Political Crossfire Forums

[HomoUniversalis]

Saracen wrote: Oh, you're talking about Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states? With this I can agree with. However, in the Islamic Empires of the past, dhimmitude was much better and much closer to Islamic beliefs than it is now. Moorish Spain saw the construction of Mosques, Cathedrals and Synagogues all over the place. Here's a take on Islamic tolerance and early dhimmitude:

Your article does not talk about constructing new churches. I am aware of the difference between the two forms, but I am talking about equality.

Quote: Yes, I know that this is unfair if dhimmis are supposed to pay land tax when conquered, but this is not entirely a bad thing. Muslims who live there still have to pay a 2.5% tax that is not just for land tax, but is also a religious duty. Moreover, that money goes well-spent: it goes to feeding the needy and building the country's infrastructure and roads and so on.

I'm a libertarian, that money is not well-spent in my view. Should I still pay? Granted, I have to do so under the current government as well, but in this government, the rules (concerning tax at least) are not unchangable/divine. One could after all, derive from these taxes, that taxes are mandatory and that my philosophy of libertarianism is erronous and unislamic, even though muslims could freely practice their beliefs within such a state.

Quote: Also, Islamic conquests were not as bloody as you think they were. This is an interesting take on Arab history, as a side reference.

I do not believe the islamic conquests were bloody at all. Alexander was a lot more cruel. The problem is, would it be the same now? There is a considerable part of the western population that is atheist, and the islam is not very nice to apostates. Perhaps banishment, perhaps exile, but equal treatment?!?

Quote: While you may be correct in a sense, you speak of it as perceptions. For example, Hamas and Osama Bin Laden see their "Jihad" against their foes as a form of retaliation and defense against the enemy. Osama Bin Laden sees his attacks as justified because he is attacking the Western powers for their meddlings in the Middle East. Hamas attacks Israelis because they are sitting on stolen land, and are pretty much otherwise like your IRA.

The comparisons between Hamas and IRA do not hold, as both are too complex. Osama and Hamas are big problems. Why? Because not every muslim might agree with 9/11, but many believe that the west is being hostile against the muslim world. Polls (I don't have a link, I fear) suggest that a 'large' portion of muslims does not fundamentally agree with Osama Bin Laden. That worries me, in combination with perception on attack/defense, lack of equality, apostasy, and such.

Quote: Ok. There have been cases. However, as mentioned by this other Muslim on this board, these cases are relatively few in Saudi Arabia or overall... well, that's what he said. I hope he comes here to confirm that for you.

Though I am not a legal expert, by my knowledge Saudi Arabia does not allow other religions to be practised aside from islam, and non-muslims are not allowed entry to mekka. Further, most foreigners live in a foreign quarter and hardly ever go outside.

pquote]The Koran contains chapters like Al Anfal, which means The Spoils of War. It does not admonish a Muslim to wage war. Also, as evidenced by many Islamic Scholars, the Koran can't be taken verse by verse.[/quote]

Like 9:123? Please note that I do not accept a priori your statement that it can not be referenced verse by verse. Still, I know that it is considered so amongst many scholars, but I do not consider that a valid defense, not as much as "you can't understand the bible until you are a christian follower". I'm trying to evaluate Islam, and look at it whether it can be integrated with western values. It is therefore that I do not discuss the similarities, for I know they are many, but rather the differences. It is for me important to know the degree in which certain verses CAN be interpreted, not how they are interpreted by the majority. For sadly, crimes, wars, et cetera, are not lead by the majority but by a minority, or even one leader with a certain idea.

If the quran possesses texts or verses that can 'easily' be interpreted to mean "kill atheists where you find them", I want to address it, so all the moderate muslims can distance themselves from it. Once you split up a religion in those who are moderate, and who will not stand for silly violence based on religion and creed, and the terrorist minority is exposed, we can start working on a solution.


Quote: In what country, though? Iran? They're ruling by a strict form of Shari'ah. If it was anyone who truly practiced the Shari'a, it was the Caliph Umar Ibn al Khattab. Iran is ruled by Shi'ite Muslims. I'm a Sunnite, so I have nothing to do with them.

Sunnites also recognise the shariah, all five streams.

Quote: Also, the Iranian purges were meant to kill political opponents, not religious opponents. Furthermore, the Shah's purges were deadlier and involved the deaths of more people.

Yet, in what name where they executed, and what did the guards believe in? A stupid example: Hitler hated jews because they didn't like his art. Did the guards at Auschwitz kill people because the jews didn't like Hitler's art? Of course not! I'm not as much concerned with true motivations, as I am with the religious power of various texts.

Quote: Interesting. I've seen this story before. I know firsthand of what is going on in Nigeria, and frankly, I'm sick of what Muslims there are doing. I've seen the case of this Amina Lawal and I believe that the person who slept with her was also put to death. As evidenced by this verse in the Koran:

What do you think about these punishments?

God wrote: [24:2] The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Quote: You'll find similar things in the Bible and Torah, but I'm not so sure on those parts. Thanks for the article though.

Yet they are no longer used, as the bible is humanised. They - christian and jewish followers - do no longer see the bible as being need to be followed to the letter.

Mr U

[Saracen]

HU wrote: Your article does not talk about constructing new churches. I am aware of the difference between the two forms, but I am talking about equality.

Well, if Umar kept the churches up and actually refused to pray in them, I'm sure he allowed construction of churches.

HU wrote: \I'm a libertarian, that money is not well-spent in my view. Should I still pay? Granted, I have to do so under the current government as well, but in this government, the rules (concerning tax at least) are not unchangable/divine. One could after all, derive from these taxes, that taxes are mandatory and that my philosophy of libertarianism is erronous and unislamic, even though muslims could freely practice their beliefs within such a state.

To tell you the truth, Saudi Arabia does not impose that tariff, and neither do most Islamic countries. I don't know about Iran, though. However, I see your philosophy and respect it.

HU wrote: I do not believe the islamic conquests were bloody at all. Alexander was a lot more cruel. The problem is, would it be the same now? There is a considerable part of the western population that is atheist, and the islam is not very nice to apostates. Perhaps banishment, perhaps exile, but equal treatment?!?

Yes, there is equal treatment. If you look at the history link I mentioned to you, every single member of society was tolerated for his beliefs. The problem was that there were relatively small numbers of athiests to draw out an experience from their time under the rule of Muslims. I'm pretty sure they were treated equally.

HU wrote: The comparisons between Hamas and IRA do not hold, as both are too complex. Osama and Hamas are big problems. Why? Because not every muslim might agree with 9/11, but many believe that the west is being hostile against the muslim world. Polls (I don't have a link, I fear) suggest that a 'large' portion of muslims does not fundamentally agree with Osama Bin Laden. That worries me, in combination with perception on attack/defense, lack of equality, apostasy, and such.

Rest assured, most Muslims are moderates, and those who support Bin Laden support him politically. I don't support the bastard at all. What's your take on the Palestine-Israel conflict as well as the Iraq war?

HU wrote: Though I am not a legal expert, by my knowledge Saudi Arabia does not allow other religions to be practised aside from islam, and non-muslims are not allowed entry to mekka. Further, most foreigners live in a foreign quarter and hardly ever go outside.

While you are correct on the first points, non-Muslims can still practice their religion inside their homes, and even more go outside and I find a good number in shopping malls.

HU wrote: Like 9:123? Please note that I do not accept a priori your statement that it can not be referenced verse by verse. Still, I know that it is considered so amongst many scholars, but I do not consider that a valid defense, not as much as "you can't understand the bible until you are a christian follower". I'm trying to evaluate Islam, and look at it whether it can be integrated with western values. It is therefore that I do not discuss the similarities, for I know they are many, but rather the differences. It is for me important to know the degree in which certain verses CAN be interpreted, not how they are interpreted by the majority. For sadly, crimes, wars, et cetera, are not lead by the majority but by a minority, or even one leader with a certain idea.

If the quran possesses texts or verses that can 'easily' be interpreted to mean "kill atheists where you find them", I want to address it, so all the moderate muslims can distance themselves from it. Once you split up a religion in those who are moderate, and who will not stand for silly violence based on religion and creed, and the terrorist minority is exposed, we can start working on a solution.

I'll give you the last statement. However, verse 9:5 is taken into historical context at the time when the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was being persecuted by the Pagans. This verse came down as a revelation to tell him to fight back against the Pagans wherever he finds them, and ambush them for all the horrors that the Pagans inflicted upon the Muslims. As for compatibility between the West and Islam, I found this website to be helpful.

HU wrote: Sunnites also recognise the shariah, all five streams.

Those are Mazahib al Sunnah you're probably thinking of, not Sharia.

HU wrote: Yet, in what name where they executed, and what did the guards believe in? A stupid example: Hitler hated jews because they didn't like his art. Did the guards at Auschwitz kill people because the jews didn't like Hitler's art? Of course not! I'm not as much concerned with true motivations, as I am with the religious power of various texts.

Remember again that a criminal as a criminal regardless of his faith.

HU wrote: What do you think about these punishments?

Honestly, I don't think that they're right as an individual, but it is one of the things I can't question in my own religion. However, in any case of crime, should one repent or plea, mercy will be granted.

HU wrote: Yet they are no longer used, as the bible is humanised. They - christian and jewish followers - do no longer see the bible as being need to be followed to the letter.

Most Muslims don't follow the Koran to the letter either, but I find the Koran more humanized... IMHO.

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: Rest assured, most Muslims are moderates, and those who support Bin Laden support him politically.

Politically? As in anti-jewish? How can one fit this into the idea of equality in islam. Remember, that merely because ottoman rules were friendly and did not uphold the shariah (apparanently) does not mean that it rules exist, and that they might be excercised in our time.

Quote: I don't support the bastard at all. What's your take on the Palestine-Israel conflict as well as the Iraq war?

The Palestine-Israel conflict? I'm pragmatic about it, as ideology in this case is useless. All claims to that land are made on a biblical basis, and are all equally valid or nonsensical. The current generations living there have done so for a long time, so extraction, of either palestine or israel on an involuntary basis is not.. practical. Perhaps the German model is one of considering, where the nation is 'split in two', those cities religiously important to both beliefs are split up or made neutral ground, and they recognise each others existence. I'm not saying build another berlin wall, I'm saying start finding a solution on how to live toghether. The current war will eventually turn out to be financially impossible. The US is not the financial powerhouse it was once (as it is in a lot of debt), and Europe does not support the issue enough to cough up.
Still, I do not consider myself an expert on the issue, and do not wish to be.

Regarding Iraq, the beginning of this war happened in a time where my ideology was changing rapidly, and thus it is hard to say what I think about it. Now; I support president Bush in his invasion, and ensure peace in the Iraqi region. The Netherlands supported Bush in his choice, and this I appreciate. I do not believe that Hussein was a leader that had any benefit to his people. The Netherlands went to that war, because of that reason, to rmeove Hussein, not WMD's.
The 'Bush lied' argument is false, in my opinion, because it talks about the reason, not about the actual war. I don't agree with Bush's reason, or at least, the one he said. I agree with the removal of dictators and other regimes that do not allow their people to make decisions.
I believe that as a freedomloving nation, we have an obligation to help other people obtain the choice whether they want to live in freedom or not.
It is always about presenting a choice. If the people of Iraq call out, when we have fixed the country, we want our Hussein back, give him back. But allow everyone who yells no to exist in a free and democratic country. I say, give a choice. I'm not forcing values here, I'm presenting a choice.

This is, I believe the fundamental error in the thinking of Osama Bin Laden et alii, they see the oppresive west with corrupt values, but all it has been doing in Iraq is give people the choice whether or not they want democracy or theocracy (even though Hussein's Iraq hardly a theocracy). I don't support a war on oil, but anyone making such a statement has to prove it first.
Finally, I believe in the defense of my own nation. There are people out there (we have so noticed) that hate our society, and wish to destroy it. We should not tolerate weapons of mass destruction in the hands of such people. That said, it's hard to swallow that the US (the only country, after all, to have used them for offensive purposes) has them. Yet, perhaps it is good that one nation takes up a certain responsibility, even when it is considered 'less than beautiful'.

-------------

You say, more humanised then the other religions. I say, less humanised then the teachings of Mahatmi Gandhi. Personally, I don't care what religion you preach, or hold. However, Islam is not merely a religion. It is a way of life, a part of a culture. I am wondering, is it possible for islam to integrate into western society, without endangering, in the long run, the 'liberal' (excuse the bad wording; 'according to the teachings of freedom') principles on which it is founding? Can the individual practicing islam be seperated from islamism, the political ideology?

If so, how? If so, how do we explain all those cases where this is not the case. Where people who are not muslims are oppressed?

Mr U

[Saracen]

HU wrote: You say, more humanised then the other religions. I say, less humanised then the teachings of Mahatmi Gandhi. Personally, I don't care what religion you preach, or hold. However, Islam is not merely a religion. It is a way of life, a part of a culture. I am wondering, is it possible for islam to integrate into western society, without endangering, in the long run, the 'liberal' (excuse the bad wording; 'according to the teachings of freedom') principles on which it is founding? Can the individual practicing islam be seperated from islamism, the political ideology?

It is definitely possible. This site explains why. Of course, integration doesn't mean dissolving into what you would like to call a cultural melting pot. It would mean tolerance and respect above all else while at the same time adhering to your traditions. I've been to the West many times before, so it's nothing new to me and I've integrated quite well. :-D
As for the radical political ideology, of course, you can separate yourself from it!

[HomoUniversalis]

Saracen wrote: It is definitely possible. This site explains why. Of course, integration doesn't mean dissolving into what you would like to call a cultural melting pot. It would mean tolerance and respect above all else while at the same time adhering to your traditions. I've been to the West many times before, so it's nothing new to me and I've integrated quite well. :-D
As for the radical political ideology, of course, you can separate yourself from it!

I know many muslims who have integrated well, yet it is unknown to me in what degree they hold the implementation of the shariah higher than the principles of the 'local' democracy.

http://www.minaret.org/sullivan-fsi.pdf

Here is pointed to the US. Suicide bombers react to the actions of the west, mainly to the US.

Let me ask one question. "Can you explain to me why I should allow a dictatorship of Iran to gain possession of nuclear weapons, as a means of reducing terrorist attacks (through showing muslims the autonomy and sovereignity of their homeland)?"

Mr U

[Saracen]

HU wrote: Let me ask one question. "Can you explain to me why I should allow a dictatorship of Iran to gain possession of nuclear weapons, as a means of reducing terrorist attacks (through showing muslims the autonomy and sovereignity of their homeland)?"

Nuclear weapons are deterrents. Aren't they?

[HomoUniversalis]

Saracen wrote: Nuclear weapons are deterrents. Aren't they?

No, because a deterrent implies a resolve to use them. Besides, if I use the Spanish Flu virus as a deterrent for people entering my private property, what does that say about the spanish flu? Nothing of course. The resolve and nature of 'what is deterred' is doubtless important, but so is the nature of the weapon. A Nuclear weapon by nature is not one of self-defense, one against invasion.

That said, we know Iran's leadership has a strong will to remove israel from the face of the planet. Do we wish to supply them the capability?

Mr U

[Saracen]

HU wrote: That said, we know Iran's leadership has a strong will to remove israel from the face of the planet. Do we wish to supply them the capability?

If they nuke the Israelis, they will also kill Palestinians. Remember: M.A.D. is not a favorable outcome in anyone's book.

[HomoUniversalis]

Saracen wrote: Remember: M.A.D. is not a favorable outcome in anyone's book.

Of what fact do you wish to remind me? I look at Iran and see a rich history of religious maniacs. Do these people believe in the last day? Do I believe believe that these people, by doing what they believe they were put here to do, initiate that day, will be stopped by reason, by the ideal of preservation of human or animal life? No. I do not underestimate the mania of the religious man.

Mr U

[Saracen]

HomoUniversalis wrote: Saracen wrote: Remember: M.A.D. is not a favorable outcome in anyone's book.

Of what fact do you wish to remind me? I look at Iran and see a rich history of religious maniacs. Do these people believe in the last day? Do I believe believe that these people, by doing what they believe they were put here to do, initiate that day, will be stopped by reason, by the ideal of preservation of human or animal life? No. I do not underestimate the mania of the religious man.

Mr U

You are correct, but I view Ahmadinejad as the Bush of the Arab world. Both are insane.