religion/culture then I would not have the time of day and ................well, lets just stop there I shall.

EDIT
PS:  I have no idea if my 2 Daughters go to church or not.

An interesting read, I have not quite finished reading it all. but it seems to convey a interesting point.

http://amuslimconvertoncemore.blogspot.ca/2010/08/notable-muslims-on-punishment-for.html?m=1

a wiki link just cause lol
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam


http://muslimmatters.org/2014/12/02/apostasy-among-muslims-in-the-united-kingdom/

Abdullah

I have edited

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, lets see, just for a quick start:

Quran (2:217) (4:89) (9:11-12) (9:73-74);
Bukhari (52:260) (83:37) (89:271);
Abu Dawud (4346);
Imam Malik (36.18.15).

The "there is no compulsion in religion..." surah, which is one of the most abused of them all, is an early saying of the prophet, from his beginning in Mecca when he held little to no power and was trying to start to convert people to his revelation. He simply did not carry the power to impose anything then. If you look at the later surah and hadith from after his flight to Medina - when he became much more established and powerful - they are more radical and definitive in their contradiction of that earlier surah. And Muslim know that one concept of Islamic jurisprudence is that the earlier surah and hadith are abrogated by the later ones - thus apostasy's penalty is the later one.

BTW, the very fact that "earlier" revelations have to be "abrogated" by "later" revelations is a sure sign that the whole thing is a human fabrication. But even if it was to be believed that it is the word of god, the very fact that there are contradictions and that  a human must develop a rule to figure out which one to follow is a sure sign that something other than god guides humans in making such determination. And that is exactly what happened to the Jews and Christian: modern interpretations pass over the very nasty bits found in the torah and the bible, which used to be given literal interpretation and application, to retain the more palatable ones as they relate to our modern world's morals. But if it is human's that chose the bits and pieces of the "sacred" texts that are to be skipped and those that are to be applied, then the moral guidance to make such calls cannot come from the sacred text themselves - so they must come from a "current" moral zeitgeist where the interpreter lives.

 

[AbdullahD]

Well, lets see, just for a quick start:

Quran (2:217) (4:89) (9:11-12) (9:73-74);
Bukhari (52:260) (83:37) (89:271);
Abu Dawud (4346);
Imam Malik (36.18.15).

The "there is no compulsion in religion..." surah, which is one of the most abused of them all, is an early saying of the prophet, from his beginning in Mecca when he held little to no power and was trying to start to convert people to his revelation. He simply did not carry the power to impose anything then. If you look at the later surah and hadith from after his flight to Medina - when he became much more established and powerful - they are more radical and definitive in their contradiction of that earlier surah. And Muslim know that one concept of Islamic jurisprudence is that the earlier surah and hadith are abrogated by the later ones - thus apostasy's penalty is the later one.

BTW, the very fact that "earlier" revelations have to be "abrogated" by "later" revelations is a sure sign that the whole thing is a human fabrication. But even if it was to be believed that it is the word of god, the very fact that there are contradictions and that  a human must develop a rule to figure out which one to follow is a sure sign that something other than god guides humans in making such determination. And that is exactly what happened to the Jews and Christian: modern interpretations pass over the very nasty bits found in the torah and the bible, which used to be given literal interpretation and application, to retain the more palatable ones as they relate to our modern world's morals. But if it is human's that chose the bits and pieces of the "sacred" texts that are to be skipped and those that are to be applied, then the moral guidance to make such calls cannot come from the sacred text themselves - so they must come from a "current" moral zeitgeist where the interpreter lives.

Ok, then why does Imam shafi not follow all the teachings of Imam abu hanafi? Why then some of these actions come after hijrah if it was fully and completely abrogated?

in this answer you have your rebuttal. I am to busy.

Abdullah

 

[jollyjacktar]

Abdullah, your rebuttal, to my understanding of, only seems to cement what OGBD stated.  It's all made and managed by mortal men.  Which makes me scratch my head as to who's really in charge of setting policy. The Divine, or multiple individuals as they see fit.

 

[AbdullahD]

Abdullah, your rebuttal, to my understanding of, only seems to cement what OGBD stated.  It's all made and managed by mortal men.  Which makes me scratch my head as to who's really in charge of setting policy. The Divine, or multiple individuals as they see fit.

Dangit, I was here thinking that rebuttal was pure genius

Would it help if I added in, "Please explain why the 4 madhabs exist, if only one interpretation can be accepted?"

If that few questions don't help, then I am going to have to spend some time later today to explain.

Abdullah

p.s The deen is meant to be easy