Unveiling according to the Prophet

[DogOnPorch]

That's why I didn't lump them together, but your bias is obviously showing if you would write off Christian fundamentalists and extremists as "nut jobs" that don't speak for anyone, while not giving Muslims the same respect. You don't write off their extremists and nut jobs, while there are millions of Muslims all over the world that are nothing short of moderate.

That's kind of like General Westmoreland's statement about not losing a single battle during the Viet-Nam War.

General Vo Nguyen Giap, NVA: "This is true. It is also irrelevant."

Edited December 20, 2011 by DogOnPorch

[Shakeyhands]

I doubt the Phelps are considered religious in the accepted tradition or of a reverence toward God by anyone. Perhaps profane zealots would be more like it.

That's funny, this is exactly how the Muslims I know talk about the radical Muslims.

[cybercoma]

That's funny, this is exactly how the Muslims I know talk about the radical Muslims.

Same, but I guess if you didn't know any Muslims and were dead set against ethnic diversity, you would think all those people are the same.

[cybercoma]

This is a good book on the subject.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6281.html

[DogOnPorch]

This is a good book on the subject.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6281.html

Perhaps...Fatima Mernissi's book might be a better read as it is a Muslim woman doing the writing.

http://www.mernissi.net/books/books/beyond_the_veil.html

But, hey...you're the expert.

[Scotty]

That's why I didn't lump them together, but your bias is obviously showing if you would write off Christian fundamentalists and extremists as "nut jobs" that don't speak for anyone, while not giving Muslims the same respect. You don't write off their extremists and nut jobs, while there are millions of Muslims all over the world that are nothing short of moderate.

I think you have two different standards at play. I bet you would consider a Christian who wanted this country to be run according to the tenets of the bible, and who voted for the "christian" party which would bring this about, as being an extremist.

Yet, in all the recent elections in Muslim countries, the religious party won, the religious party which vows to rule according to Islam. I'm thinking you don't consider all the voters there to be extremists though, do you?

[cybercoma]

Perhaps...Fatima Mernissi's book might be a better read as it is a Muslim woman doing the writing.

http://www.mernissi.net/books/books/beyond_the_veil.html

But, hey...you're the expert.

Have you read that book? It's 36 years old and doesn't particularly relate to the violent radicalism that we were just discussing, which is why I posted the other book.

Nevertheless, Mernissi's is a great book that argues that the veil is misogynistic oppression and does not actually reflect what the Prophet said. I agree with much of what she says.

As a Muslim woman that is part of a Feminist Muslim movement that has been around for decades, she is evidence of the fact that there are many Muslims who do not subscribe to the opinions of religious zealots. This just serves to illustrate the point that I have been making.

[cybercoma]

I think you have two different standards at play. I bet you would consider a Christian who wanted this country to be run according to the tenets of the bible, and who voted for the "christian" party which would bring this about, as being an extremist.

Yet, in all the recent elections in Muslim countries, the religious party won, the religious party which vows to rule according to Islam. I'm thinking you don't consider all the voters there to be extremists though, do you?

No. I'm pretty sure I think those leaders are radical zealots, just like I think evangelical Christian politicians in America that hate gays and female reproductive rights.

The confusion that I don't make is to look at the particular things that politicians afflicted by religious zealotry do or say while they're in office and apply those to everyone else.

[Guest Peeves]

This has nothing to do with my facilitation - it's an observation that if you attack one group, then people will rightly wonder why that is.

So then are you suggesting that if one posts a negative factual account about say abuse of young men in the Catholic priesthood they should be attempting to qualify their remarks or attempt to balance them by citing some other abusers?

Isn't that rather constricting in reality?

If today there is headlines about some political party were I to post on that subject solely, there would be justified questioning as to my agenda?

That's just silly. I may post negatively and factually on a subject without being partisan, and those that take me to task for the subject, turning rather ( You hate.. yada yada!),to ad hominem rather that the subject, are simply being confrontational and personal for lack of contrary valid argument.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

That's why I didn't lump them together, but your bias is obviously showing if you would write off Christian fundamentalists and extremists as "nut jobs" that don't speak for anyone, while not giving Muslims the same respect. You don't write off their extremists and nut jobs, while there are millions of Muslims all over the world that are nothing short of moderate.

There are probably hundreds of millions,(Muslims) that can't read and have one interpretation of the Koran preached while other millions have a differing version preached etc.

Concluding that I have a bias is at best pettifoggery and at worst insulting unless you can show that i have misstated facts or shown disrespect for Muslims. I do say and do consider snake handling and speaking in tongues as practising nut jobs just as I do consider those rioting over cartoons, (etc.) fanatical radical, fiasco-islamist, murdering, terrorists.

Now if ANYChristian-Jews- what ever behaved thus I would call them fanatical radical, fiasco-Christian (Jew etc,), murdering, terrorists a well. The degree of variance or distinction between the two practicing of religion however is near to the nth degree.

While millions of Muslims are indeed peace loving normally behaved citizens, millions more would cut off your head for being a proselytizer or a proselyte. Or,,, Or....Or.....

I might be out a few hundred thousand.

One simply cannot compare the radical members/acts/behavior of Islam in any way to the worst cases of CONTEMPORARY Christianity.

[DogOnPorch]

Have you read that book? It's 36 years old and doesn't particularly relate to the violent radicalism that we were just discussing, which is why I posted the other book.

Nevertheless, Mernissi's is a great book that argues that the veil is misogynistic oppression and does not actually reflect what the Prophet said. I agree with much of what she says.

As a Muslim woman that is part of a Feminist Muslim movement that has been around for decades, she is evidence of the fact that there are many Muslims who do not subscribe to the opinions of religious zealots. This just serves to illustrate the point that I have been making.

Yes, I've read the book. No big reforms in Islam since then. Perhaps a few steps backwards, even.

[Scotty]

The confusion that I don't make is to look at the particular things that politicians afflicted by religious zealotry do or say while they're in office and apply those to everyone else.

Not even to those who vote for them?

[cybercoma]

Yes, I've read the book. No big reforms in Islam since then. Perhaps a few steps backwards, even.

Islam can't reform because there is no central authority. The oppression of women by religious zealots needs to end though. You're absolutely right about that.

[cybercoma]

Not even to those who vote for them?

Not necessarily. I don't think anyone should agree unreservedly with every last thing the person they vote for does. Perhaps the other guy was worse. There's myriad reasons people choose the politicians that they choose. But you said "all the voters there" and certainly there were people who did not vote or voted for someone else. So if you're asking me if I disagree with religious zealots, the answer is yes. However, what I'm not going to do is say that everyone in a particular society is a religious zealot because that's quite clearly not the case.

[DogOnPorch]

Islam can't reform because there is no central authority. The oppression of women by religious zealots needs to end though. You're absolutely right about that.

Islam most certainly can reform.

[cybercoma]

Again, there is no central authority in Islam. It's not the religion that needs to reform, it's the interpretations of religious zealots that needs to reform. Your argument is like saying Christianity needs to reform because the Phelps family is batshit crazy.

[DogOnPorch]

Again, there is no central authority in Islam. It's not the religion that needs to reform, it's the interpretations of religious zealots that needs to reform. Your argument is like saying Christianity needs to reform because the Phelps family is batshit crazy.

Central authority, bah. The Koran is Islam's 'central authority'. The perfect word of God...that is if God was Genghis Khan with a taste for little girls.

Islam needs reform because it is not capable of playing well with the other childr...errr...religions. It's aggressive, iconoclastic and intolerant as an ideology. A common affliction for those arriving late to the party but claiming to have all the answers.

[cybercoma]

Islam needs reform because it is not capable of playing well with the other childr...errr...religions.

I haven't seen a religion that this isn't true for, save perhaps Buddhism.

[Michael Hardner]

I doubt the Phelps are considered religious in the accepted tradition or of a reverence toward God by anyone. Perhaps profane zealots would be more like it.

Insanity? I doubt that those even claiming to be Christian leaders can be considered insane unless they're handing out cool aid.

There are those peripheral groups without any mainstream Christian religion -sect that are fundamentally 'nuts' from an observers point of view, (Snake handling), but they are in no way or manner comparable to Islamic terrorists or fundamentalist sharia following, Wahhabist or Muslims extremist that riot and murder over cartoons or 'Mohammad" named toy bears..

Burning a book or the Phelps disgraceful conduct are exceptions that prove the rule in the differences of the 'two' cited religions. Terrorist acts of Muslims are commonplace. On the other hand,those as the Phelps behavior in the name of a Christian god are aberrations.

By any measure of, brutality, terror, draconian laws, human rights, equal rights, civil rights, free speech, principles of democratic election, charity, mercy or any other moral code of Christianity, Islam in a political or religious sense cannot be lumped circuitously or unceremoniously, with contemporary Christianity.

Very tidy. Extreme Christians aren't Christians but extreme Muslims are Muslim. Ok, well at least we have seen that extreme Christianity does exist.

Moving on, you state that by any measure these things can't be lumped with Christianity. Let me ask honestly - how would you set the baseline ? How would you decide how much brutality, terror, draconian laws, human rights, etc. describes Christianity ?

We'll measure Islam next.

[Michael Hardner]

So then are you suggesting that if one posts a negative factual account about say abuse of young men in the Catholic priesthood they should be attempting to qualify their remarks or attempt to balance them by citing some other abusers?

I'm not saying you can't talk about religion, or even criticize religion.

Maybe in this example, I would need to understand the context. Few people criticize abuse in the Catholic church as a way of saying Catholicism itself is bad, although some liberals have posted such things.

I have read anti-Muslim posts on here that basically equate that religion to a virus of some kind.

That's just silly. I may post negatively and factually on a subject without being partisan, and those that take me to task for the subject, turning rather ( You hate.. yada yada!),to ad hominem rather that the subject, are simply being confrontational and personal for lack of contrary valid argument.

Yes it's possible to be objective and to criticize one religion (out of all of them) for some reason or other. I have read posters on here that have very well thought out arguments against some group or other. They were very articulate, but actually wrong.

[Guest Peeves]

I'm not saying you can't talk about religion, or even criticize religion.

Maybe in this example, I would need to understand the context. Few people criticize abuse in the Catholic church as a way of saying Catholicism itself is bad, although some liberals have posted such things.

I have read anti-Muslim posts on here that basically equate that religion to a virus of some kind.

Yes it's possible to be objective and to criticize one religion (out of all of them) for some reason or other. I have read posters on here that have very well thought out arguments against some group or other. They were very articulate, but actually wrong.

"They were very articulate, but actually wrong."

Perhaps wrong, perhaps only wrong from another's perspective, but, that's the crux of the matter is it not? The other opinion may be argued, stated, or contradicted with a response. Ad hominem or simply denigrating subject source or poster is counter productive in a forum. So is constant suggestions that one is biased because the subject at hand is provocative and one sided.

Typo corrected.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Peeves

[Scotty]

Very tidy. Extreme Christians aren't Christians but extreme Muslims are Muslim. Ok, well at least we have seen that extreme Christianity does exist.

Nobody has suggested extreme Christians aren't extremists. But what are the odds American would vote in a party led by the Phelps?

Every Muslim country which has had anything approaching free elections has voted in Muslim parties which promise to rule according to the Koran. But you don't consider them or the people who voted for them to be extreme, do you? Every poll taken of sentiments in Muslim countries shows a majority have extreme antipathy towards Jews and homosexuals. But do you believe that makes the populations of those countries extreme?

[DogOnPorch]

I haven't seen a religion that this isn't true for, save perhaps Buddhism.

So this an excuse for Islam, then? A reason to let it do as it pleases in our society?

[Scotty]

Not necessarily. I don't think anyone should agree unreservedly with every last thing the person they vote for does. Perhaps the other guy was worse. There's myriad reasons people choose the politicians that they choose. But you said "all the voters there" and certainly there were people who did not vote or voted for someone else.

People who opposed gay marriage in Canada have been called bigots and homophobes. And yet voting for a party which says homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed isn't considered necessarily extremist?

Let's take the recent elections in Egypt. There were a number of moderate parties running, but the party which got the most support was the Muslim Brotherhood, whose views on women, gays and minorities make Texas Baptist Republicans seem like flaming Liberals. They got 37% of the vote. The number two party, the Salafist al-Nour party, make the Muslim Brotherhood seem like Liberals in comparison to THEM.

Egypt Faces Hard Line Islamic Future

So what does this say about the thinking of the Egyptian electorate?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Scotty

[Guest Peeves]

Very tidy. Extreme Christians aren't Christians but extreme Muslims are Muslim. Ok, well at least we have seen that extreme Christianity does exist.

Moving on, you state that by any measure these things can't be lumped with Christianity. Let me ask honestly - how would you set the baseline ? How would you decide how much brutality, terror, draconian laws, human rights, etc. describes Christianity ?

We'll measure Islam next.

I never said extreme Christians aren't Christians. You twist my words do you not.

Let's try to be honest here.

I suggested that I doubted the Phelps, (by their actions), would be considered as Christians. Contemporary Christianity generally is not so cruel. I personally would consider their behavior s contrary to Christian beliefs but I'm only a lifelong observer of religion and not a Christian or Muslim, happy to say.

I am not about to say who is a Christian/Muslim.

Muslims, (some), claim radical Muslims...terrorist Muslims are not Muslims, but on the other hand thousands if not tens of thousands, including political and religious Islamic leaders, applaud and praise the Muslim martyrs for terrorist acts.

Do Christians applaud the actions of those like the Phelps or the burning of the Koran? If they do. I've not read of it.

I do however judge a Christians acts as they generally meet the criteria of the Christian faith just as I judge Muslims similarly on their actions. I believe Terrorist (inquisition- burning witches- etc. are certainly Christians.

I believe in general terms much of Islam today is a violent perverted political abomination being foisted on those wishing human rights and freedom enjoyed by countries created under Judea-Christian values. Certainly millions of Muslims practice their Islamic faith in peace and are good human beings.

To the contrary we see Muslim countries like Syria -Egypt- that suffer under Islam.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Peeves