However, note that no beheadings have been staged in Vatican City in recent years.
True, but I think it's more complex than that.
First, I do not think the Vatican automatically represents the most conservative brand of Christianity; not at all times, anyway. Not now, for example. Second, beheadings seem rightfully barbaric and horrendous to us, but as terrible as they are, I think their impact is superficial in a way (though obviously not to their victims, and please make no mistake: I do not wish to live in a country that beheads people!). ISIS beheadings are a matter of form, a propaganda tool; a way to shock the West into action, and the local population into compliance.
But as for actual damage, compare their beheadings with the damage caused by some Christian leaders of First World countries who have been bombing cities in the Middle East and causing a lot of deaths. These conservative Christians sometimes describe themselves as "born again", surround themselves with religious phraseology, describe their wars as Crusades and name them with Biblical sounding names (Righteous Fury, Infinite Justice, etc, etc), feel their countries have a God-given right to shape the world as they see fit. Wouldn't people living in a city bombed by a Western country consider themselves the victims of Western religious zealots?
And if, say, we know Obama and Bush are NOT the same, are we not making the mistake of thinking every bellicose Muslim is exactly the same terrorist fundamentalist that cannot be reasoned with and must be exterminated? Maybe there are shades of gray with them, just like it happens in the West?
Absolutely, and from my perspective, some western nations (in particular the US) do have the problematic tendency of voting Christian fundamentalists into positions of power.
There's a debate to be had how much of the blame for past actions should go to religion, and how much to worldly motivations, but there clearly was an element of that (remember Gog and Magog?).
But talking the long-term perspective, religious 'nones' are on the rise in the western world, even in the US.
Wrong. The beheadings are the things Mohammad did, as written in their holy books, so they just do that, following their role model even without the cameras.
It does have something to do with religion, but only because that is being used as _motivation_ to do bad things which isn't inherit to just Islam. I mean, Klu Klux Klan
> Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in > part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity. The goals of the KKK included, > from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in > America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman."
What this is about is radical _people_ finding whatever motivation they can do to force _their own views_ onto the world.
What is your motivation in protecting islam? Why the finger pointing to Christianity and other religions? Sure, they also got problems, but do we currently really have a huge problem with those religions? What you are doing is like saying: "Well national socialism isn't that bad because other totalitarian ideologies also are stupid. Look at communism and how many dead people resultet because Stalin distorted the true teachings of marxism. See, national socialism isn't the problem."
I'm not trying to protect Islam or bring Christianity down. I honestly don't care either way about any of them. What I'm trying to explain that blaming Islam is the wrong thing to do, is pointless, and if anything it helps disenfranchise the at-risk, on-the-fence-extremeists who are (getting) upset at how everyone else deals with their religion.
The Muslims from the another "sects" are also considered "unbelievers" by the fundamentalists (unless they join them), so it perfectly fits their ideology to do to them "what Mohammad did."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza
"All Males who reached puberty and 1 woman beheaded"
Directly from the holy texts:
"No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords."
(The "Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)" is how Muhammad is referred to in the texts. Whenever we write just "Muhammad" it already sounds "improper" to his believers.)
The fundamentalists know the content of the holy books of Islam.
Wrong again. You're not actually comparing. Go to the sources. It's not about "looking hard" it is on almost every page of Quran. Please try the reading sample, Sura 9:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/pick/009.htm
All those are considered to be the direct words of god by Muslims. As long as they declare them so, the problems will remain. But suggesting them not to declare that is probably worse than suggesting to the Catholics to give up having the Pope. They surely need some kind of reformation. Unfortunately, "back to the original texts" can't be the basis of reformation as they are really filled with violence and intolerance. The only reformation that isn't disastrous for humanity can only be "don't take these original texts too seriously." Other Abrahamic religions managed to move in that direction, for Islam it's going to be much harder.
What I don't understand is that effectively not a single person of those who claim that there is equivalence in the holy texts of different religions try to read them themselves, because once they'd read they would not be able to even say such sentences like "if looking hard enough."
Recommended reading: "The Phony Islam of ISIS", http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha..., on the dangers of believing there is a literal, undilluted interpretation of a contradictory holy text.
(I'm an atheist, by the way. Not a Muslim.)
What "this" you mean? What I've written is true, specify what you doubt. Now...
> Or maybe they modernized their religion
There's no "modernization" as such but not every branch is as fanatic as the Wahhabis, the official branch in Saudi Arabia, and the direct religious base for ISIS. Saudis Invest billions in spreading their fanatical Islam branch.
> Why aren't they killing infidels left and right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Saudi_Ar...
"The death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences[4] including murder, rape, false prophecy, blasphemy, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy,[5] adultery,[6] witchcraft and sorcery[7][8][9][10] and can be carried out by beheading with a sword,[11] or more rarely by firing squad, and sometimes by stoning.[12][13]"
> Recommended reading: "The Phony Islam of ISIS"
Balderdash, the whole article. One more writer speaking from his ash instead of reading any primary source. How do I know? Because "the Quran is" "a complex and nuanced text that deals with legal, moral, and metaphysical questions in a subtle and multifaceted way" can be claimed only somebody who never read it himself. Nuanced my foot.
I've given one link (Sura 9). Read it and say what's nuanced there. Here another, Sura 111:
"The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming Fire, And his wife, the wood-carrier, Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre."
That's the whole Sura 111. What's nuanced about that? Reading Hadith, you can find that Abu Lahab was Mohammad's uncle who didn't believe in Mohammad's "I've received the message form god" pitch.
And that Sura was from the "peaceful part" of Quran(!). Fire of hell for unbelievers is preached in almost every Sura! Almost only those which are bad retellings of some less drastic Old Testament stories can happen not to mention at least "fire" or "hell" for "unbelievers." I don't care how nuanced is if they should pray five or 18 times per day, the view of unbelievers, Christians and Jews is very clear and repetitive.
> 27 Then he said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.’” 28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 29 Then Moses said, “You have been set apart to the Lord today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day.”
For another,
> 20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
...I'm afraid that your crusade of trying to prove Muslims violent by reading passages from Quran is not terribly persuasive, to anyone who have read the Old Testament. If you really want to persuade others, you will have to search harder.
Or read the "Gospels" from New Testament for the "deeds of Jesus" especially related to stoning:
http://biblehub.com/niv/john/8.htm
and compare with the "deeds of Muhammad" as told by Hadith:
http://quotingislam.blogspot.co.at/2011/06/muhammad-ordered-...
Yes, many Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia support ISIS; it's well-known this is a major source of funding. But how is this a counter to the fact the vast majority of Muslims -- are you aware that not all Muslims are Wahhabis, live in Saudi Arabia or, for that matter, are Arabs? -- are NOT trying to murder nonbelievers?
"Balderdash", you say about the article "The Phony Islam of ISIS". But what you say flies in the face of everything we know about religious texts; that they are anachronistic and self-contradictory in multiple places, and there is NO single interpretation of them. Evidently most Muslims choose not to acknowledge the part about spreading the word of Mohammed by the sword, or maybe you secretly believe they do -- all of them! -- and that they are biding their time?
The author argues that some parts of the Quran contradict other parts; that there are treatises and purported quotations of Mohammed that are meant to explain the Quran, but themselves are subject to interpretation and to varying degrees of reliability. I don't know about you, but I tend to trust the word of someone who studies religion for a living and specifically Islam to have read the Quran. Are you sure it's all "balderdash" and that this professor who teaches religious studies at college "has never read [the Quran] himself"?
But mostly I trust the reality of a world in which most Muslims are not trying to murder non-Muslims. I don't even need to appeal to authority here, just to reality.
After you read enough to have your view based on your own experience, also try to find out how many of those who believe claim those aren't the actual words of god but "some old contradictory texts." (As far as I know, only "apostates" dare to do so, once you read the original, you'll know why.)
http://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur
Morally wrong, sure, from my PoV. From their PoV they are the good guys.
Islam is a religion that teaches a few good things in verses and hadith from the early times of the religion when it was weak and had few members. So they needed to be tolerant and also wanted the Jews and Christians to be tolerant towards them.
Later, after the immigration to Mekka Mohammed changed his teachings and they become more and more intolerant and violent. The religion became more political as the teachings contained more and more text/rules about how to treat non-muslims. According to the koran, "Allah" knew that some verses contradict others, the later (more intolerant verses) abrogate (replace) the earlier peaceful verses (sura 16:101 and 2:106) - so you see that there is a bit of a problem with different verses telling different things.
Don't get me wrong, I would hope that all muslims would only follow the earlier peaceful teachings (and ignore the concept of abrogation) and many already do. But I don't think it helps in telling the others are simply "wrong" becaus that helps avoiding a much needed discussion (self-criticism). It would be better to acknowledge that there are intolerant verses and to understand why they are there and finally to come to the agreement that such intolerant teachings should no longer be accepted as part of the doctrine (well, only as some kind of "rejected part").
Public beheadings, whether televised or not, are always propaganda, a show of force, a message to the common people. Public punishment is sometimes a barbaric form of entertainment, which is a form of propaganda as well. Historically this was the case in most countries, including those in Europe.
In the case of ISIS, I also think they are meant to shock Europe and the US into action. A war between Islam and the West is just what ISIS needs.
I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, but that's a different issue.
Saudi Arabia is not poverty stricken, and they actually behead people for, for example, "adultery" or "homosexuality"(!) They invest 56 billion dollar per year for education, out of that billions for "exporting" their view of Islam, exactly the one with which I have problem.
Statistics show that most Muslims don't support ISIS: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-w...
Even in Saudi Arabia, support for ISIS isn't universal. According to this ( http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/isis... ) there is only 5% grassroots support for ISIS there. Now, even 5% is certainly worrying, but that's nowhere near universal.
Sorry, I remain unconvinced by your arguments.
But not all Muslims identify with Wahhabism (which percentage of the total Muslim population is Wahhabi?), nor live in Saudi Arabia. It's also not automatically true that all Wahhabis, even if more intolerant, want to murder the infidel.
Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. The fact remains that most Muslims don't want to kill you.
I've certainly never concluded that, you can verify all what I wrote. What I wanted to point out is that there is real danger that once Muslims attempt to read the "primary sources" themselves discover inspiration for immense intolerance, really not comparable to such present in Old or New Testament (and I've met some very radical and unpleasant Christians too). Not to mention that most "converts" are sucked in over their acquaintances, independently of the will of their families.
> most Muslims don't want to kill you
One of my best friends from childhood from basically secular Muslim family later converted to more fundamental Islam and he specifically isn't fighting except intellectually, at least as far as I know about him now, so you don't need to explain me that. Still I personally saw the fundamentalism rising and was actually close enough to atrocities of different kinds and directions. A member of my family had the luck just by accident to avoid one Islamic bomb attack. A few generations ago more neighboring (Christian) villages of my relative were wiped out by Muslims, women and children included. The world isn't for everybody as nice as is maybe for you so that you can just turn the head away and pretend that dangerous and disgraceful things don't exist and in some periods don't ugly grow.
Ask Armenians (Christians killed by the Ottoman Turks): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
A Hindu from India also gave his voice in this discussion and somebody downvoted him, even though he wanted to point to something meaningful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus
"The Indian historian Professor K.S. Lal estimates that the Hindu population in India decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in World history" [3]" (at the time of Muslim invasions and rule)
The Christians in the areas controlled by the Islamic law had the periods of "relatively quiet times" (with always much worse treatment than Muslims) and another periods of extreme suffering performed by the Muslim ruling minority. Note: just the minority of the population in their area were Muslims, and that was enough for extreme suffering. The biggest proof: Hindus.
So what the "most" of Muslim population does isn't even important. Even small number of determined oppressors (claiming to do just what their religion gives them right to do) is enough to make huge damage. And this can't be downplayed.
PS: I know about the Armenian Genocide, and it's terrible. But as I'm sure you're aware, at other times Christians killed plenty of Muslims (and other Christians, while we're at it) and were decidedly intolerant of Jewish people. Ahem, I don't even want to go there. So I'm not sure what we can conclude from this about the current world-wide Muslim population.
Sorry, you can quote the Quran all you want, and I can quote it back with verses promoting peace (or verses from other holy texts promoting violence; or even violence from other religions which are not frequently linked to terrorism).
There is no inherent danger from Islam. There is real danger in the world, but I think you're mistaken in placing the source. And Western countries are oblivious to their own historical contributions to violence in the Middle East. All too easy to blame it all on weird raving fundamentalists.
In the end, you think I'm mistaken. I think you're mistaken. Let it rest.
Oh, yes, it is, absolutely is, especially combined with Hadith. Both together are the primary holy texts of Islam. Read it, read the historical materials, compare the texts and the history (what is written as the "words of god to Muslims" and what was done in the name of Islam in the last 1400 years -- the instructions and the actions match, and why wouldn't, if the "believers" performed them following the "manual") then you can try to give arguments how it is not. Right now you have no real arguments. And you know you won't have, since I'll recognize if you try to give something out of the context, that's why you don't even try.
What is your background in claiming what you claim? What do you actually know about Islam and Muslims, personally? Who tortured your ancestors? Or whom your ancestors tortured? You must have ancestors and they must have been involved in something. I've given you my background. Do you know anybody who's not Muslim but who's parents and grandparents lived in the Muslim country? Try to talk to such people.
> There is no inherent danger from Islam.
Yes there is, whoever isn't a Muslim and reads Quran immediately understands. It's totally not comparable to the texts of any other religion, that's why we see what we see now every day. Muslims "behaving normal" (never having read Quran themselves before and being more in the secular environment) and then in short time becoming suicidal bombers or mass shooters or even "just" "mad" car drivers after somebody (a friend or a relative) just shows them what's really there:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325180/Two-fingers-...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30583390
So everybody should read himself what's in Quran. Especially non-Muslims.
"The Koran teaches fear, hatred, contempt for others, murder as a legitimate means for the dissemination and preservation of this satanic doctrine, it talks ill of women, classifies people into classes, calls for blood and ever more blood. Yet, that a camel trader sparks uproar in his tribe, that he wants to make his fellow citizens believe that he talked to the archangel Gabriel; that he boasted about being taken up into heaven and receiving a part of that indigestible book there, which can shake common sense on every page, that to gain respect for this work, he covers his country with fire and iron, that he strangles fathers, drags away daughters, that he leaves the beaten a free choice between death and his faith: now this is certainly something that no-one can excuse, unless he came as a Turk into the world, unless superstition has stifled any natural light of reason in him."
Voltaire (1694-1788)
You can quote the Quran all you want. I can quote back verses preaching tolerance and understanding, even of unbelievers. The fact remains that, like all holy texts, it's contradictory and open to interpretation. Islam is what modern-day Muslims choose it to be. And the vast majority of Muslims choose it not to mean a perpetual war against the unbeliever.
The notion that as soon as a reasonable Muslims picks up the Quran and "really reads it" (as I assume you imply you've done, and that all Muslims who disagree with you haven't... how condescending can you be?) he/she will turn into a murderous jihadist is so patently absurd it merits no further discussion.
Sorry, quote Voltaire all you want, but the real world contradicts you. Yes, some vocal fanatics are intent on murdering the infidel, but the vast majority of Muslims just want to live their lives. Repeat after me: "no, my Muslim neighbors are not biding their time for the moment they can kill me."
That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how those that don't want the reform will behave: more "pure, undiluted" acts.
That said, there's a reasonable case to be made that this is ISIS "branding". What their leaders truly believe is unknowable, but we can see their masterful use of propaganda, with smiling jihadis next to happy-looking children, and of course also the brutal beheadings shot in high-definition using modern techniques. I doubt the Prophet approved of HD cams.
There's also a good case to be made, as in this article from The Atlantic, "The Phony Islam of ISIS" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha... ) that "literal" intepretations of the Quran and other Holy Texts are a red herring. You cannot claim there is a literal interpretation; just an interpretation that claims to be literal. But holy texts are rife with ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, as explained in the article -- you can find an equivalent of "You Shall Not Kill" and in a different verse "Kill The Infidel", and you need some Wise Man to explain to you "ok, you shall not kill believers, but you can kill the unbeliever, unless there is a full moon (as mentioned in verse XYZ), in which case you can only kill goats". But this is the Wise Man's interpretation; by definition there is no single valid "literal" interpretation. And once you accept there is some degree of interpretation at play, you can no longer claim ISIS is evidence that Islam is fundamentally more blood-thirsty and terrorism-prone than other religions; just that some of the current high profile terrorist organizations are using their reading of the Quoran to justify their actions, and that they claim their interpretation is the "purest".
Even within ISIS and Al-Qaeda there is doctrinal dispute, as evidenced in this other article from The Atlantic, "What ISIS really wants" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ), which shows fundamentalist clerics disagree, and this creates splits. How can this be, if all of them believe they are following "pure, unadulterated Islam"?
www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf
"God says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32)."
And that is actually cherry picking. If you read the sentence before and the few sentences after together with 5:32 you get what was said:
"32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; "
That's 5:32 and 5:33 together. Is there some nuance? The command is the "old" one given to the Jews but they became "prodigals," says "god" speaking in plural about him (as he does on other places in Quran too). The "reward" is specified one verse afterwards.
Or even better read the whole Sura 5, to get the whole message. One clearer translation (start from the verse 1 and beware the following side is behind the left arrow):
http://quran.ksu.edu.sa/index.php?l=en#aya=4_176&m=hafs&qare...
That ISIS uses modern propaganda techniques?
To the article I linked?
To the assertion that holy texts need interpretation?
That there is a doctrinal dispute between factions of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, therefore showing there can be no single interpretation?
All of it?
You're so hell-bent in replying "wrong" and "no" to every post you disagree with, it's really hard to understand what you actually mean, beyond "here are some horrible passages from the Quran".
I also think that understanding a religious book isn't as simple as sitting down one day and reading end to end. It's not just the Quran anyway; there is a huge body of followups that must be read in order to understand it. Some of them contradictory, some open to interpretation, some of varying degrees of reliability.
Have you read them all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai
ask the victims of Boko Haram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram
It's not something exclusive for this period in history, the motives, principles and methods can be traced through all the 1400 years of the existence of Muslim faith.
I understand there are Islamic extremist groups; I've never disputed that. I'm arguing here that it's the extremism and not the Islamic that's worrying. I've read about Islamic culture and its history, and much like Christendom, it has both admirable and reprehensible parts. It's simply not true that the majority of the Muslim world do or support violent terrorist acts. Your position simply doesn't stand a reality check.
Have you read the Quran back to back, fully, including the verses that preach tolerance and compassion?