We're all extremists, eventually

[Scott Mayers]

Rules does not vary from person to person, this is why they are called as "rule". Because they clarify a situation, they make something clear to do or not to do.

You need to decide which one is Muslim ? The one kill people because of their religion order them to do so or the ones works 9-5 as an ordinary person. If you cant claim both is Muslim, this means both follow the same rules, then they have to act same. Here the contradiction in your perspective. I can find millions of such contradictions in the perspective about Muslims of non-Muslim countries.

You sound like you argue for what is a 'true' Muslim in a similar vein as one who might argue who a 'true' Christian is, correct?

[Altai]

Have I offended you? I am only trying to explain why some of in the West think there are two groups of Muslims. I am not trying to say you are not Muslim.

Ofcourse not, I am just trying to understand your perspective, because its quite contradictory.

[Altai]

You sound like you argue for what is a 'true' Muslim in a similar vein as one who might argue who a 'true' Christian is, correct?

No I dont argue for what is true Muslim. Just the opposite I oppose such concepts because of its unreasonableness.

Think it as a company, you and me are working in this company. There are rules, we both have to follow these rules to be a part of this company. I am following all the rules without exception but you violate some rules, for example you come late 1 hour every morning and you start at 10.00 am despite you have to start at 09.00 am according to company rules. Finally you been fired because of you dont follow the rules. This is the same for a religion too, the only difference we cant claim kicking people out of the religion. Anyone may claim being of a Muslim or Christian or whatever despite he/she does not follow the rules. They can perform any bad actions. This is not the problem of the religion which they claim of being a follower of it. Here you have to use your logic and decide for it.

[TimG]

Rules does not vary from person to person, this is why they are called as "rule". Because they clarify a situation, they make something clear to do or not to do.

There are no rules that are not subject to interpretation. Any body of rules will contradict each other and require prioritization. This makes the interpretation of rules personal and just because one Muslim interpret the rules differently that does not mean they are not a Muslim. It also means that we need to distinguish between Muslims that insist on extreme interpretations of the rules from those who are more flexible. The former cannot function in a society like Canada. Edited August 30, 2016 by TimG

[Altai]

There are no rules that are not subject to interpretation. Any body of rules will contradict each other and require prioritization. This makes the interpretation of rules personal and just because one Muslim interpret the rules differently that does not mean they are not a Muslim. It also means that we need to distinguish between Muslims that insist on extreme interpretations of the rules from those who are more flexible. The former cannot function in a society like Canada.

Can you give me an example of a rule from Forum Rules with various interpretations of it ?

[TimG]

Can you give me an example of a rule from Forum Rules with various interpretations of it ?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=help&do=01&HID=17

"No Trolling/Flaming" - We have entire threads with 1000+ posts dedicated to people arguing about who is a "troll".

Every one of the forum rules requires interpretation and people disagree on what a reasonable interpretation is.

Edited August 30, 2016 by TimG

[Altai]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?app=core&module=help&do=01&HID=17

"No Trolling/Flaming" - We have entire threads with 1000+ posts dedicated to people arguing about who is a "troll".

Every one of the forum rules requires interpretation and people disagree on what a reasonable interpretation is.

Its because of the word "troll" does not have a certain meaning. People call anyone as "troll" when they dont like the idea. This have nothing with the rules, the rule is clear, "no trolling". There is no any other "interpretation" of this rule. Deciding about the meaning of "troll" is a completely different thing.

[dialamah]

No I dont argue for what is true Muslim. Just the opposite I oppose such concepts because of its unreasonableness.

Think it as a company, you and me are working in this company. There are rules, we both have to follow these rules to be a part of this company. I am following all the rules without exception but you violate some rules, for example you come late 1 hour every morning and you start at 10.00 am despite you have to start at 09.00 am according to company rules. Finally you been fired because of you dont follow the rules. This is the same for a religion too, the only difference we cant claim kicking people out of the religion. Anyone may claim being of a Muslim or Christian or whatever despite he/she does not follow the rules. They can perform any bad actions. This is not the problem of the religion which they claim of being a follower of it. Here you have to use your logic and decide for it.

What if the company had two rules, written at different times. One said always be on time and the other said, be an hour late?

In Islam, there are scripture and Hadith that favor killing apostates and non-believers. There are other scriptures that allow freedom to believe in God or not with no punishment. How do we reconcile these two very different teachings or rules?

Edited August 30, 2016 by dialamah

[TimG]

This have nothing with the rules, the rule is clear, "no trolling". There is no any other "interpretation" of this rule. Deciding about the meaning of "troll" is a completely different thing.

An irrelevant semantic argument. The rule does not define what a "troll" is therefore the rule is unclear and subject to interpretation.

[dialamah]

An irrelevant semantic argument. The rule does not define what a "troll" is therefore the rule is unclear and subject to interpretation.

I'd say she's dead on. The discussions do focus on what's considered trolling behavior, not on whether or not the rule is applicable.

[Altai]

What if the company had two rules, written at different times. One said always be on time and the other said, be an hour late?

In Islam, there are scripture and Hadith that favor killing apostates and non-believers. There are other scriptures that allow freedom to believe in God or not with no punishment. How do we reconcile these two very different teachings?

Then there should be about fifty fifty dispersion of total number of employees on both rules. About half of them would be at work at 09.00 am and other half at 10.00 am. (dont consider the attractiveness of one hour less work) Here another contradiction, because there is a huge number difference between the ones who come at 09.00 am and who come at 10.00 am. The huge part of the employee come to work at 09.00 am.

Hadiths and Quran can be considered as the section chief and company owner in our example. The section chief says "the work starts at 10.00am" and the company owner says "the work starts at 09.00 am". Here the authorized mouth is company owner, so Quran. It says "there is no compulsion in the system".

[TimG]

I'd say she's dead on. The discussions do focus on what's considered trolling behavior, not on whether or not the rule is applicable.

I did not say she was wrong. Just that the distinction has absolutely no relevance because the rule has no meaning without someone deciding what a "troll" is.

[eyeball]

An interesting article about the way in which our society is becoming increasingly polarized.

I'm sorry we're at this point, honestly. Is the article accurate in it's explanation of why we have become so nasty to each other? Is there any way of becoming more civil to one another - both here, and in the wider world? What do you think?

I think the article is describing what is happening but here's a story I read in 1992 that also described it. The article was written well before the term Jihad was overloaded with politicized meaning so people shouldn't let it throw them off.

Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures—both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe—a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food—with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.

The tendencies of what I am here calling the forces of Jihad and the forces of McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets, the one re-creating ancient subnational and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without. They have one thing in common: neither offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically. If the global future is to pit Jihad's centrifugal whirlwind against McWorld's centripetal black hole, the outcome is unlikely to be democratic—or so I will argue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vs-mcworld/303882/

We're basically suffering the effects of globalization not to mention the relentless concentration of power and wealth, which are practically one and the same thing, into the hands of the tribe known as the 1%. They're just too strong and so the other 99% are chewing each other up instead.

[Scott Mayers]

No I dont argue for what is true Muslim. Just the opposite I oppose such concepts because of its unreasonableness.

Think it as a company, you and me are working in this company. There are rules, we both have to follow these rules to be a part of this company. I am following all the rules without exception but you violate some rules, for example you come late 1 hour every morning and you start at 10.00 am despite you have to start at 09.00 am according to company rules. Finally you been fired because of you dont follow the rules. This is the same for a religion too, the only difference we cant claim kicking people out of the religion. Anyone may claim being of a Muslim or Christian or whatever despite he/she does not follow the rules. They can perform any bad actions. This is not the problem of the religion which they claim of being a follower of it. Here you have to use your logic and decide for it.

Ah....so you're the one who got me fired!! :angry:

I understand that you are asserting that like the company who could fire me for being incompetent, the company is NOT at fault for my lack of inappropriate behavior. But does this not suggest that if being Muslim has a standard authorized identity like a given company that simply doesn't or won't fire misbehaving staff, that you are assuming all who call themselves "Muslim" are working for the same entity? That is, could it not be the case that while you 'think' they are biased staff members who work for you, it might be you who mistakes them as a part of your staff when really they are just working for some other company AND possibly running it as their own rightful authority?

It sounds like you are asserting still that they are NOT legitimate Muslims (as poor employees) simply because the company you believe you work for OWNS the authoritative name of the business. While you may treat those who simultaneously call themselves "Muslim" as flexible (they can come and go when or where they please) to your own particular standards, to them, they'd fire your ass in direct opposition in their own capacity as bosses should you realize that you are in their company instead. Do you follow my point or are you like this: and ?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Altai]

An irrelevant semantic argument. The rule does not define what a "troll" is therefore the rule is unclear and subject to interpretation.

So then we discuss about the meaning of "troll" and about 16.000 persons in the forum says that it means "making fun of threads by posting provocative contents". Besides these 16.000 person, you say it does not mean such thing and it means "having a chocolate cake with a cup of tea". ( I gave the numbers based on the ratio between so called "Muslim" terror groups and the rest of Muslim World.)

Which is most likely the true interpretation ?

Edited August 30, 2016 by Altai

[Altai]

Ah....so you're the one who got me fired!! :angry:

I understand that you are asserting that like the company who could fire me for being incompetent, the company is NOT at fault for my lack of inappropriate behavior. But does this not suggest that if being Muslim has a standard authorized identity like a given company that simply doesn't or won't fire misbehaving staff, that you are assuming all who call themselves "Muslim" are working for the same entity? That is, could it not be the case that while you 'think' they are biased staff members who work for you, it might be you who mistakes them as a part of your staff when really they are just working for some other company AND possibly running it as their own rightful authority?

It sounds like you are asserting still that they are NOT legitimate Muslims (as poor employees) simply because the company you believe you work for OWNS the authoritative name of the business. While you may treat those who simultaneously call themselves "Muslim" as flexible (they can come and go when or where they please) to your own particular standards, to them, they'd fire your ass in direct opposition in their own capacity as bosses should you realize that your are in their company instead. Do you follow my point or are you like this: and ?

Nope, I say we would like to have such a chance to kick them out but this is not a company and anyone can claim being of a Muslim despite they are not. Wow actually this is a good idea. We can give people Muslim ID card but probably the terrorists produces fake cards with the support of Western countries in so short time. Anyway.

I dont mean they are not "legitimate" Muslims, I mean they are "not" Muslims. The company has the same rules for everyone. I dont understand what you are trying to say. I talk quite open. Stop trying to add words in my words. I didnt say such things as you mean.

[TimG]

Which is most likely the true interpretation?

Which is my point. Rules have no meaning without subjective interpretation and complex codes of rules will require more interpretations. Muslims can be divided in to groups based on the interpretations they prefer. As a non-Muslim I am not going to make any assumptions about which groups follow the "true" interpretations. That is a question for Muslims to argue about. Edited August 30, 2016 by TimG

[Scott Mayers]

Nope, I say we would like to have such a chance to kick them out but this is not a company and anyone can claim being of a Muslim despite they are not. Wow actually this is a good idea. We can give people Muslim ID card but probably the terrorists produces fake cards with the support of Western countries in so short time. Anyway.

I dont mean they are not "legitimate" Muslims, I mean they are "not" Muslims. The company has the same rules for everyone. I dont understand what you are trying to say. I talk quite open. Stop trying to add words in my words. I didnt say such things as you mean.

That's okay. I'm not taking you as being strict here. It just reminded me of a relative who when I too mentioned something about "Christians", she was confused because I happened to be discussing meeting with a Jehovah Witness when she defaulted to assuming they weren't "Christians". (??) I had to step back to explain that being non-religious, I interpret one who asserts themselves as "Christian" is ANYONE who follows some aspect of belief, similar to what you seem to be saying.

Yet, she too asserted they were NOT "Christians" to which I felt forced to find some other word that she favored, like "heathens" (!!). As you can see, she too interpreted them as falsely using the name "Christian" to define themselves when they too were using it appropriately by meaning. To those same Jehovah Witnesses, they were relatively 'liberal' and would accept her being of an alternate form of Christianity as though she were in the same company. But my relative by contrast assumed they were working technically under the banner of the name "Christianity" but were miscreant truants who just couldn't get fired in the same way. That's why I assumed you might be thinking the same way.

There is no correct definition of what is "Muslim" other than that it is AT LEAST one who follows some aspect of Islam through Mohammed as their founder. But to those most strictly fundamentalist (and sometimes evangelical), they believe in an equal but opposing view of other strands of Islam using the same label but assuming everyone else actually knows their own 'authoritative' view as 'true' but are being relatively truant and thus BAD employees. The more liberal versions may be more accepting of ALL "Muslims" but are no more authoritative over them then they think of you when they interpret themselves as the 'true' version. You each mistaken the other as relative 'employees' as though you share the same religion where the other is just being the trivial disobedient representative of the whole of Islamic faith.

And this is where I think you may be in error. You seem kind enough and relatively what many here might prefer to be a fair citizen among various other religions. But your version of Islam is no more 'correct' than those who appear most troubling to outsiders just as those who interpret the extremes of Christianity as disconcerting and worthy of question in a Muslim world where many think that they should discourage Christianity if only because of those extremes that exist, however less popular than the whole.

[dialamah]

And this is where I think you may be in error. You seem kind enough and relatively what many here might prefer to be a fair citizen among various other religions. But your version of Islam is no more 'correct' than those who appear most troubling to outsiders just as those who interpret the extremes of Christianity as disconcerting and worthy of question in a Muslim world where many think that they should discourage Christianity if only because of those extremes that exist, however less popular than the whole.

Having spent some years as a JW, I can tell you that they did not actually accept other Christian Faiths as actually Christian. They had the truth, and none other. However, that wasn't a focus if 'witnessing' to non-believers; it was ok to sort of skirt around the issue rather than come right out and say they aren't Christians.

So far every Muslim I've spoken with about this has said the same as Altai: terrorists and extremists do not follow the teachings of Islam and thus are not Muslim, regardless of what they call themselves.

And I think that when the situation is such that all Muslims are being blamed for what the few do, its ok to take the majority view that these violent terrorists are not Muslims. How many Westerners would be willing to accept the Lord's Army as Christian even though they call themselves that? We would certainly understand that they do not follow accepted and common Christian practices. I daresay the majority of Muslims feel the same about the terrorists.

[Altai]

Which is my point. Rules have no meaning without subjective interpretation and complex codes of rules will require more interpretations. Muslims can be divided in to groups based on the interpretations they prefer. As a non-Muslim I am not going to make any assumptions about which groups follow the "true" interpretations. That is a question for Muslims to argue about.

and which is my point that your interpretation is wrong and you are not a "Muslim". If you were true you would not be alone in 16.000 other person, it would be roughly 8000 and 8000. The numbers would be close to each other.

While everyone call the "trolling" as "making fun of topics by posting provocative contents" based on the roots of word "troll", you cant call it as "chocolate cake with a cup of tea", which is complately irrelevant with its roots. This would just be called as "naming". Like giving name to a puppy.

Making assumptioıns that which interpretation is the true one is not also something depends on you. Its about the logic and logic does not vary from person to person, its the same for everyone.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Altai

[TimG]

and which is my point that your interpretation is wrong and you are not a "Muslim".

I am not interpreting anything. I am simply observing that different Muslims have different interpretations and I am using different words to describe different groups so I can be clear what I am referring if I make a statement.

If you were true you would not be alone in 16.000 other person, it would be roughly 8000 and 8000. The numbers would be close to each other.

"truth" is not a democracy. one person can be right while 16000 are wrong. But we are not talking about "truth" we are talking about opinion and I have no business telling someone that they are not a "true" Muslim. So if the people beheading apostates claim to be Muslim then they are Muslim as far as I am concerned. The only obligation I have is to be precise. i.e. if I am commenting on the evils perpetrated by some Muslims in the name of Islam I have to be clear that I am talking about the subset of Muslims that interpret their religion in ways that are fundamentally evil. Islamist is a useful word for that purpose. Edited August 30, 2016 by TimG

[Altai]

That's okay. I'm not taking you as being strict here. It just reminded me of a relative who when I too mentioned something about "Christians", she was confused because I happened to be discussing meeting with a Jehovah Witness when she defaulted to assuming they weren't "Christians". (??) I had to step back to explain that being non-religious, I interpret one who asserts themselves as "Christian" is ANYONE who follows some aspect of belief, similar to what you seem to be saying.

Yet, she too asserted they were NOT "Christians" to which I felt forced to find some other word that she favored, like "heathens" (!!). As you can see, she too interpreted them as falsely using the name "Christian" to define themselves when they too were using it appropriately by meaning. To those same Jehovah Witnesses, they were relatively 'liberal' and would accept her being of an alternate form of Christianity as though she were in the same company. But my relative by contrast assumed they were working technically under the banner of the name "Christianity" but were miscreant truants who just couldn't get fired in the same way. That's why I assumed you might be thinking the same way.

There is no correct definition of what is "Muslim" other than that it is AT LEAST one who follows some aspect of Islam through Mohammed as their founder. But to those most strictly fundamentalist (and sometimes evangelical), they believe in an equal but opposing view of other strands of Islam using the same label but assuming everyone else actually knows their own 'authoritative' view as 'true' but are being relatively truant and thus BAD employees. The more liberal versions may be more accepting of ALL "Muslims" but are no more authoritative over them then they think of you when they interpret themselves as the 'true' version. You each mistaken the other as relative 'employees' as though you share the same religion where the other is just being the trivial disobedient representative of the whole of Islamic faith.

And this is where I think you may be in error. You seem kind enough and relatively what many here might prefer to be a fair citizen among various other religions. But your version of Islam is no more 'correct' than those who appear most troubling to outsiders just as those who interpret the extremes of Christianity as disconcerting and worthy of question in a Muslim world where many think that they should discourage Christianity if only because of those extremes that exist, however less popular than the whole.

The point which you are stuck in is the idea of people may interpret something in different ways based on logic.

and I say that logic is not something open to interpret. Its is ridiculous to claim %0,006 of being true interpreters while %99,99 rejects it.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Altai

[Altai]

I am not interpreting anything. I am simply observing that different Muslims have different interpretations and I am using different words to describe different groups so I can be clear what I am referring if I make a statement.

"truth" is not a democracy. one person can be right while 16000 are wrong. But we are not talking about "truth" we are talking about opinion and I have no business telling someone that they are not a "true" Muslim. So if the people beheading apostates claim to be Muslim then they are Muslim as far as I am concerned. The only obligation I have is to be precise. i.e. if I am commenting on the evils perpetrated by some Muslims in the name of Islam I have to be clear that I am talking about the subset of Muslims that interpret their religion in ways that are fundamentally evil. Islamist is a useful word for that purpose.

Okay I think we cant solve this problem without quoting the verses directly.

So these %0,006 uses some specific verses as a reason for their terrorist actions. Quote them single by single and I will prove its of being wrong interpretation. Actually you can also do that yourself but you probably dont want to do that. Copy one verse and I will reply, then copy another one. Dont copy all at the same time please.

[Peter F]

Rules are are always subject to interpretation and prioritization. Are you really arguing that the Muslim beheading apostates in Iraq are the same as the Muslims that hold a 9-5 job in Canadian city?

Muslims beheading apostates in Iraq. The Caliphate says the prisoner is an apostate because they are fighting against the Caliphate - that makes them apostates. Yet the unfortunate executed are Muslim and have not renounced their religion. They are apostates because the honcho's in Isis declared them enemies of the Caliphate.

Altai makes a good point, I think.

[TimG]

Quote them single by single and I will prove its of being wrong interpretation.

The only thing that matters to me is they claim to be Muslim and are acting in the name of Islam. You are likely correct that their interpretation of scripture is nonsensical but they still claim to be Muslim and I am no position to say they are not Muslim nor do I want to get into a detailed analysis of Quaran. The only thing I can do is be careful that I do not make blanket statements that condemn all Muslims for the attitudes of the minority.