Religion
Related: About this forumAn Atheist Muslim's Perspective on the 'Root Causes' of Islamist Jihadism...
... and the Politics of Islamophobia
...extremism in any ideology isn't a distortion of that ideology. It is an informed, steadfast adherence to its fundamentals, hence the term "fundamentalism."...
To us {atheists}, the fight against religious ideology isn't a struggle against human rights but a struggle for them. Human beings have rights and are entitled to respect. Books and beliefs don't and aren't.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/an-atheist-muslims-perspective-on-the-root-causes-of-islamist-jihadism-and-the-politics-of-islamophobia_b_3159286.html
So much said so well in this article that was hard to narrow down a good selection of brief highlights.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Sad that the people who need to the most, won't.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)packed with cogent points made with a minimum of fuss.
rug
(82,333 posts)A terrorist committing terror in the name of Islam is a terrorist committing an act of terror. Period. An invocation of Islam as a reason does not make it so.
Citing two hundred year old words of a Numidian despot does little to explain the socioeconmic situation prevaling today.
Asserting the poison is contained in scriptural texts does not explain why we're not all dead after these hundreds of years.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..that sounds like special pleading to me. we only discount a proclaimed motive for a criminal act.. including terrorism.. when that motive is religious. that was the author's point which you have attempted to skirt by deflecting onto a point taken out of context.
iow, you built a strawman and knocked it down.
rug
(82,333 posts)Objectively, simply announcing a purpose doesn't make it so.
Invading Iraq to spread democracy is just one example.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..even if you suspected it wasn't sincere. you would have us assume a priori that their stated motive is *not* sincere.. but it is extremely hard for me to take that leap of faith. i have yet to see an argument for why a would-be jihadist's religious convictions are any less sincere than the kumbaya crowd's.
rug
(82,333 posts)
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)Religious motives cannot be denied. It is there for all to see. It is just as troublesome to deny the religious role in terrorist attacks such as in the attacks on 911 and the Boston Marathon as ignoring the non-religious reasons. All facts need to be considered. We all know that the causes don't stop at non-religious reasons and neither do they stop at religious reasons.
However, there is a need to distinguish the Islam of the radical Muslim with the Islam of the Muslim who do not share the radical ideology. Especially when you have the FOX News of the world trying to smear Muslims as all being all the same and thus promoting the "all mosques need surveillance" types of ideas if not worse things. So the "Real Islam vs. Extreme Islam" defense is more of a reaction to this smear than a denial that religious texts have poisonous passages. At least as I see it.
In short, I don't think the defense of Islam when there is a terrorist attack in the name of the religion is a "religion can do no wrong" appeal but a reaction to distinguish (and protect) the Muslims who follow the religion that has evolved through the years (which ignores the poisonous text) versus the radical Muslims who use the poisonous text to incite violence.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..but 'we' must *continue* to be clear on this point.. it's one thing to criticize religious belief and quite another to target believers just because they believe. once they *act* on those beliefs in the public sphere, however.. then yeh they too may legitimately become targets for criticism. pat robertson. mother theresa.. of course, osama bin laden became a target for *more* than mere criticism.
once one has made that distinction clear, however, and as long as one doesn't prove oneself a liar.. it should be the end of the subject.
instead, it inevitably becomes the topic of conversation.. it's such a convenient way to shield religion from criticism. simply attack it's critics as being 'bigoted'.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)Regardless where it comes from.
Especially if the critic does not agree with the idea or belief and feels compelled to question it. However, the critic should be open to criticism as well. In the same way that religious claims and actions are fair game to questioning and criticism, the claims from the critics are fair game as well.
Unfortunately, the critics of Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al. usually offer ad hominem attacks instead of focusing on the opinions and ideas. So, even when a specific criticism may have a valid point, the ad hominem attacks become the topic of conversation. Harris should be defending his claims about Islam and Muslims and not defending charges of racism. Calling Harris a racist is a stretch and bullshit. But I think it is fair to question his views on Islam, the Middle East, torture, and profiling because it is relevant to the topic.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)understanding of Islam. Their understanding of Islam enables them to justify their acts. Their understanding of Islam enables them to link themselves with Islam.
rug
(82,333 posts)Makes it much easier for your world view.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)There is no final authority within Islam that can judge what is and isn't Islam.
rug
(82,333 posts)Who are you to say the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are neither terosrists nor support terror don't know what Islam is?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)wouldn't be different sects. Within sects there might be large agreement as to what constitutes Islam but between them the gulf is large. Are you telling me that Ismali Muslims see eye to eye with Salafi?
rug
(82,333 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)it's based on the belief in an imaginary deity, and makes un-falsifiable claims like any other metaphysical religion. the only difference is in how the two people *interpret* these scriptures. the argument can be made that fundies' more literal interpretation is closer to that of the authors' agenda.
rug
(82,333 posts)That holds true for the major religions. Each has revelation, a given, a datum from which the other beliefs flow.
As to the body of your post, you're reciting a half dozen talking points.
The title raises a much more interesting subject.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..not design. these are the points which believers steadfastly refuse to honestly discuss. since they are repeatedly deflected, i reiterate.
rug
(82,333 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..and yet you don't know me at all. perhaps you ought to consider that mine might be a genuine point of view, and not just a barb. so far you've digressed the topic and worked to dismiss it. when that was ineffective, you snarked in my direction.
this, also, is a pattern.
rug
(82,333 posts)Two others very easily come to mind.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)am i not doing it right? 
sorry.. you know i can never keep a good snarkfest subthread going more than a few posts deep. my last attempt with hrmjustin turned into a mutual admiration society meeting.
rug
(82,333 posts)No, Philp, I as a rule enjoy our conversations.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)they are heterogeneous and often conflicting. it was the history of european *sectarian* religious wars, not war between christianity and islam or heretics or witches.. that motivated the u.s. founders to establish the wall of separation.
religious strife is singled out in the constitution, and religious belief gets special treatment, precisely in the hopes of avoiding the violence that inevitably arises because religions are *internally inconsistent*
dimbear
(6,271 posts)It's like golf that way. A way to burn an occasional Sunday--or an obsession? You choose.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)How can one be an atheist Muslim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim
Silent3
(15,190 posts)...you'd see that he's an ex-Muslim. The author probably considers himself "culturally Muslim" in much the same sense Richard Dawkins professes to be "culturally Christian".
muxin
(98 posts)He's implying that the terrorists or so called extremists are those who truly follow the teachings of Islam
Then he wrote..
Those "extremists" have their own idiotic (if I may say so) interpretation about Islam in the first place, and they took this interpretation to the extreme level thus resulting in what we know as terrorism.
So in this case I can also call myself and many other muslims around the world who disagree with violent acts as extremists based on our interpretation of Islam.
It's much like what was stated by Sam Harris
What gave him the right to judge which are the actual teachings of Islam and which are not? So if I don't strap a bomb on my body and blow my self along with many innocent people that means I'm not a true muslim? Because I've spent more than 25 years learning about Islam and never found any encouragement for such act.
I just think that it's somewhat pathetic that these two persons - Ali A. Rizvi and Sam Harris - who supposed to be smart individuals have the same interpretation about Islam with a bunch of idiot lunatics who live in caves in Afghanistan.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)The ability to read the Koran. The followers of the Abrahamic faiths largely ignore their own beliefs to stay relevant in the modern world.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..they just pick different cherries.
which were the 'right' cherries? the 'orthodox' ones according so *some*.. but what does that even mean?
religion poisons everything.
muxin
(98 posts)I never "pick cherries" or whatever term you use for this, because that means I would have to accept some parts and deny some other parts, me and many others don't deny any part in the teaching. If we don't practice the religion the exact same way that's because we have different understandings not because we pick different cherries, which is quite normal, not only in religions, people are debating all the time about the same scientific theories for many years.
In my opinion it's those who decide to pick cherries and refuse or reluctant to understand the teaching in whole are the ones that are likely becoming suicide bombers or publishing unfounded critics. The quote of the verse in the Quran presented at the very beginning of the article is an excellent example
The writer said it's quoted from Thomas Jefferson, if it's true (I haven't done a research) then it's likely that Mr.Jefferson just mentioned some points of what he heard, because that's more like parts of a few different verses combined together. That's what I call picking different cherries.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)Do you obey the laws of the prophets or do you wear blended fabrics? That is cherry picking. Do you believe women should Be subservient? There is a stack of passages that only the most Fundy of fun dies obey. All that is cherry picking. That's just what it is.
muxin
(98 posts)Perhaps you mean prophet not prophets? If you mean I follow everything thought by prophet Muhammad then the answer is yes, and what's with blended fabrics anyway? men only not allowed to wear silk and I follow it. I don't really like the word "subservient" that's giving the wrong impression, but yes, I do believe a woman should obey her husband but with limitations and certain conditions, the Quran and Hadith are giving clear information about these limits and conditions.
Nope, actually the fundies cherry pick those passages and use them to justify their acts. Because I don't cherry pick I can see the real context of these so called "terror" passages.
Here's one of the most famous verses after 911
That's cherry picking, because there are verses before and after that to explain its context
These verse were revealed at a time when Muslims of Madinah were under constant attack from the Makkans, so it only applies under war situation, and from the first sentence you can see that this is a defensive act from "those who fight you". So yes I obey ALL the passages in whole - not partially/cherry picking like the fundies.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..that like 99% of believers on DU, you were christian. i was wrong.
after that, however, you just go on to claim to be able to 'correctly' interpret the koran.
koran.. bible.. upanishads.. rig vedas.. the grimoir of lady sheba.. dianetics.. the book of mormon..
each of them lays out ethics which are profoundly out of sync with the modern progressive movement. each of them is written down and kept unchanging, so they will *always* say the same damnable and immoral things. certainly the faiths 'of the book' can only be made compatible with equal rights and equal treatment for *all* by re-interpreting them to mean things they *did not originally mean*.
each of them. the koran is no exception.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If someone says "Oh my God", do you immediately kill them?
Have you ever eaten shrimp?
Do you have any cotton/poly blend clothing?
You cherry pick.
Isn't that actually in the bible and not the Quran?
What? Seriously? where in the Quran or Hadith said so? can you show me?
ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME???? Yes, I eat tons of shrimp in my life, you think muslims don't allowed to eat shrimp?? Please.. please show me the proof of prohibition
Silk, you meant silk, no I don't wear silk
Are you lost or something?? Everything you said don't make sense
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)i did.. and realized a minute later i was wrong. that said, i'm willing to wager there's a line or two in the koran that most modern and moderate muslims would want to distance themselves from.
muxin
(98 posts)From what I see through our whole discussion I think there's only one issue that we can't agree on
While I think they don't distance themselves, they simply have different understanding/interpretations
As for the critics I think we both agree that all religions should be open to it, not only between a believer and non believer but also between different groups in the religion itself, and the critics should also be open to critics and should be based on a study, not just assumption and prejudice.
I guess that sums it all.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)are you saying that violent extremist muslim.. jihadists.. do in fact just have a 'different understand/interpretation' of the koran and islam?
i was saying that modern and moderate muslims want to distance themselves from the most radical and violent members of their faith. do you really disagree with this?
muxin
(98 posts)You said modern and moderate muslims distance themselves from one or two line in the Quran, I said no, we don't distance ourselves from anything written there, we accept the whole thing, we just have different interpretation with those violent extremists, like the example I gave you earlier.
But if you say
Then yes, we want to distance ourselves from them, and vice versa actualy. For the extremists moderate muslims like me are enemies.
muxin
(98 posts)We never know because he never actually published a thorough research on Islamic teachings to come up with such conclusion. Any third grader kid has the ability to read the Quran but are they proficient enough to make a judgement?
I'm not blaming his critics or any critic against religions but at least give a fair argument and logical reasons based on a study. If not, It's like someone saying "this is right, this is wrong, I don't want to give you the reasons why, I just know it".
I don't know about Judaism and Christian, but for me I don't feel like I have to ignore my beliefs to stay relevant in the modern world.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)"Ignoring beliefs" but (perhaps) "ignoring the scripture" that can be used to incite violence or ignore something in scripture that is embarrassing to the religious. I don't know much about the Koran to comment on Islam. But the Hebrew Scriptures have some poisonous passages that don't live up to the moral teachings of the religion (as is today). But that is largely because the religion is barely (if at all) biblical after Jews lived under different societies for years and years adapting the external environment to the more recent bodies of work that Jews use as law. So there are Muslim, Christian, Zoroastrian, etc. influences in Judaism that is not found in scripture. But they are part of Judaism.
Look at democracy, for example. The Torah does not teach democracy but Jews (for the most part) believe in democracy. So there is more to a religion that evolves through the years than scripture.
But I prefer to choose "understanding the scripture properly" rather than "ignoring the scripture" because after all the scripture is a vital part part of the belief.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..but who decides what the correct interpretation is?
It's the no true Scotsman fallacy once again.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..the same texts, only *more* literally?
since 'god' can't talk, or directly intervene in nature at all, to communicate what 'his' interpretation is, i can only assume you have no answer that isn't really just *wishful thinking*.
muxin
(98 posts)So I believe God has the most knowledge, therefore the FINAL decision of which is right or wrong should be in God's hand. We could only try to make the best interpretation, that's why we also use the Hadiths besides the Quran as the basic of Islamic teachings, because Hadith is actually the religion in practice shown by the prophet. When 'literally' some verses contradict with the hadith then that means there must be other interpretation other than literal interpretation for those verses, so hadith can also be said as a measure if an interpretation is proper or not.
Of course in the end anybody can claim this or that is the best interpretation based on their interpreting methodology but we can always put this on test or a discussion, that's also why I believe any religion should be open to critics.
However the critics should also show their proficiency, showing that they really know about the subject they brought up, saying "this is the best example of the religion in practice" like Harris without showing any background of that claim is not a fair critic, a critic should also be open to critics so they must also show the reasons why they could come to that conclusion.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)So the no true Scotsman might not work here.
Muxin is claiming that his own interpretation is correct. However, he could be right or he could be wrong. Or neither right or wrong depending on the case.
There could be a correct interpretation to a text given the historical, literary, and other aspects of the text that puts in its intended context. Perhaps the "original" context is irrelevant today but some groups might use it to incite violence giving it a new context. So it would be fair to challenge the interpretation as wrong if that is the case.
However, I don't know enough about the Koran to criticize it or to defend it so I won't make claims. Much less assume someone has the right interpretation and authority to make claims about correct interpretation. That includes the author of the Huffington Post article.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..determines the correct interpretation, i'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that, in fact, he is engaging in a pretty blatant instance of 'no true scotsman'.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)...For anyone to claim that the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy occurred in this exchange.
You would have to ask him his point of view first before making such claim.
Claiming that a group within your religion has the wrong interpretation of specific text is not necessarily a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
For example, given the knowledge I gathered from my own study I can claim that the Haredim have an extremely distorted view of Judaism and interpretation and beliefs that are way off and out of line. But that is not a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy because I agree that the Haredim are obviously Jewish and base their ideology on Jewish texts no matter how distorted the interpretation may be.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)The ability to read the Koran.
An excellent response.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)believe they have the true interpretation. Islam is flawed for that very reason. It is flawed because people can read into it whatever they want.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)there's no way to determine even the *relative* truth value of a particular interpretation of a given snippet of scripture.
certainly it's *absurd* to claim that a given holy book is unerringly true.
muxin
(98 posts)Anyone can believe that he/she has the true interpretation about anything at all
Silent3
(15,190 posts)...material built into them, ripe for so-called "misinterpretation", as religions with big piles of ancient text behind them.
You said earlier that the "correct" interpretation is God's interpretation. We're supposed to believe you get your interpretations directly from God?
And if He didn't come directly to you to personally give you the "correct" interpretation, we're supposed to believe that you have the special wisdom and insight it takes to pick out God's interpretation from among the many different and often conflicting interpretations that other people would claim are the most godly interpretations?
muxin
(98 posts)You can believe or disbelieve about anything you want if you have your reasons.
For a believer God is the best to decide which is wrong or right, ask any believer about who has the most knowledge then the answer is God. I believe my interpretation is appropriate based on my study and the best methodology I can find, for me there's nothing ambiguous, everything is clear as long as you've done enough research and study.
Now what I was criticizing about the OP since the beginning of my post is the writer's bold claim that the so called extremists represent the religion in its best practice - Please read my first post.
That's a very bold claim that requires proof and must be based on a study which none shown in the article, what's his reason for saying that? how did he know that is the best practice of the religion and not otherwise? As far as I concern a claim like that given without reasons is an unfounded claim. How can you agree to this? you just do for no reasons? or you just believe this guy has "the special wisdom and insight" to make such claim?
Silent3
(15,190 posts)That's just an annoying throw-away disclaimer people use when they make bold statements, but can't back them up very substantively afterward.
That's circular logic, since part of what a believer has to decide is what version of the many versions of God they're going to claim is the "true" God. Don't you realize from an outsider's perspective it looks more like you choose the God that leads to what you want to believe anyway? That it's a bit of a charade to claim you're just following God's ideas of right and wrong when that God is the God you picked?
muxin
(98 posts)If we want to discuss the concept of beliefs there isn't going to be an end to this, for me it's not a circular logic because to me there are no "other" versions of God, I can't say I choose "a" God because I believe there's only 1 God so there's no other option. I'm sure as a non believer you cannot agree to that statement, it would be strange if you do.
If you are so annoyed about someone making bold statements but can't back them up how come you just agree to the article you shared without questions?
That's a very bold claim that requires proof and must be based on a study which none shown in the article, what's his reason for saying that? how did he know that is the best practice of the religion and not otherwise? As far as I concern a claim like that given without reasons is an unfounded claim. How can you agree to this? you just do for no reasons? or you just believe this guy has "the special wisdom and insight" to make such claim?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Which interpretation of a given religion deserves that title for best representing its best practice when adherents cannot agree on the essential nature of God. Is it the loudest microphone, or the largest army? Is there another measure by which you judge?
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)There are concepts such as tolerance and pluralism that many people naturally adhere to which enables them to live in harmony in a society and not even care if others have different world views or interpretations of god, gods, or any other subject.
A religious person or group could certainly be intolerant of beliefs they find abhorrent (which is quite alright) but it doesn't mean they prescribe to totalitarianism and need to commit atrocities against those in disagreement.
It is obvious that there are totalitarian groups that commit atrocities in name of their religious beliefs. But totalitarianism and the atrocities that follow do not necessarily need religion or a specific position in any other area to exist.
Just my two cents...
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)If I find a belief system objectionable because it relegates women to second-class status and condemns gay people as abominations, am I being intolerant? If I am intolerant of a belief system that condemns Jews as Jesus killers, who is guilty of being least tolerant? If I am upset that we don't take concerted action to combat global climate change because God will fix it for us, am I not pluralistic enough? Tolerance and pluralism is fine if we are only speaking of whether one wears silk or polyester, or not; eats pork or beef, or not; prays, or not.
Call it a beauty contest if you will. If we only disagree about angels dancing on the head of pins, I would concede your point. Because of the appeal to authority and the ubiquitous nature of religion, I think it amounts to more than that.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)I personally do not tolerate a belief system that condemns gay people as abomination or that treats women like second class citizens. And, being Jewish, I am certainly intolerant of anti-Semites. I tolerate the fact that they live among us and are part of our society but I do not tolerate their anti-semitism.
No one is saying that you are "not pluralistic enough" for being upset that we don't take action on the environment because of beliefs that a god will fix everything. Why should you or I tolerate such belief that we see as harmful?
All I was saying in my previous post is that it takes an authoritarian power to force a belief or ideology by all means necessary. There are obvious examples of violence committed because of religious authoritarianism. But that doesn't mean that only religion is capable of this or that all religion is authoritarian.
You may see Muxin and I disagreeing about religion and beliefs but there is no need for a louder microphone or violence for us to co-exist. In fact, we don't even care about our differences regarding religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs) so tolerance doesn't even enter the equation.
In contrast, I have to tolerate a homophobe whom I find abhorrent to live in our society since we live in a democracy.
But that doesn't mean that I have to be tolerant of his/her belief. 
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Would that be a correct understanding? If that is the point of contention, I will concede. I will also agree that religion is not the only reason, or even the primary reason, that those with an authoritarian mindset will resort to violence. Yet those with an authoritarian mindset will most often (perhaps without exception) invoke the authority of scripture and mythology and deity to justify violence, which will have a persuasive affect on more temperate believers.
I am leaving alone the covert violence that has been visited on persons as a direct result of any given religious dogma. We can leave that for another day.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)A given dogma may even make an explicit call for violence.
All I am saying is that you don't need an army or the loud microphone to settle correct interpretation. Even if the authoritarian religious groups (like authoritarian groups in a given ideology, nationality, ethnicity, etc.) try to win the argument by being loud and violent.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)as well as many other points that we have touched on in this conversation (which I have enjoyed immensely, by the way).
In fact we cannot settle correct interpretation/understanding, but must learn to live with our differences. Yes?
Even so, if I judge my understanding to be superior, who will be the arbiter? And still, if I perceive dogma to be mostly harmful, I am most likely to argue against it.
Meshuga
(6,182 posts)And if the arbiter is god then we are in trouble because the god of the extremists is pretty messed up. It is a very scary thing when the ultimate authority demands violence to settle things.
That is why I would disagree with muxin up thread when he claimed that god is the authority in deciding correct interpretation. Scholarship would be my preferred answer (instead of god) but I am not sure how much more persuasive I would be when an extremist won't accept scholarship over belief.
And yes. I also enjoyed our exchanges because it helped me think through the issue. And I thank you for it!
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)you said it.
..and that's '+1000 factorial' not '+1000 exclamation'
muxin
(98 posts)I'm not an anti religious critics, in fact I think all religion need critics continuously.
IT'S OKAY if this person wants to claim "this or that represents its best practice" as long as he has a REASON to say that, some facts he can present to back up his statement, that's what I don't see in the article.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)muxin
(98 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)you think he should present facts to defend Sam Harris' point of view? Just asking.
muxin
(98 posts)Not to defend Sam Harris' point of view but to defend his own claim in that article. A claim like that without showing facts is just an unfounded accusation, not a critic. I brought up Sam Harris just to show that there are actually lots of unfounded critics like this - as far as I know Sam Harris also never back up his claim regarding this "best practice", if one can make a claim like that at least give acceptable reasons to that claim to be fair. I might not agree to the reasons and probably will argue it, but isn't that what critics are all about? to create a constructive discussion of a subject? But in order to create that good discussion we need a good quality critic, not just unfounded claims.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)His claim in the article is that there are Muslims who can be described as fundamentalists who are Jihadists. I think that is factual, although he didn't provide any quotes in the article. I am equally convinced that there are Christians who can be described as fundamentalists who anxiously await the final battle against the armies of the anti-Christ on the fields of Armageddon. Do you argue with those assertions?
I would go one step further and assert that either of these extreme belief systems are dangerous separately, and lethal together, without feeling the need to defend that claim.
If I misconstrued your objection, I need clarification.
muxin
(98 posts)Even though I disagree with the term "Jihadists" or "Jihadism" being used to describe the extremists, but yes, anyone can see that there are people who commit violent acts in the name of religion, he doesn't have to prove it. But it's also a fact that not all people who practice the religion are violent, are you disagree with this?
Now.. in this article it's stated that the ones represent the best practice of the religion is the violent one, not the peaceful ones, that's what I think need to be proven, he needs to back up this claim. If you still can't see the point of my objection I don't know how to explain it.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)You and I are not seeing the same bias in this article at all. Why do you believe he states that violence represents the best practice?
The thing I understand him to say is that some terrorists are motivated by religion. We need not look for alternative motivations if the terrorists state that their religion motivates them, when religious dogma is the elephant in the room.
Do I believe all Muslims are terrorists? Emphatically not! But I believe that some Muslims would convert me to their religious view at the point of a gun (as would some Christians), and that's ... disconcerting.
muxin
(98 posts)He stated that "extremism is an informed, steadfast adherence to the fundamentals" (of an ideology), then he stated "In a true religion of peace, the "extremists" would be nonviolent pacifists to an extreme degree, not the opposite."
I don't know how you see that part but the way I see it he stated that if it's really a religion of peace then the extremists of its teachings should be non violent pacifists, but since the ones who get the "extremists" label are those who commit violent acts, then it must not be a religion of peace, because - back to his first statement - the extremists are the people who are most loyal to the teachings. So actually he implied that extremism always represents an ideology or a religious belief at its best without considering their understanding of the teaching in the first place. Many people gave the label "extremists" to those violent individuals not because they think these people represent the best practice of the religion, but simply because they are violent, because the word "extremist" itself has a negative connotation.
I think he got confused with the term "extremism", and sadly to me it looks like he wrote the whole article based on that logic.
Other than that I guess there's no doubt that we agree there are some believers who choose to be violent and there are others who live peacefully.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Reading this article from a perspective of a belief does lead to a different understanding of the author's words. As I share Rizvi's unbelief, my interpretation is entirely different. Although I think I understand your objection, I don't share it. Is dogma mostly flawed or essentially flawless? And again I will ask, how do we measure?
Silent3
(15,190 posts)..."So much said so well in this article that was hard to narrow down a good selection of brief highlights."
How does that constitute "agree(ing) to the article (I) shared without questions"?
By the way, you're still using circular logic, merely using the hand-waving assertion "I'm a believer, and that's that!" to deny the circle exists, as if claiming to be a believer gives you a special exemption from having to make sense.
muxin
(98 posts)You agree with me that the writer's logic of extremism in Islam is ridiculous? or what?
What I meant was we obviously have different ways of thinking in terms of belief, what might seems as a circular logic to you it's not to me, but I can understand why you think it is. you were talking about choosing a God like choosing a cereal in a supermarket, I can't see it like that. How can a conversation between a believer and non believer can be 100% make sense? since God himself already don't make sense to you as a non believer. I don't think we can discuss faith without including God, while we have a totally different perception about God.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)if it helps, just pretend that you're talking to a believer of another faith.
it's a truism that believers are atheists, too, except for the god(s) they believe in. in your case you believe in allah but not thor. atheists just disbelieve in one more god.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) Shadrach
(69 posts)So I doubt he knows Fred Phelps.
But my conclusion after reading his post is that his god is not the same as Fred Phelps god and that he is "atheist" if anyone asks whether the Fred Phelps god exists.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)original text up to the size of an encyclopedia, (for those who remember them.) The Koran has received the exact same treatment, with single words or phrases blown up to essays.
Two characteristics of a good set of directions are that they are clear and they are brief. Like the kids say nowadays, fail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir
Includes a list of the 15 fields of expertise you need to comment on the Koran. 
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)"To us, bigotry against bigotry isn't bigotry, and intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance."
BANG ON.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)'intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance'
damn straight.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)Is it too much work to add an "Ex-" in front of "Muslim" so it's not an oxymoron and not stupid sounding anymore? Bad writing.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Even as I was reading the article, I was thinking "atheist Muslim"?!? which interfered with my ability to understand the writer's point, and caused me to overlook that "atheist Muslim" is a self-description by the writer. I understand the premise, but it was bothersome.