Peaceful Islam?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Ned
Question: If the vast majority of Muslims agree with OBL - at least to the extent of his complaints, what does this mean? Even many in this forum seem to agree with OBL on some of them. Has the religion been hijacked or does OBL simply represent the Muslim world view?

Of course, the leaders of the Muslim world who do not install a theocracy are against OBL because he has declared them too to be the enemy.

Well this could be the "Osama e-mail thread", but surely OBL hijacked Muslim World view, as Muslims as a group are running out of options to make a better living for themselves, so they could be tempted to listen to such nutter (and I am sure many would say for him he is crazy a few decades/years ago) as they are running out of solutions.

In a similar way there are Africans calling for unity in the continent as they see themselves as a big group with similar problems, however they haven't indentified US and the West as the "enemy" that should be destroyed. In Africa just the problems and perhaps the racial group are unifying factors, in the Muslim world the third and defining factor of unity is the religion. That can be seen this way and OBL sees it that way. But without similar problems for the region there would be no Muslim unity, no need to indentify as a group.

What OBL represents is an extremist muslim word view, and in the same way as Nacizm and Fascizm appealed to Eurpoeans in a despearte 1930's situation so does it appeal to many more Muslims in the situation that they find themselves today, as opposed to some other time in history, there surely have been many nutters over there before but there was no fertile ground to grow this destructive philosophy. The fertile ground was created post WWII with western policies over the Middle East, and now we have those peole trying to get rid of western political/economic/cultural influence anyway they can.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Ned
Has the religion been hijacked or does OBL simply represent the Muslim world view?

Neither. OBL's interpretation of Islam is not contradicting the Quran (at least not too much), but that doesn't mean it's the only way to interpret the Islam. Major religions are defined by the fact that countless "authentic" interpretations can be made, so is the Islam.-In this case it's really that the vast majority of Muslims doesn't share OBL's interpretation, but they share parts of it.

Of course, the leaders of the Muslim world who do not install a theocracy are against OBL because he has declared them too to be the enemy.

Every state which doesn't base its law in the Sharia is, according to most interpretations, not islamic. The Islam generally knows no difference of religion and politics (they call this union din-wa-dawla). Considering the fact that those states used to be Islamic some day before, they're apostatic and their rulers are enemies of the faith. If they happen to ally with non-believers against muslims, like the Saud's do), they're even worse.
Of course, the Saud's would argue that the conflict with Iraq is not about faith, but for Osama EVERYTHING is about faith...

[Kropotkin]

Ned; I ask you again, how do you know that the so called vast majority of muslims agree with Osama Bin Ladin? Have you made or read a poll? It might be so that quite a lot of them have a fond eye for him as he gives (or is said to give) the US a hard time. However, that's quite a step from actually agreeing to his agenda.

I don't think there's any public knowledge about the support of Osama Bin Ladin in the muslim world at all.

[gsmoove23]

Your 4 schools of Islamic thought are further divided by fundamentalist and liberal divisions within them. Strict enforcement of any outdated texts, NT, OT or Koran is going to have some harsh repercussions on the world. The fact that we have for the most part come to terms with our fundamentalists is more due to higher levels of education and scientific research which has largely debunked the schools of religious thought that call for literal translations of religious text and there use in all areas of human thought. The arabic world has had these ideas forced upon it by a foreign and often hostile culture.

[GePap]

Wernazuma:

Since Islam has no hierarchy, no struture, I find it impossible to say that as a relegion it can be hijacked, any more than Protestanism can be. As interpretation is left to each individual, for anyone to claim that as a whole the relegion has been hijcked, they must in some way think they 'know' the beliefs of 1 billion plus people. That is impossible. As for the Q'uran: it was finished by 1000 AD. Is Islam's history more, less, or about, as violent as that of all the other major relegions? Are the followers of Islam more or violent than others? This may be a difficualt question to answer, but as far as I know, the biggest recorded bloodlettings in the last 1000 years have not been committed By Muslims in the name of Islam, while one, the extermination of the Native Americans, was done in large part in the name of Christianity. So perhaps the interpreters of the Q'uran were more mellow than many of the interpreters of The BIble.


NOw, personally, i do think that it is easier to mix Islam and politics, the real source of this violence, than it is to mix politics and Christianity, and that a combination of that and universality makes radical islam inherently more expnsionistic than radical forms of other faiths.

I see 5 mayor relegions (I add judaism for tis connections, not the number of followers):

Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.

Of these, Islam, Buddhism and Christianity are universalistic, they see themselves as an answer to everyone, no matter the tribe or caste.

Hindusim and Judaism are particularistic: their lessons apply not to all of humanity but only a few.

Hinduism, judaism are the most political: there are links, at least in the original versions of these faiths (Judaism ahs undergone a de-politicizing over the last 1900 years of no power, but I see this reverting somewhat) between the lessons of the religion and how the state should be operated.

Buddhism, and Christinaity make separations between political organizations and the faith. this is not absolute, of course. Both faiths can be construed as having lessons for the way politics should be, and both can lead to theocracies or large organizations with temporal power (the Catholic Church, Tibetan society) but in the modern world this becomes harder and harder.

Islam is in the middle. It is seen as a universal lesson that applies to all but it does deal more with how temporal power should be as well. So, it is easier to interpret Islam in a way that leads to a political ideology, with theories about how the state should work, than it is with Christianity or Buddhism.

So, for me, any greater propensity by one faith other another for violence in the modern world has to do with the relation of Theology to Temporal ideology than it does with anyting else. What is most sorely lacking in the islamic world is a viable non-Islamist political ideology that has brought benefits to the people, and allows them to see their faith and their politics as seperate. It is the fact that the political systems of the islamic world have failed over the last 50 years that cerates an opening for islamist politics to enter the fray. You see this in nigeria. Islam in Nigeria is getting more political with time. It is not a reaction, but a revolution driven by the failures of Nigerian governments in the past. The same was true in Iran under the Shah.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

Well, I decided to look at the issues dealing with the Iranina revoltuion, and back then, in early 1979, Newsweek had to come out with an issue to try to introduce Islam to Americans. Why, because Islam was not much of an issue for them back then. Mullahs, and Ayatohllas and the Talibn, Wahhabism and Mujahadeen were al terms that had no meanig back then. In fact, much of the coverage of the Iranina revoltuion asked more about the Soviet role, than any worryng about Khomeini. Why? Becuase back in 1979 Islamist violence was a non-issue. The Hostage crisis, the assasination of Saddat, Hizbullah, Afghanistan, and all else were in the future.

Now, if Islam is so inherently violent, if the Quran is such a dealy book, were was this violence in 1972? That only 30 years folks, fine, longer than the life of 90% of Poly posters, but in the life of a 1400 year old relegion, nothing. Yet in 1972 none of the violence we speak of today existed. The question to ask then is why, in these last 30 years, has this violence come forward. Alkso important is why it matters so much for the West.

There was Islamic violence during the 70's. You have to look no further than the 1972 Olympics and other assorted acts of terrorism by the palestinians. For the most part those actions were seen by americans to be aimed at Israel. The Iranian revolution and the hostage situation were a new situation for americans since they were now directly identified as a target along with Israel.

[GePap]

Acts of terrorism by Palestinians in the 70's were all carried out by Marxism or Socialist organizations. Communists don't commit crimes in the name of Islam.

Violoence by muslim is different from violence over Islam. (if you could classify aethiest Palestinians as 'muslims')Othewise, Christianity is still the most voilent relegion in the world, as all the people slaughtering each other in Central Africa are Christian (except for a few cannibals (really)). After all, as i said, in three months in all Christian (catholic) Rwanda 1,000,000 people dide. A rate of murder greater than any reahced in the Holocaust, yet done all by hand.

[gsmoove23]

I think an important distinction is, the people posting against Islam on this thread do not consider Rwanda part of the christian west. This is probably because its not an issue against Islam they have, but the 3rd world.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap
Acts of terrorism by Palestinians in the 70's were all carried out by Marxism or Socialist organizations. Communists don't commit crimes in the name of Islam.

Violoence by muslim is different from violence over Islam. (if you could classify aethiest Palestinians as 'muslims')Othewise, Christianity is still the most voilent relegion in the world, as all the people slaughtering each other in Central Africa are Christian (except for a few cannibals (really)). After all, as i said, in three months in all Christian (catholic) Rwanda 1,000,000 people dide. A rate of murder greater than any reahced in the Holocaust, yet done all by hand.

I'll not argue that Christianity through out history has had more than its fair share of blood, but the bloodshed you discuss is not murder in the name of religion. The current rise of Fundamentlist Islamic violence is in the name of religion.

If you used the Irish protestant/catholic conflict that would be a fairer comparison IMO.

[SpencerH]

The PLO and Al-fatah are socialists?

[gsmoove23]

Arafat is a secular leader, the PLO is secular, Saddam, many Arab groups are mistaken for representing Islam.

Massacres over religion, Sabra and Shatila? Christian militia groups. The Phalange was one of the nastiest groups around.

[GePap]

SpencerH:

Yes, Fatah is socialist, and the PLO includes organizations like the PFLP, the People's front for the LIberation of Palestine, a fine Marxist organization. So Palestinians violence in the 70's and 80's fits the People's Liberation wars' model, not any sort of Islamist model. Which is why the press at the time never mentioned Islam.

Ogie:

I brought up Rwanda as proof that violence by Christians does not equal Christian violence, though Church men did play roles in the Rwandan massacres. As for Ireland, I don't see it as a Religious war, but a national one: since religious affiliation does have a close correlary to whether one favors the Ulster counties as part of the UK or the Irish Free Republic there is a basic Catholic-Protestant divide, but I am sure a republican Protestant or a Unionist Catholic exist and do join thier prospective organizations.

[Saint Marcus]

I'm not saying Islam is peaceful. I'm just saying it's not any worse than Christianity or Judism.

so either all are "evil", or none are. if you look at their scriptures, the very basis of the religions, you'll see many simularities.

[Ned]

GePap, Wonderful post. Thanks. Ned

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Your 4 schools of Islamic thought are further divided by fundamentalist and liberal divisions within them. Strict enforcement of any outdated texts, NT, OT or Koran is going to have some harsh repercussions on the world. The fact that we have for the most part come to terms with our fundamentalists is more due to higher levels of education and scientific research which has largely debunked the schools of religious thought that call for literal translations of religious text and there use in all areas of human thought. The arabic world has had these ideas forced upon it by a foreign and often hostile culture.

That's mostly true gsmoove.
I never said that Islam cannot possibly change nor that those 4 schools are somehow homogenous. The Hanafites are generally quite liberal compared to the others and Islam can even live in (a certain) coexistance with pagans if it comes to them. But that doesn't mean that their interpretations are compatible with modern concepts of pluralism, it's still preenlightened literal interpretation of the Quran.
I hope some day, Islamic trendsetters will be able to make a difference between "historical contextual" parts of the Quran (say, "kill the pagans"), and a "eternal metaphysical truth" ("All men are created equal, "help the poor" ) of the Quran.

Yet, it hasn't happened even on a moderate scale. I hope it will. Yet, I can't accept that the "literal" interpretations are being viewed by some people as "perverting Islam". I think Muhammad meant what he wrote more likely in a literal way...