The Islamic State Part II

[Istakhr]

Just because they're archaic doesn't mean they're not evil. The Quran espouses the view that it is eternally true: it doesn't matter what time period you examine it in, all the verses are still going to hold. In other words, the Quran wishes for us to chop people's heads off and kill apostates even today. Do you think that's evil?

Why do you think ISIS is so obsessed with chopping people's heads off? Because of the Quran, and that its truths are perennial.

There is minority movement among Iranian Shia scholars who consider Quran and Prophet's example as appropriate for only that time and believe that muslims should use only islamic values (well in reality code word for pseudo liberal values) to determine how they should act appropriately today.

Of course their view is not actually supported by anything in Islam, but this is more acceptable in Iranian Shia Islam because even the traditionalist Shias believe that logic is the third important source of Islamic law after Quran and Sunnah (behavior and laws of prophet and 12 Shia Imams).

[Chiki]

But this definition is so broad, and encompasses so many religions, as to make it pretty useless for anything other than an argument that religions are often violent

That's exactly what I want to use it as an argument for. I think many people will intuitively agree that most religions are violent.

There is minority movement among Iranian Shia scholars who consider Quran and Prophet's example as appropriate for only that time and believe that muslims should use only islamic values (well in reality code word for pseudo liberal values) to determine how they should act appropriately today.

Of course their view is not actually supported by anything in Islam, but this is more acceptable in Iranian Shia Islam because even the traditionalist Shias believe that logic is the third important source of Islamic law after Quran and Sunnah (behavior and laws of prophet and 12 Shia Imams).

I'm glad that there are Muslims who are aware of how flawed the Quran is. However, in that case, what do they have to base their actions on? It seems very strange that they would be religious and have nothing to guide their actions.

[Arakan]

There is minority movement among Iranian Shia scholars who consider Quran and Prophet's example as appropriate for only that time and believe that muslims should use only islamic values (well in reality code word for pseudo liberal values) to determine how they should act appropriately today.

Of course their view is not actually supported by anything in Islam, but this is more acceptable in Iranian Shia Islam because even the traditionalist Shias believe that logic is the third important source of Islamic law after Quran and Sunnah (behavior and laws of prophet and 12 Shia Imams).

So we can only hope that this minority becomes bigger over the years :)

[Istakhr]

I'm glad that there are Muslims who are aware of how flawed the Quran is. However, in that case, what do they have to base their actions on? It seems very strange that they would be religious and have nothing to guide their actions.

As I said it's partly because of their arguments (similar to catholics) about natural law and place of logic in Islamic law which they also apparently relate to some of sayings of Muhammad and Shia Imams. (Who knows if the Hadiths are true or not)

This is also partly a natural progression of Khomeini's fatwas that to stabilize the Islamic government and society, Islamic authorities are allowed to suspend almost any islamic law necessary.

[Istakhr]

So we can only hope that this minority becomes bigger over the years :)

Unfortunately for Iran and Iranians I think it is far more likely that sometime in the next decades Iran ends up in a bloodbath much worse than anything seen in middle east between secular and non muslims on one side and fundamentalists on the other side.

The key here is the almost complete division of Iranian society into two parallel ones and near total marginalization of Shia scholars in both of them.

[Arakan]

Mormont wrote:

However, that is not the same as saying that Islam is not a peaceful religion. If being able to find verses justifying violence disqualifies a religion from being 'peaceful', we will not find many peaceful religions anywhere on the planet. If people

committing acts of terror in its name means a religion isn't 'peaceful', there are none.

This is exatly the reason why religion (every religion) must be contained to the private area only, via a division of state and church (Germany) or a stricter secularist approach (France, Turkey under Atatürk).

"Worldly" laws and rules (as defined in the constitution and law in general) must always have primacy over religious rules and regulations if a conflict between those two occur.

[The Iceman of the North]

I'm glad that there are Muslims who are aware of how flawed the Quran is. However, in that case, what do they have to base their actions on? It seems very strange that they would be religious and have nothing to guide their actions.

Tell that to the millions of Christians that don't go around stoning people.

[Chiki]

Tell that to the millions of Christians that don't go around stoning people.

I don't know what your argument is.

[The Iceman of the North]

I don't know what your argument is.

That there are millions of Christians that call themselves religious, but still don't follow the Bible in everything. There's really no reason why you can't be Muslim and still consider the Quran not to be perfect.

[Shryke]

Considering all the Muslim's wandering around various western countries not chopping heads off, it would appear that claims about Islam and violence are not universally applicable.

[Arakan]

There's really no reason why you can't be Muslim and still consider the Quran not to be perfect.

You are absolutely right. This is how it should be. Someone should tell that Pakistan. Maybe they will abolish their anti-blasphemy laws and stop convicting women like Asia Bibi or Rimsha Masih to death.

As of 2011, all Islamic majority nations, worldwide, had criminal laws on blasphemy. Over 125 non-Muslim nations worldwide did not have any laws relating to blasphemy.[46][47] In Islamic nations, thousands of individuals have been arrested and punished for blasphemy of Islam.[48][49] Several Islamic nations have argued in the United Nations that blasphemy against the prophet of Islam, Muhammad is unacceptable, and laws should be passed worldwide to place "limits on the freedom of expression." Non-Muslim nations that do not have blasphemy laws, have pointed to abuses of blasphemy laws in Islamic nations, and have disagreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

Don't get me wrong...Christian countries had the same BS laws as well (albeit no Death Penalty IIRC) and some (Putin says hello) want to bring them back but again...Enlightenment and Secularism.

When you see all of this, then you know how great a man like Atatürk really was.

[Istakhr]

That there are millions of Christians that call themselves religious, but still don't follow the Bible in everything. There's really no reason why you can't be Muslim and still consider the Quran not to be perfect.

This is a false equivalence between Islam and Christianity.

There are very very few justifications in Islam to deny the literal meanings of Quran (or literal + interpretations) and just interpret Quran the way you want.

Unlike christianity some of the most fundamentalist traditionalist views (not necessarily the radical views) are the most self consistent ones.

[Arakan]

Considering all the Muslim's wandering around various western countries not chopping heads off, it would appear that claims about Islam and violence are not universally applicable.

Of course they are not. That doesnt make the argument invalid that a lot of things in the Islamic world are not ok (see aformentioned anti-blasphemy laws).

But I agree: the average human being, no matter if Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Socialist or Communist is a peaceful fellow.

[Shryke]

Of course they are not. That doesnt make the argument invalid that a lot of things in the Islamic world are not ok (see aformentioned anti-blasphemy laws).

But I agree: the average human being, no matter if Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Socialist or Communist is a peaceful fellow.

No, it makes invalid the argument that those things that are wrong are necessarily connected to Islam.

[Istakhr]

No, it makes invalid the argument that those things that are wrong are necessarily connected to Islam.

Does this argument apply to all other ideologies too or is it unique to Islam?

[Chiki]

That there are millions of Christians that call themselves religious, but still don't follow the Bible in everything. There's really no reason why you can't be Muslim and still consider the Quran not to be perfect.

By definition, Muslims are people who believe in the teachings of the Quran. It's a little strange for there to be Muslims who cherrypick what they like out of the Quran and reject what they don't like.

[Shryke]

Does this argument apply to all other ideologies too or is it unique to Islam?

Depends on what varying ideologies can be amassed under the what label.

Islam is about the same as any religion in that a wide variety of differing stances can be taken under the same banner. Many of them not at all as people are saying in this thread, which implies that the overall ideology of Islam itself is not the issue.

[Istakhr]

Depends on what varying ideologies can be amassed under the what label.

Hopefully unlike the obvious example this one is not too incendiary:

Do you think there are nonviolent people who believe in Maoist Marxism? Do you think they are the majority of people who believe in this ideology?

Does the answer to these questions the sole determinants of goodness or evilness of this ideology?

[Chiki]

Depends on what varying ideologies can be amassed under the what label.

Islam is about the same as any religion in that a wide variety of differing stances can be taken under the same banner. Many of them not at all as people are saying in this thread, which implies that the overall ideology of Islam itself is not the issue.

I'd really appreciate if you could explain how you think "slay them wherever you find them" admits of another interpretation.

More detail: http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/113893-the-islamic-state/?p=6120477

[TerraPrime]

By definition, Muslims are people who believe in the teachings of the Quran. It's a little strange for there to be Muslims who cherrypick what they like out of the Quran and reject what they don't like.

And yet, millions of them exist... strange, indeed.