Thread: Muslims against Sharia

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Islam cannot reform, or, have a renaissance. Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God. End of story. Shias and Sunnis have no divisions when it comes to the Koran.

So do many Christians sb. I don't see how that affects things.
In Judaism, Christianity and Islam you have fundamentalists, reform movements and varying degrees of orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by keda

Sure not by all muslims, though it is easy to be a stickler and never accept anything that's not a firmly established, undeniable and irrevocable trait of every member of a faith or following, in the case of Muslims the Koran is the literal word of God passed to man by Muhamut - by the vast majority of those pulling the shots. So much happier and safer the future for Humankind would be if this wasn't the case!

Thanks, this topic, for a change, is not about the majority of evil, barbarian hordes commonly known as "Muslims", though.
See OP.

Originally Posted by stroller

Is the much 'younger' Islam due to be reformed from within, by enlightened Muslims who've been exposed to the diversity of believes and life-styles in the modern world?

Reform always comes from the young. At this time there is no single head of Islam so each individual has to decide how they will interpret and practice the religion. For the people living in nations with moderate Islamic societies, the young voices will be heard and eventually the young will be the next generation of leaders so the move to further moderation in those nations will continue.

I do not believe, the Islamic youth of these moderate nations will have much impact on hard core fundamentalist nations in the Middle East. If Islam had a single leader such as the Pope is to Catholicism, there may be hope in moving the entire religion toward moderation. Unfortunately, fragmentation and disunity prevail throughout the religion. Likelihood of change in the countries that need change the most is very small!

"All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting tthings straight, for disciplining in Righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

- 2 Timothy 3:16, 17

Not so different, is it? And the basis for many an orthodox Christians view of the Bible- Pentecostals, the original Protestant reformation, Jehovahs Witnesses, Quakers, several churches. Like the Moslems, the fundamentalist Christian doctrine is there should be no seperation of Church and State, i.e. a theocracy.

Words are words, but the devil is in the detail- interpretation. There are plenty of moderate Moslems around, plenty of highly accomplished and educated Moslems. Plenty of secular Moslems too. Plenty of secular Moslem states too for that matter. Non secular Moslem states- Saudi, Iran, Afghanistan. Any more?

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Education (and not madrasa style either) instead of rhetoric. There in lies the real rub.. The fanatics and even admittedly, many Arab leaders don't want their followers to be educated, it undermines their rhetoric and renders them impotent..

Yep, definitely agree there.

Originally Posted by Driventowin

I'd like to know what verse in the Koran justifies AQ to use mentally disabled women to blow people up as was just done in Iraq?? Maybe someone can answer that burning question for me??

None. Just nasty people misconstruing words to suit their own agendas, as has happened throughout history. Religion is so often used as the medium of bigotry and hate- the Moslems sure do not have a monopoly on that.

Originally Posted by Driventowin

I hear this all the time and I always find myself asking the same question...So AK-47's, bombs, computers to post rhetoric, equipment/facilities to train and arm terrorists, etc. etc. etc. are all free??

What kind of real progress do you suppose these supplies and finances could make if they were devoted towards more peaceful purposes??

Say computers for schools instead of fanatical rhetoric or posting of be headings.

Food instead of AK-47's

Fuel instead of bombs

That's rather simplistic. You make it sound as if beheading videos are shown in schools as a matter of education, and AK-47s handed out in the streets.
It is not a question of replacing one with the other, these are different financial sources with different target groups.
But a people with a wider education, self-worth and economic opportunities is less likely to fall prey to extremist rhetoric - or so the theory.

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Clearly education is not the end all, be all, either, but the numbers would drop measurably if education was premium..

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Driventowin

I'd like to know what verse in the Koran justifies AQ to use mentally disabled women to blow people up as was just done in Iraq?? Maybe someone can answer that burning question for me??

I suspect this is the wrong place to ask, try one of the Islamist forums.

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Before all of this began on 9/11 Osama Bin Laden was a multimillionaire AKA a potential Mercedes owner many times over. But what did he choose to do with his money? Squander it on destruction, misery and hatred when he could have made a much more positive legacy for himself, his religion and influence in the world ala Martin Luther King for example... Instead now untold millions of his money is tied up in banks around the world, making the bankers rich not doing a damn thing positive for any Muslims..

I'd say "all this" began much earlier, and it's a useless speculation - AQ are what they are.

But this thread is about one example of a positive initiative, is it a good idea with potential?

^Bump

Originally Posted by Sabang

None. Just nasty people misconstruing words to suit their own agendas, as has happened throughout history. Religion is so often used as the medium of bigotry and hate- the Moslems sure do not have a monopoly on that.

There's no question, just another justification and reasoning for my own reluctance to be "religious"...

I'd like to know what verse in the Koran justifies AQ to use mentally disabled women to blow people up as was just done in Iraq?? Maybe someone can answer that burning question for me??

is it a good idea with potential?

If you insist, but just answering this makes for a very short thread though without very much exchange of points of view or ideas..But I guess that suits your purposes...You probably should have just presented it as a poll then..

The short answer is.....Maybe...

Originally Posted by Driventowin

If you insist, but just answering this makes for a very short thread though without very much exchange of points of view or ideas..

If everyone limits themselves to a single word answer, it would be.
But I am sure we can exchange points of view within the subject matter without diverting the focus to AQ and militant Islam - there are other threads for this.

I posted this in the religion/philosophy section to attract maybe a different perspective on the positive potential of Islam.

^Well unlike you, I will take the adult approach and the high road and show some respect for the topic and NOT sabotage your thread mercilessly into MKP like you ultimately do to nearly every one you post on..

My points however are relevant to the OP. Just because your point of view is from the ground up which blinds you to new thought processes that are not completely in line with your own does not invalidate my observations..

Originally Posted by Driventowin

Well unlike you, I will take the adult approach and the high road and show some respect for the topic and NOT sabotage your thread mercilessly into MKP like you ultimately do to nearly every one you post on..

Yes, this comment is very "adult", thank you.

...and bye.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Islam cannot reform, or, have a renaissance. Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God. End of story. Shias and Sunnis have no divisions when it comes to the Koran.

So do many Christians sb. I don't see how that affects things.
In Judaism, Christianity and Islam you have fundamentalists, reform movements and varying degrees of orthodoxy.

I think he was talking about Islam the religion, rather than individuals. Sure there are radical Jews and Xtians and I dare say if you look deep enough you may even find some intrinsically evil Zoroastrians, but the major religions can and have toned down the join us or die teachings of the past. We can only learn from the past, not live in it.

As to Shia and Sunni being united on the Koran, sounds great on paper but should the yearned for Caliphate ever become a reality I suggest they'd turn on each other and only one would be left standing.

Any moslem that is "against" Sharia law is argueably guilty of apostasy (to other moslems) and the penalty for that is death.

I'm afraid that moslems that want to reform their religion so that it fits with the times are a very small minority. Don't think they will make many converts from their more main-stream brothers, either.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by keda

Sure not by all muslims, though it is easy to be a stickler and never accept anything that's not a firmly established, undeniable and irrevocable trait of every member of a faith or following, in the case of Muslims the Koran is the literal word of God passed to man by Muhamut - by the vast majority of those pulling the shots. So much happier and safer the future for Humankind would be if this wasn't the case!

Thanks, this topic, for a change, is not about the majority of evil, barbarian hordes commonly known as "Muslims", though.
See OP.

On the contrary, the thread title, which you wrote, remarks on Islam vs Islamic Law, and the OP starts by comparing the Xtian 'reformation' against what your link offers or questions as the potential beginnings of an Islamic 'reformation'.

There is nothing remarkable about an OP naturally leading to different relevant angles on the same topic, especially one as broad as this.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Any moslem that is "against" Sharia law is argueably guilty of apostasy (to other moslems) and the penalty for that is death. I'm afraid that moslems that want to reform their religion so that it fits with the times are a very small minority. Don't think they will make many converts from their more main-stream brothers, either.

I agree in general but there is still the issue of interpretation and practice. The Taliban interpretation is a far cry from that practiced in Malaysia and Indonesia for example. Saudi Arabia is far more severe than the much maligned evil ones in Iran also.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

I'm afraid that moslems that want to reform their religion so that it fits with the times are a very small minority. Don't think they will make many converts from their more main-stream brothers, either.

So, what do you make of all the "main-stream brothers" who live in countries with a secular constitution and follow the non-Sharia laws of these nations?
Looks like there is already a compromise in place for the majority of Muslims. The organisation linked to in the OP is radical itself, which is to be expected from activism, but I would not dismiss the aims as unattainable outright.

Originally Posted by keda

There is nothing remarkable about an OP naturally leading to different relevant angles on the same topic, especially one as broad as this.

Yes, you are right, I was just concerned about keeping focus.

Originally Posted by keda

There have been many excellent, very relevant questions and arguments in this short thread against the unlikelihood of an Islamic 'reformation', though some respondents appear instinctively to devalue these by pointing away, mostly to Xtianity and or the long past.

There are pro and con arguments, you know? Christianity is relevant in that some insist Islam is intrinsically different in promoting a theocracy - not everyone agrees.
But we don't need to unroll the accounts of cruelty in the crusades, and beheadings and which verse justifies "mentally disabled women" to blow things up in Iraq are equally beyond the scope of this topic.

Originally Posted by keda

Fact is, if AQ and radical Islam do NOT have a powerful bearing on the subject matter, then the reformation becomes a formality and in fact one might be forgiven for believing there is no need for an Islamic reformation.

Ok, that's your opinion on the subject. Fire away on how AQ is preventing a reformation or made it necessary in the first place.

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Driventowin

If you insist, but just answering this makes for a very short thread though without very much exchange of points of view or ideas..

If everyone limits themselves to a single word answer, it would be.
But I am sure we can exchange points of view within the subject matter without diverting the focus to AQ and militant Islam - there are other threads for this.

I posted this in the religion/philosophy section to attract maybe a different perspective on the positive potential of Islam.

I beg to differ. Unless your OP lays out clear guidelines on relevance and what may or may not be discussed, which defeats the object of discussion, you surely must expect the thread to naturally progress through several angles.

There have been many excellent, very relevant questions and arguments in this short thread against the likelihood of an Islamic 'reformation', though some respondents appear instinctively to devalue these by pointing away, mostly to Xtianity and or the long past. Fact is, if AQ and radical Islam do NOT have a powerful bearing on the subject matter, then the reformation becomes a formality and in fact one might be forgiven for believing there is no need for an Islamic reformation.

No need to rescue the hostages if the plane hasn't been hijacked, is there?

Excellent points!! Well stated!! Though I'm sure Stoller will find a petty little way to twist it out of context and claim it isn't relevent to this topic..

Originally Posted by stroller

...Fire away on how AQ is preventing a reformation or made it necessary in the first place.

Precisely, and not only are you distorting the argument in order to adopt ridicule as your preferred defence, but in doing so you also abandon fairness and common sense, considering the broad scope of this thread and that you were the OP.

It is intellectual dishonesty to base your response to valid contributions skeptical of the forlorn ideal of much needed Islamic reform by a tiny minority prepared among other serious obstacles to risk apostasy for themselves and possibly near ones, by assuming the skeptic opinions are banked on the existence of AQ, simply because AQ was mentioned.

Correct me if wrong but while AQ does have a bearing on the subject, it is just one small part of a radical Islam that existed long before the conception of ObL, AQ and the Taliban. It is not AQ that the would-be Islamic 'reformers' need to fear or dare one suggest debate with, with a view to persuading them of the need for reform, but the very fabric of Islam that has been hijacked by its powerful and unforgiving institutions, which I'm sure I do not need to mention but will, survive and grow ever more powerful in line with increasingly radical rhetoric and actions.

You started this thread, and if you find yourself at odds with fair and relevant and very much on topic points made during the course of the discussion, much better for all if you resist the temptation to simply brush aside whatever does not snuggle up to your preferred reasoning.

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by stroller

...Fire away on how AQ is preventing a reformation or made it necessary in the first place.

Precisely, and not only are you distorting the argument in order to adopt ridicule as your preferred defence, but in doing so you also abandon fairness and common sense, considering the broad scope of this thread and that you were the OP.

It is intellectual dishonesty to base your response to valid contributions skeptical of the forlorn ideal of much needed Islamic reform by a tiny minority prepared among other serious obstacles to risk apostasy for themselves and possibly near ones, by assuming the skeptic opinions are banked on the existence of AQ, simply because AQ was mentioned.

Correct me if wrong but while AQ does have a bearing on the subject, it is just one small part of a radical Islam that existed long before the conception of ObL, AQ and the Taliban. It is not AQ that the would-be Islamic 'reformers' need to fear or dare one suggest debate with, with a view to persuading them of the need for reform, but the very fabric of Islam that has been hijacked by its powerful and unforgiving institutions, which I'm sure I do not need to mention but will, survive and grow ever more powerful in line with increasingly radical rhetoric and actions.

You started this thread, and if you find yourself at odds with fair and relevant and very much on topic points made during the course of the discussion, much better for all if you resist the temptation to simply brush aside whatever does not snuggle up to your preferred reasoning.

I can't green you again, out of ammo...I hope this will do!!! Oooopss!! Sorry got a little too over enthusiastic....

Originally Posted by keda

Precisely, and not only are you distorting the argument in order to adopt ridicule as your preferred defence, but in doing so you also abandon fairness and common sense, considering the broad scope of this thread and that you were the OP.
...

What are you on about dude?
Slowly, in English, please.

Originally Posted by keda

Correct me if wrong but while AQ does have a bearing on the subject, it is just one small part of a radical Islam that existed long before the conception of ObL, AQ and the Taliban. It is not AQ that the would-be Islamic 'reformers' need to fear or dare one suggest debate with, with a view to persuading them of the need for reform, but the very fabric of Islam that has been hijacked by its powerful and unforgiving institutions, which I'm sure I do not need to mention but will, survive and grow ever more powerful in line with increasingly radical rhetoric and actions.

I do not share your pessimistic views, concerning the last bit.

Originally Posted by keda

You started this thread, and if you find yourself at odds with fair and relevant and very much on topic points made during the course of the discussion, much better for all if you resist the temptation to simply brush aside whatever does not snuggle up to your preferred reasoning.

Now this does not need a translation.
Can you accept the concept that there are pros and cons for any idea? Got naught to do with "snuggle up" ().
Can you respond to my arguments without hyperbole or personal, attacks?
Please do.