Should we fear Islam?

[Fatihah]

So harming others is something that is considered okey in Muslim eyes, correct?

Response: Not at all. Self-defense is considered o.k. in islam.

 

[cottage]

Response: If they did carry out these acts, then they are extremists. Yet, this does not mean that islam is a threat, but that they are a threat to those they encounter.

I'm not saying Islam is a threat. It is the Islamic extremists who carried out those attacks that are a threat. And they muddy the name of Islam, in whose name those outrages are supposedly carried out.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: I don't know what you mean by liberating a holy site. But if someone tried to take over something which is not theirs, such as a holy site, then they should be subdued by the authorities of that country, not by any individuals. Killing them would not be justified.

Would you consider non-Islamic occupation of a site or area considered holy to Islam, that is condoned by the local authorities, to be a reason to kill?

 

[Fatihah]

Would you consider non-Islamic occupation of a site or area considered holy to Islam, that is condoned by the local authorities, to be a reason to kill?

Response: Not at all. Islam teaches eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth. So as long as a person does not kill someone, or cause some to be killed, then their punishment should never be death.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: Not at all. Islam teaches eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth. So as long as a person does not kill someone, or cause some to be killed, then their punishment should never be death.

Eye for eye and tooth for tooth? Would that equate to....
"You are responsible for the death of my child, so now I will kill one of yours."

 

[Fatihah]

Eye for eye and tooth for tooth? Would that equate to....
"You are responsible for the death of my child, so now I will kill one of yours."

Response: Not at all. It would mean that since you are responsible for the death of my child, you can be punished by death as well, not your child.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Response: Not at all. It would mean that since you are responsible for the death of my child, you can be punished by death as well, not your child.

So far we have established that your personal practice of Islam is not to be feared at all. Nor are the Islamic practices of others who believe as you do.

However, each of the situations I presented to you are actual instances of the religious beliefs of other Muslims who are not as rational as you seem to be on these issues.
This is not unique to Islam. Christianity and other religions have groups that feel that deadly violence is justified by their religious beliefs in many of the same instances.

Unfortunately, at this point of history, Islam seems to be the haven for the most egregious of violent religious fundamentalists. While Islam is not in and of itself to blame for this, those within Islam who condone and commit these acts of terrorism give the non-Islamic world much to fear about Islam.

Just as the non-Christian world once had much to fear from Christianity, based on the acts of those who would use the Christian religion to forcibly convert, kill, or punish those outside the Christian belief. Even while many Christians did not participate or condone these actions, just as you, and those like you, do not condone the actions of those who would commit violence in the name of Islam.

 

[challupa]

I think Fatihah has done a good job answering these questions. He clearly says violence is not Islam. He cannot control extremists with Islam any more than secular society can control their population. The extremists of all sectors and religions are the ones we need to figure out how to deal with, not the moderates or peaceful of these groups. I think if someone painted a picture of me being as bad as someone who did horrific killings just because they happened to be Atheist would make me angry. How is it different when we put peaceful and moderate Muslims in the same group as those who commit terrorist acts? That's not right either imo. Moderate and peaceful people everywhere should be uniting together irregardless of belief systems to try and stop the extremists in our world.

 

[Fatihah]

So far we have established that your personal practice of Islam is not to be feared at all. Nor are the Islamic practices of others who believe as you do.

However, each of the situations I presented to you are actual instances of the religious beliefs of other Muslims who are not as rational as you seem to be on these issues.
This is not unique to Islam. Christianity and other religions have groups that feel that deadly violence is justified by their religious beliefs in many of the same instances.

Unfortunately, at this point of history, Islam seems to be the haven for the most egregious of violent religious fundamentalists. While Islam is not in and of itself to blame for this, those within Islam who condone and commit these acts of terrorism give the non-Islamic world much to fear about Islam.

Just as the non-Christian world once had much to fear from Christianity, based on the acts of those who would use the Christian religion to forcibly convert, kill, or punish those outside the Christian belief. Even while many Christians did not participate or condone these actions, just as you, and those like you, do not condone the actions of those who would commit violence in the name of Islam.

Response: I simply agree with everything you've just stated.

 

[gnostic]

That's unfair Gabe. He gave you a reasonable answer, only self defence or in the defence of others is violence permitted. This is no different from the predominant opinion in secular cultures.

How do people injured, killed or maimed in the buses be considered self-defence, shyanekh? Those people were attacking Muslims or Islam; they were just people using public transports. How are these people considered to be threat to Islam?

Sorry, but it is these violent and extremist Muslims who have blackened the name of Islam, not civilians killed in London buses. The media have every right to cover that tragic day. Do you suggest the media to ignore it? And the London police found evidences what these violent Muslims have done, and these are British Muslims, born and raised in the UK, not from 3rd world countries that sponsored terrorism.

I don't believe in RF Muslims as there been no such thing as bad Muslims. Those London bombers were Muslims, regardless of what Fatihah and others say.

But there are also many good, law-bidding Muslims in the UK, and they shouldn't be blamed for the actions of the violent few. I don't think most of us here believe that all Muslims are terrorists. They are not. But we also believe that not recognising that there are extremist Muslims or violent Muslims out there, is denying that there are problems in Muslim society. This last post by Fatihah, back in post #120:

Response: If the London Bombers considered themselves muslims, then they are not muslims. Not because they do things which muslims don't like, but the simple fact that their actions are not condoned by any teaching of islam.

This is what we call: "Putting your head in the sand". This sort of response help no ones; it doesn't help the moderate, peaceful and law-bidding Muslim causes, and it certainly doesn't help Islam. The denials and complacency actually do far more harm to Islam and for the rest of Muslim communities than help them.

 

[Fatihah]

But we also believe that not recognising that there are extremist Muslims or violent Muslims out there, is denying that there are problems in Muslim society. This last post by Fatihah, back in post #120:



This is what we call: "Putting your head in the sand". This sort of response help no ones; it doesn't help the moderate, peaceful and law-bidding Muslim causes, and it certainly doesn't help Islam. The denials actually do far more harm to Islam and for the rest of Muslim communities than help them.

Response: My post was not aimed to help anyone. It's a post. A post which is a response to a question. That's it. So your point is without merit. However, your response to the post helps no one as well. Thus making your post and yourself full of hypocrisy.

 

[gnostic]

Response: Not at all. Islam teaches eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth. So as long as a person does not kill someone, or cause some to be killed, then their punishment should never be death.

What about something like letting school children name their stuff toys, where one child call it "Mohammed"? Did you think the teacher deserve flogging? (The boy's name was Mohammed, and said he name the toy after himself, but the authorities and the school-board wouldn't even listen to the boy's plea to spare the teacher, and they charged and convicted her with blasphemy, as if Muhammad is a god.)

Or the Danish cartoonist or editor? Do you think they deserve death, when neither of them kill a Muslim? A satire doesn't equate with murder.

So how can Islamic authorities even claim "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" law?

 

[Fatihah]

What about something like letting school children name their stuff toys, where one child call it "Mohammed"? Did you think the teacher deserve flogging? (The boy's name was Mohammed, and said he name the toy after himself, but the authorities and the school-board wouldn't even listen to the boy's plea to spare the teacher, and they charged and convicted her with blasphemy, as if Muhammad is a god.)

Or the Danish cartoonist or editor? Do you think they deserve death, when neither of them kill a Muslim? A satire doesn't equate with murder.

So how can Islamic authorities even claim "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" law?

Response: None of the acts are justified by any teaching of islam. Islamic authorities can claim "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" because they have no difficulty in implementing the law.

 

[gnostic]

Response: None of the acts are justified by any teaching of islam.

Sorry, fatihah. I don't understand your reply. Can you please expand or clarify what you're trying to say?

Whose "acts" are you talking about? The teacher or the cartoonist? Or the offended Muslims? Or the authorities (law, police)?

I am probably assuming that you're talking about the offended Muslims or authorities were not in line with the teaching of Islam, but I could be wrong with my assumption.

 

[Fatihah]

Sorry, fatihah. I don't understand your reply. Can you please expand or clarify what you're trying to say?

Whose "acts" are you talking about? The teacher or the cartoonist? Or the offended Muslims? Or the authorities (law, police)?

I am probably assuming that you're talking about the offended Muslims or authorities were not in line with the teaching of Islam, but I could be wrong with my assumption.

Response: I was referring to all the examples. None of them are condoned under the teachings of islam.

 

[sonofskeptish]

No, I hold the same opinion Richard Dawkins have, they became extremist, so the ordinary "nice muslim" has the same basis most other muslims have, whatever they are extreme or not.

JUST AS CHRISTIANS, look at the homophobic haters, or the ones bombing abortion clinics and so on.

I don't disagree with you... and largely share Dawkin's view... and would agree that religion based on supernatural worldviews is a breeding ground for this... but in the short term, I do think extremist Islam poses the most immediate threat... it's the worst of the mind viruses.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Perhaps the "fear factor" within Islam itself is what makes people "fear Islam". As with other faiths, muslims appear to make fear a key component of their religion. And extremist muslims appear to be the masters of it, instilling fear of the foreign west, the imam, democracy, free thought, individualism, as well as the past, present and future. More here...

Fear In Islam - 4Truth.net

(BTW... it's a christian site and I call BS on comparisons to christianity and think many elements apply equally well to christain "extremists", but that doesn't necessarily make other points less worthy)

And when an extremist group fears things like democracy, free thought, and individualism, those who cherish these things in turn fear them.

Thoughts?

 

[AxisMundi]

I have just finished the book "The Great Theft" by Islamic scholar Khaledm Abou El Fadl.

In it, he describes how "Islam is currently passing through a transformative period no less dramatic than the movements that swept through Europe during the Reformation."

He describes how two internal Islamic groups are currently fighting for control of the Islamic faith... the "moderates" who claim Islam is a religion of peace, versus those he labels "puritians"... the "extremists" set on opressive Islamic world domination.

Both of these groups claim they are the only true muslims, and both insist their counterparts misrepresent the Islamic faith.

The author writes that "the stakes (in this battle) have never been higher, and the future of the Muslim world hangs in the balance."

IMO, the stakes are even higher than that... because if it the extremists "win" (and by some accounts they are winning) their agenda is clear... Islamic world domination a'la Taliban.

While Islamic "moderates" say Islam is peacful, Islamic "puritans" demonstrate their version is not... with suicide attacks, bombing planes/trains/buses/cars, issuing fatwas on authors, murdering film producers, forcing politicians into hiding, violent rampages over cartoons, etc.

So that's why I ask my question... should we be concerned about this battle between these opposing groups to define Islam... because of what it might mean to the rest of us?

And if so, what can we do about it?

Should we fear Islam?

No more so than the fundamentalists and extremists of any religion.

 

[Troublemane]

Sonofskeptish, that sounds like a good book. IMO, muslim extremists are cultivated by western extremism (George B., iraq, afganistan invasions). A quick look into history shows a peaceful example will promote peace, where as aggressive tendancies promote aggression.

:biglaugh:

somebody doesnt read history much!...Anyone here recall Timur? Or the Ottoman Empire?

 

[Erebus]

Should we fear Islam?

No more so than the fundamentalists and extremists of any religion.

Other than Pastafarians ... I'm not afraid of spaghetti.