Light said:
Yes, we can discuss about the differences in opinion on the current crisis. But, personally I don't think it will go anywhere. You will have your opinion and I have mine.
i think that's a very sad attitude. it presupposes that neither of us are prepared to be convinced. i would like to think that one of the points of a dialogue board is for people to get to know each other better - perhaps even to start trusting each others' opinions. i speak my mind here - i have no agenda other than my own personal beliefs, which have been shaped by experience and learning. my understanding of islam, the middle east and muslims has been likewise. unfortunately, it has recently been too often the case that muslims spout a "party line" - and anyone can do that. unless you are similarly open to the possibility of learning something you didn't know, there is very little point in your being here.
When I refer to the crisis in the Middle East, I am explaining that you can't look at the Middle East as an example of Islam.
right. now this is a regularly occurring difficulty; the muslim world simply isn't very "islamic", certainly as islam has been taught to me by muslims and as you yourself represent it as an idealised, perfect, system. in fact, nobody has yet shown me an example of a truly islamic society other than the one we know from the Qur'an and the hadiths - in other words, nobody since muhammad and his companions has managed it. certainly the states which purport to be "islamic republics" and kingdoms, such as iran, pakistan, sudan and saudi arabia, are pretty much anything but. i believe islam to be intimately connected with *social justice* and *moral uprightness* - but i see little evidence of this in the government of these states. certainly their shari'a courts are neither equitable nor free of corruption. don't get me wrong - i am not therefore saying that therefore "islam is x or y", just that nobody has so far got it to work. i am therefore forced to conclude that when muslims like yourself say that "islam is..." etc, the islam they are referring to is the theoretical construct and set of laws that they try to live by. am i right?
if so, then my criticism of specific muslims, groups and governments of muslims should *NOT* be construed as criticism of islam, but criticism of muslims. is that fair enough? therefore, the question ought to be, really, not "is islam peaceful?" (unless you're talking *strictly* in theological and legal terms) but "are MUSLIMS peaceful?" - which, of course is a different question entirely. both are fair questions but must be strictly defined. ok?
Why do you only refer to Islam and Muslim in regards to intolerance and violence?
because that is what we are discussing. the title of the thread is not "which is more peaceful, islam, christianity or judaism?" also, in reference to what countries do, see my point above. either "muslim countries" and organisations represent islam or they don't, in your view. which is it? if they do, then we can talk about whether their conduct, policies and behaviour are islamic or not. if not, then you are not entitled to consider the us or uk as being examples of "christian" behaviour, or israel as "jewish". you can't have it both ways.
i don't know where you're from, but in any case, as a citizen of the uk, i can certainly tell you about the status of christianity here. the country is *not* run as a christian country. political decisions are *not* taken with christian values and priorities in mind, because in europe and the us, religion and state are kept separate. if you're not taking this into account, you're failing to understand something very basic about the politics. it is, of course, true, that in the us there are very strong feelings about christian values held by about 70% of the population, but this does not mean that they get their way, nor does it mean that the values of the remaining 30% are ignored. the point is that decisions are mostly taken pragmatically and, even though the president or prime minister may have strong christian beliefs (and both bush and blair do) that doesn't mean they are able to put them into practice. it just isn't possible, because neither have that kind of unlimited power. a similar situation is the case in israel. israel, which i know well, is a *secular* state, which was set up as a *refuge* for jews and as a *nationalistic* solution to jewish oppression, *not* as a religious institution. although there are strong religious forces at work there, there are equally strong secularising forces, which resist the religious ones. it sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how israeli society actually works. what i can tell you is that what *israel* does is not the same as what *judaism* says ought to be done. therefore you certainly can't judge judaism by israel any more than you can judge christianity by the us or the uk.
Israel whom have been for the pass years bulldozing palestinian houses and illegally annexing lands for settlers? Leaving the Palestinian homeless? Isn't there intolerance in all this actions?
as you *well know*, or at any rate ought to know, the situation is hardly that simple. try not to ignore the actual history of the arab-israeli conflict in your search for rhetorical self-justification. if you need a reading list, i'll be happy to supply one for you.
You probably have not heard Muslims scholars who have clearly object the violence/suicide bombing etc.
i have. but i've heard plenty of eminent muslim scholars also claim that the violence was justified. similarly, as you ought to know, in the case of jews in particular, there are plenty of islamic authorities that claim that a) all israelis are by definition "settlers" and b) there is no such thing as an israeli "civilian". and, as you also ought to know, it is rare for an act of violence against a jewish target is not somehow justified in terms of the palestinians - as if it helps the poor buggers.
the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang after the World War II representing the Jews. All of them at one point does perform terrorism act.
except that all of these were DISARMED and DISBANDED and therefore prevented from acting on their own after the establishment of the state. if you don't know anything about how difficult and divisive this necessary act was, i suggest you read this article about the "altalena affair" -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair - it is notable that nothing like this has happened in either lebanon or palestine, with the result that we are in this situation now with hamas and hizbollah.
I am sorry but this is entirely incorrect. Muslims don't disagree all the time. If you ask any Muslims, if Islam is peaceful - everyone will say yes.
light, i don't think you understand what i'm saying. of *course* they'll all say yes if you ask a high-concept, theoretical question. the question is what happens in *practice*. is X permitted? is Y action
haram or
halal? if you are maintaining that muslims never disagree, you must be living in an extremely homogeneous society. the muslims i know have a lot of very different opinions.
Diversity in Islam is not an issue
oh, come on, light. take off the rose-coloured spectacles. the picture you're presenting bears very little resemblance to the everyday reality that i encounter. why can't muslims in the uk agree on one representative organisation, for example? why do we have the mcb, the mab, mpac, the muslim parliament, the federation of british sufis, etc? and what about the ahmadis, the ismailis, the twelvers and so on? the fact is that all these people disagree on nearly everything, whilst all claiming that they agree about the Qur'an and the
sunna. seems to me that there's something there that doesn't add up. in short, you guys are nearly as disunited as the jewish community!
b'shalom
bananabrain
