Teddy Bear

[TeeJay]

Quotation? Transliteration, more like. It's a translation of a transcription.

I am not prepared to debate the semantics of my copy of the Holy Qur'an with you. Either accept the message in the spirit it is intended, or do not. But if you are looking for a continuation of the debate, or to furtherget off topic, I'm afraid you will have to find someone else to indulge you.

as-Salamu alaikum

[narikaa]

Hey every one

Opinions/input please

I'm hoping to market a new board game in time for next Christmas

Its basically a tactical war/conquest roll play set in ancient times

Everyone each plays a despotic bandit, the goal being to utilise alleged divine insight to swell your ranks and carve an empire out of the known world.

I'm stuck for a name for it

We came up with 'Barney The Bandit Bear'

But it doesn't seem to have that je ne sais quoi

Suggestions......................

.

[ryyannon]

I dunno...

How about, Time To Kill?

Do I get a free watch?

[DemonSlayer]

At the end of the day, the actions of those in Sudan who are calling for the teacher's death do not collaborate the teachings of Islam. As TeeJay has pointed out, the message of Islam can be found in the Qu'ran, not by the actions of present day extremists.

I myself am not a Muslim. However if someone was to judge my religion based on the actions of the modern so called 'followers' of my faith, I would tell them to study the scriptures of my faith, rather than studying the actions of people who do not follow religion properly.

As TeeJay again pointed out and I have to agree with him on this one as well, the UK and US do not really follow the Christianity that Jesus originally preached. Many people call themselves Christian but observe no tenants of the religion whatsover. They don't go to church, observe any religious holidays or fasts, nor do they read the Bible and attempt to learn more about God and the purpose of our lives.

They are under the impression that we are here to just enjoy ourselves, and so let's live life to the max and when we die we just become dust in the ground.

Now back to the main issue of this topic, the teacher was not soley responsible for the naming of the teddy bear Muhammad. The children or child should be partly to blame for this as well. Her punishment could have been worse as she is living in a country ruled by Sharia Law (though I'm not sure if they are even following that properly) and she did indeed get off lightly.

I say study what Islam says about these issues, not what present day so called Muslims say on it, as we all know, not everyone is perfect and many people call themselves adherents of a particular faith and yet do not follow it properly.

[drhydro]

Well, time to drag out this old chestnut....

The Unitarian Jihad

and just to say that I particularly appreciate TeeJay's thoughtfulness. To me, extremism is a cancer that eats at the bowels of every religion/philosophy/creed/belief system on this earth.

And I do think Pugwash is correct when he points out that "Islam hasn't caught up to Christianity in murders, human suffering, degradation, torture, and execution of women by a long shot."

[ryyannon]

The Unitarians and of course, The Lutherans.

The ugliness is spreading....

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/...eek_lutefi.html

[Victoria]

This is the only post which called me back to reply, snipped because it'll go off topic with Irish-Americans etc.

Now that's a made up figure if ever I've heard one. :-)

If you look at real terrorism figures, you'll find that in the recent decades, most terrorist acts were done by separatists or Christians. Look at the Spanish, Irish and German terrorists for examples of non-islamic terror.

ETA, the IRA, and presumably you mean Baader-Meinhof's heydeys were clearly another. It's not 1978 anymore.

Try the Tamil Tigers, and you'll be closer to the mark in 2007.

Ps. Islam hasn't caught up to Christianity in murders, human suffering, degradation, torture, and execution of women by a long shot.

Christian countries have evolved into constitutional monarchies, democracies, disallow slavery, have granted universal sufferage, have taken stands against capital punishment and in one festive snow-driven country in Scandinavia, they even have outlawed halal meat because of its inherent cruelty in slaughter.

Execution of women? The Salem Witch Trials? We have to go back to this, to make a point?

How about just letting women drive a frikkin car TODAY.

Since the 1500s, there has been no contest which culture driven by which religion has been the more, no not humane, but the more progressive.

If you don't mind, I'll keep my bikinis, and my driving license.

Oh, and I quite like naming my teddy bears after religious leaders. Here's hoping my Church and fellow congregrants won't cut off my head because of it.

[HauteHippie]

Whatever visualizations make it easier Same point as above though. 5-10 Klan members do not represent the majority opinion of the Aryan race. A few thousand extremist Muslims (living in a country which has moved away from the true principles of Islam (as can be confirmed by actually reading the Holy Qur'an)) do not represent the majority opinion of all Muslims world-wide.

Yes, actions speak louder than words, but don't make the mistake of judging a group by the actions of a minority.

Well, I see a pattern here. Sudanese law says she should have gotten 6 months + lashings for this teddy bear stunt. And this kind of garbage seems to be enshrined into law in (almost?) every single majority muslim country. The only possible exception I was able to find was Turkey, but they've got their issues too. So are you telling me that all these laws are written by an 'extremist fringe' minority? Everywhere??? It just doesn't add up. And the reality is that in countries with a large islamic population, infidels are often second-class citizens under the law. Proselytizing is often forbidden. Polygamy is legal. Human rights are poor... So a more plausible explanation says that most of the muslims in these countries agree that using the false prophet's name in vain should be punished harshly. When large populations of muslims gather in one place, they tend to want to live under something that resembles sharia law. In fact the muslims up in Toronto were trying to get the government to set up sharia courts for them. So where exactly is this moderation you speak of?

[HauteHippie]

Ps. Islam hasn't caught up to Christianity in murders, human suffering, degradation, torture, and execution of women by a long shot.

Doubtful. And modern day Islam simply does not jive with the modern day. Christianity, on the other hand, has changed with the times. Christianity is no threat to anyone. Whether or not you agree with Christian beliefs, you don't have to worry about getting beheaded or blown up in the name of Jesus.

[Victoria]

Doubtful. Modern day Islam does not jive with the modern day. Christianity, on the other hand, has changed with the times. Christianity is no threat to anyone. Whether or not you agree with Christian beliefs, you don't have to worry about getting beheaded or blown up in the name of Jesus.

You'll get people saying that Christianity IS a threat, to reproduction, to science, to education, to many things, CT. It's the last bit you wrote, that is irrefutable.

I just want to say this last bit.

TeeJay is the lone representative of his religion on this forum. As such, he has tried to tell us how much his conversion to Islam has meant to him, and how much it is misunderstood today, by the violence the religion spawns in some of its faithful.

I'm sure every type of incident like the Teddy Bear one, is a dagger through his heart. It can't be easy, and definitely few people would like to be in his place here.

BUT QUITE APART FROM ANY problem today, this conversion he has made should be respected, because like many converts, he has the right kind of "zeal" -- the open eyes, mind and heart of someone who knowingly transforms himself into something else than what he was.

This doesn't take away from all the horrible things which Muslims do around the world, with which respect, must also sometimes be touched on.

But it does mean that if Islam is to mean anything in our world, it also must be acknowledged to include the gentle, the kind, and the receptive like TeeJay.

Were those 1.8 billion Muslims more like him, I daresay this world would be a different place in 2007.

[HauteHippie]

You'll get people saying that Christianity IS a threat, to reproduction, to science, to education, to many things, CT.

Yea, but let's be realistic... If they stopped teaching science altogether in places like the southern US, would anybody really notice? The net effect of Christianity on western civilization today is positive, and nobody is getting killed over it.

[KB]

Just another voice to say that whatever side of the fence you sit on here I believe Teejay has conducted himself in an excellent manner answering all questions to the best of his ability.

The debate itself has the potential to be a time bomb within the forum but has largely been conducted on an intellectual basis and for this the majority of the posters should be congratulated.

One last point , Teejay has stepped up to the plate to answer your questions on the Muslim religion but I assure you he is far from being our only Muslim member.

Ken

[TeeJay]

Well, I see a pattern here. Sudanese law says she should have gotten 6 months + lashings for this teddy bear stunt. And this kind of garbage seems to be enshrined into law in (almost?) every single majority muslim country. The only possible exception I was able to find was Turkey, but they've got their issues too. So are you telling me that all these laws are written by an 'extremist fringe' minority? Everywhere??? It just doesn't add up.

Not necessarily 'extremist', 'mis-guided' might be the politest term for several reasons. Firstly, as I previously said, and DemonSlayer pointed out, there is a difference between the 'religious message', and the way the country and it's citizens live, and that is something not restricted to Muslim countries, but 'Christian' countries as well. Secondly, the majority of these Islamic countries are composed of Shi'ite a or Sunni Muslims. Both these branches of Islam follow, not only the messages laid out in the Holy Qur'an, but also follow the hadiths - the thoughts/habits/opinions of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him - and this, as I pointed out in my first post to Victoria, is something the prophet, peace be upon him, was specifically told not to do. Equally, the Holy Qur'an states that there is no god but Allah, and one should not add (gods) to Allah, but to worship Allah alone. Thirdly, as Seadweller pointed out in his post, that many of these countries, like Europe in the middle ages, is nothing more than people using a perversion of religion to keep themselves in power. That is not a true reflection of the religion itself, so ultimately, while these governments might not be 'extremist fringe', they are still not following the true principles of Islam

And the reality is that in countries with a large islamic population, infidels are often second-class citizens under the law.

A minority group finding itself treated as second-class citizens... Nothing like that happens in the UK or US any more. Does it...

Proselytizing is often forbidden. Polygamy is legal. Human rights are poor...

Islam permits many human rights:

The right to life.

The right to equality.

The right to freedom.

The right to freedom of opinion.

The right to emigration and refuge, to remove oneself from oppression.

The right to work and provide for oneself and one's family.

The right to justice.

The right to equality before the law.

The right to protect one's honor.

The right to social welfare and the basic necessities of life.

The right to marriage.

The right to privacy, and security of private life.

The right to dignity, and not to be abused or ridiculed.

The right to education.

The right to protest against tyranny.

The right to freedom of expression.

The right to freedom of conscience and conviction.

The right to protect religious sentiments.

The right to participate in affairs of state.

The right to rise above the level of animal life.

Those points I boldened. Are they because of Islam, or because of their governments trying to 'keep the peasants down', as previously pointed out?

So a more plausible explanation says that most of the muslims in these countries agree that using the false prophet's name in vain should be punished harshly.

You are (deliberately or otherwise) confusing the issue. The Holy Qur'an shows that the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not to guide people with his own personal opinions/thoughts/habits. That does not make him a false prophet. For you to suggest that he was is quite possibly the most disrespectfull comment I have ever read.

As mentioned before, people who are 'raised' Muslims, and simply following the habits of their forefathers, without reading the Holy Qur'an for themselves, and without experiencing ihsan (realization) themselves, are Muslims in name only, and there is a considerable difference, as has been illustrated several times by comparison to Jesus and present day Christianity.

When large populations of muslims gather in one place, they tend to want to live under something that resembles sharia law. In fact the muslims up in Toronto were trying to get the government to set up sharia courts for them. So where exactly is this moderation you speak of?

What is not moderate about wanting to live under the guidelines laid down in the Holy Qur'an by Allah? There are already Sharia courts in the UK, although they are not 'legally binding', but rely on voluntary acceptance of decisions. Muslims in Australia have recently criticised Muslims in some other countries for not fully integrating into their new home countries. Moderate enough for you?

Victoria and Ken, thank you

as-Salamu alaikum

Edited December 2, 2007 by TeeJay

[eddhead]

Doubtful. And modern day Islam simply does not jive with the modern day. Christianity, on the other hand, has changed with the times. Christianity is no threat to anyone. Whether or not you agree with Christian beliefs, you don't have to worry about getting beheaded or blown up in the name of Jesus.

There are many people in Western Society who will tell you that they believe in a strict interpetation of the scriptures. In the US, several Republican candidates Mike Hukabee principally among them explcitily stated they beileve in a literal word for word interpetation without allogorical allowances.. well...

I wonder if those who believe in the absolute literal translation of the bible would advocate putting to DEATH people who worship other Gods, , who dishonor their parents, who have sex with women during their period?(Leviticus) I mean do Huckabee and the rest really advocate stoning sinners to death??

Do they also advocate the death of males who disobey their parents? Or women who are raped but do not cry out? (Deuteronomy)

How about the death of persons who touch Mont Sinai?

How about stoning to death people who do not worship on the Sabbath? Or putting to death whole cities who do not surrender to attacks (Exodus)

And trust me, there is plenty more where that came from especially on the subject of homsexuality.

I am not trying to stir up a debate about the degree of violence and intolerance to any religous dogma when interpetted in absolute terms... if you look hard enough (and you really do not have to look all that hard actually) you'll find it. I do not believe there is anything more inherently intolerant about Islam vis-a via other religons. But the combination of Governent and Religon is dangerous . It nurtures demidogs. To me that is where the rubber meets the road. When relgion becomes an institutional part of government, there is a potential for pervisonk, creatign a tool for tyrants to manipulate people. That is what we see today in Islamic fundamentalist states.

[HauteHippie]

Not necessarily 'extremist', 'mis-guided' might be the politest term for several reasons. Firstly, as I previously said, and DemonSlayer pointed out, there is a difference between the 'religious message', and the way the country and it's citizens live, and that is something not restricted to Muslim countries, but 'Christian' countries as well. Secondly, the majority of these Islamic countries are composed of Shi'ite a or Sunni Muslims. Both these branches of Islam follow, not only the messages laid out in the Holy Qur'an, but also follow the hadiths - the thoughts/habits/opinions of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him - and this, as I pointed out in my first post to Victoria, is something the prophet, peace be upon him, was specifically told not to do. Equally, the Holy Qur'an states that there is no god but Allah, and one should not add (gods) to Allah, but to worship Allah alone. Thirdly, as Seadweller pointed out in his post, that many of these countries, like Europe in the middle ages, is nothing more than people using a perversion of religion to keep themselves in power. That is not a true reflection of the religion itself, so ultimately, while these governments might not be 'extremist fringe', they are still not following the true principles of Islam

A minority group finding itself treated as second-class citizens... Nothing like that happens in the UK or US any more. Does it...

Islam permits many human rights:

The right to life.

The right to equality.

The right to freedom.

The right to freedom of opinion.

The right to emigration and refuge, to remove oneself from oppression.

The right to work and provide for oneself and one's family.

The right to justice.

The right to equality before the law.

The right to protect one's honor.

The right to social welfare and the basic necessities of life.

The right to marriage.

The right to privacy, and security of private life.

The right to dignity, and not to be abused or ridiculed.

The right to education.

The right to protest against tyranny.

The right to freedom of expression.

The right to freedom of conscience and conviction.

The right to protect religious sentiments.

The right to participate in affairs of state.

The right to rise above the level of animal life.

Those points I boldened. Are they because of Islam, or because of their governments trying to 'keep the peasants down', as previously pointed out?

You are (deliberately or otherwise) confusing the issue. The Holy Qur'an shows that the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not to guide people with his own personal opinions/thoughts/habits. That does not make him a false prophet. For you to suggest that he was is quite possibly the most disrespectfull comment I have ever read.

As mentioned before, people who are 'raised' Muslims, and simply following the habits of their forefathers, without reading the Holy Qur'an for themselves, and without experiencing ihsan (realization) themselves, are Muslims in name only, and there is a considerable difference, as has been illustrated several times by comparison to Jesus and present day Christianity.

What is not moderate about wanting to live under the guidelines laid down in the Holy Qur'an by Allah? There are already Sharia courts in the UK, although they are not 'legally binding', but rely on voluntary acceptance of decisions. Muslims in Australia have recently criticised Muslims in some other countries for not fully integrating into their new home countries. Moderate enough for you?

Victoria and Ken, thank you

as-Salamu alaikum

Is it really that unfair to judge a religion based on the actions of its clerics and followers? That's a tough sell, and I for one am not buying it. Besides, with thousands of conflicting statements in every religion's holy books, how do you discern the 'true message'? There's all sorts of nasty stuff in the Koran, and the old testament of the Bible is a little questionable too. If Christians and Jews took all the violent parts literally like the Muslims do, do you think they would not be condemned for it? I will, however, concede that there are small factions of so-called 'moderate' Muslims, most likely concentrated in civilized nations, who disagree with the extremist approach. I'm sure also that probably more than a few Muslim women in uncivilized nations envy the western lifestyle and wish they had the same rights where they live.

[HauteHippie]

There are many people in Western Society who will tell you that they believe in a strict interpetation of the scriptures. In the US, several Republican candidates Mike Hukabee principally among them explcitily stated they beileve in a literal word for word interpetation without allogorical allowances.. well...

I wonder if those who believe in the absolute literal translation of the bible would advocate putting to DEATH people who worship other Gods, , who dishonor their parents, who have sex with women during their period?(Leviticus) I mean do Huckabee and the rest really advocate stoning sinners to death??

Do they also advocate the death of males who disobey their parents? Or women who are raped but do not cry out? (Deuteronomy)

How about the death of persons who touch Mont Sinai?

How about stoning to death people who do not worship on the Sabbath? Or putting to death whole cities who do not surrender to attacks (Exodus)

And trust me, there is plenty more where that came from especially on the subject of homsexuality.

I am not trying to stir up a debate about the degree of violence and intolerance to any religous dogma when interpetted in absolute terms... if you look hard enough (and you really do not have to look all that hard actually) you'll find it. I do not believe there is anything more inherently intolerant about Islam vis-a via other religons. But the combination of Governent and Religon is dangerous . It nurtures demidogs. To me that is where the rubber meets the road. When relgion becomes an institutional part of government, there is a potential for pervisonk, creatign a tool for tyrants to manipulate people. That is what we see today in Islamic fundamentalist states.

Huckabee, for all his faults, doesn't profess a belief in stoning people to death, killing off entire cities, etc. Today's extreme-right Christians have relatively moderate demands with regard to incorporating their faith into the law. They want "In God We Trust" to remain on the US national currency. They believe "one nation under God" should remain in the Pledge Of Allegiance, which should remain in public schools. They advocate "intelligent" design. They believe the 10 Commandments should be displayed prominently in court houses. Etc. By contrast, Muslims around the world, by and large, believe in and execute the most violent parts of the Koran. Many Islamic sermons end with the chant "DEATH TO AMERICA, DEATH TO ISRAEL." And Islam itself, as practiced by the majority today, is at odds with the notion of a secular government. There are very few examples of majority Muslim countries that do not mix the two. I'm sure you see the difference.

[hambone]

Now that's a made up figure if ever I've heard one. :-)

If you look at real terrorism figures, you'll find that in the recent decades, most terrorist acts were done by separatists or Christians. Look at the Spanish, Irish and German terrorists for examples of non-islamic terror.

If you want to get really deep into the figures, you should check which terrorist organisations were funded by the US directly or by US citizens.

Don't just make crap up. It doesn't help your argument.

Ps. Islam hasn't caught up to Christianity in murders, human suffering, degradation, torture, and execution of women by a long shot.

Pug, you know precicely the point I am trying to make here. Yes millions have had gotten their knickers all twisted up in the name of christianity for thousands of years and still do. The present wave of extremeism and violence however in THIS century is related in direct proportion to the exclusive group of bastards who call themselves Muslim fundamentalists, Jihadists, etc. Once more you like to pick apart semantics and creat a side argument just for the sake of arguing and nothing else.

[TeeJay]

Is it really that unfair to judge a religion based on the actions of its clerics and followers?

Absolutely so. As DemonSlayer pointed out, you should judge a religion by it's scriptures and nothing else.

Besides, with thousands of conflicting statements in every religion's holy books, how do you discern the 'true message'?

I have found nothing conflicting in the Holy Qur'an at all.

There's all sorts of nasty stuff in the Koran, and the old testament of the Bible is a little questionable too. If Christians and Jews took all the violent parts literally like the Muslims do, do you think they would not be condemned for it?

Correction, like some Extremist Muslims do. Please stop confusing the vast majority of Muslims with these fanatics who do not follow the true principles of Islam. Also, please define 'nasty'. If you mean 'more strict than the lifestyle people in the West are currently accustomed to,' sorry, but that is not 'nasty'.

I will, however, concede that there are small factions of so-called 'moderate' Muslims, most likely concentrated in civilized nations, who disagree with the extremist approach.

I'm sure also that probably more than a few Muslim women in uncivilized nations envy the western lifestyle and wish they had the same rights where they live.

I now have to repeat the same point I made when I listed the Human Rights granted by Islam, which is rather sad. Are these people (men or women) having restricted rights because of Islam, or because of the 'government' (regime might be a better term) of the country they live in? Given the list I previously listed, I suggest you think carefully about that answer.

Edited December 2, 2007 by TeeJay

[Pugwash]

This is the only post which called me back to reply, snipped because it'll go off topic with Irish-Americans etc.

ETA, the IRA, and presumably you mean Baader-Meinhof's heydeys were clearly another. It's not 1978 anymore.

Try the Tamil Tigers, and you'll be closer to the mark in 2007.

If you want to count actions in disputed zones, like Iraq, then in the last few years, there have been a lot of terror attacks by alleged Muslims, but those can be classed as acts of guerilla war.

The Hindu Tamil Tigers can't be classed as Muslim, and neither can the recent Thai terrorists, no matter how hard the western powers claim they are. As for the Eastern-European terrorist activities, they're all about territory.

[HauteHippie]

Absolutely so. As DemonSlayer pointed out, you should judge a religion by it's scriptures and nothing else.

.

.

.

Are these people (men or women) having restricted rights because of Islam, or because of the 'government' (regime might be a better term) of the country they live in? Given the list I previously listed, I suggest you think carefully about that answer.

I disagree. If we were merely talking about a single country, I might believe you. But this is a pattern. How do you explain that? And, as I've said, scriptures can be interpreted many different ways. How do you draw any conclusions from that? Do you believe the peaceful parts of the Koran, or the violent parts? Indeterminate. So, the true principles of Islam must be indicated by how Muslims behave. Actions speak louder than words. Currently, the "news" is covering thousands of Muslims marching in the street, demanding the beheading of a nice white lady who meant no harm. Am I supposed to believe there is a silent majority who wants her to be released? Where are they? You say they exist, but don't make exciting news. Hmm, OK. Well why aren't they protesting? When the defeatist liberals in America hold an anti-war protest, red-blooded patriots come out in droves to hold an anti-anti-war protest. Why doesn't that happen in Muslim countries? Clearly, as you've indicated, it's not for lack of rights. And yet, the only viewpoint ever espoused is pro-violence. Go figure.

[Victoria]

Islam itself, as practiced by the majority today, is at odds with the notion of a secular government. There are very few examples of majority Muslim countries that do not mix the two.

I agree with the majority of what you said about Christian "wants" in public life, but I wonder just how much ISLAM is incompatible with secular government and/or democracy?

Isn't it more correct to say that Shar'ia and democracy are perhaps incompatible, but not Islam and democracy?

60 years ago, the militaristic Shinto religion and the cult of the Emperor of Japan were intertwinable. Democracy was impossible. Today, the Shinto religion is still around, but democracy flourishes in Japan.

It is my hope that one day, democracy will reign in the Middle East. And I hope Islam will be around too, to give their people the succour needed since democracy isn't easy, unmessy, or without pitfalls. Inshallah...

[HauteHippie]

I agree with the majority of what you said about Christian "wants" in public life, but I wonder just how much ISLAM is incompatible with secular government and/or democracy?

Isn't it more correct to say that Shar'ia and democracy are perhaps incompatible, but not Islam and democracy?

I can only define 'Islam' as the way it is practiced in this day and age. 1000 years ago I would be saying a lot of the same about Christianity. But, the scriptures haven't changed. Christians evolved. On the other hand, what goes on in the name of Islam today is incompatible with the civilized world. What they really need, in my opinion, is a reformist movement.

60 years ago, the militaristic Shinto religion and the cult of the Emperor of Japan were intertwinable. Democracy was impossible. Today, the Shinto religion is still around, but democracy flourishes in Japan.

It is my hope that one day, democracy will reign in the Middle East. And I hope Islam will be around too, to give their people the succour needed since democracy isn't easy, unmessy, or without pitfalls. Inshallah...

Yes, religions can change over time.

[TeeJay]

I disagree. If we were merely talking about a single country, I might believe you. But this is a pattern.

Yes. One of social and cultural problems. One where tin-pot dictators use perversions of religion to keep the masses uneducated and compliant. As mentioned before, this was the same problem with Christianity, when the scriptures were delivered solely in Latin, when Latin was not the common language of the people. Before the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, began to give the recitations (which is what 'qur'an' actually means - the recitation ) Arab women were treated extremely poorly and as little more than cattle or property, but the emergence of Islam changed that treatment. The Holy Qur'an has a specific sura devoted to detailing how women should be treated, be it as wives, mothers, divorced wives, etc etc.

As I tried to point out before, many of the problems facing Muslim women in Islamic countries are not because of Qur'anic teaching, but because of cultural issues within that country/region.

And, as I've said, scriptures can be interpreted many different ways. How do you draw any conclusions from that? Do you believe the peaceful parts of the Koran, or the violent parts?

One must believe all parts of the Holy Qur'an, both positive and negative, because they are all the will of Allah, and as a Muslim (one who submits to the will of Allah) The choice is to obey, or not. If one obeys and submits to the will of Allah, as laid out in the Holy Qur'an, then they are a Muslim. If they do not, then they are not.

So, the true principles of Islam must be indicated by how Muslims behave.

False assumption. The 'true principles' of Islam exist in the Holy Qur'an.

Currently, the "news" is covering thousands of Muslims marching in the street, demanding the beheading of a nice white lady who meant no harm.

Yes, thousands of Muslims living under an extremist regime, where, as in Iraq under Saddam's rule, dissent was not tollerated. As previously discussed, those thousands are a miniscule percentage of the 1.1-1.8 billion Muslims world-wide who do not agree with such extremist ways. I'm no mathmagician, but what percentage would, say 5000 be of 1.8 billion? Would it even be 1%?

Am I supposed to believe there is a silent majority who wants her to be released? Where are they? You say they exist, but don't make exciting news. Hmm, OK. Well why aren't they protesting? When the defeatist liberals in America hold an anti-war protest, red-blooded patriots come out in droves to hold an anti-anti-war protest. Why doesn't that happen in Muslim countries? Clearly, as you've indicated, it's not for lack of rights. And yet, the only viewpoint ever espoused is pro-violence. Go figure.

I don't think you are quite grasping the differences in cultures between America and these countries which live under extremist rule. Under these regimes, which have departed from the true principles of Islam, for the previously discussed reasons of maintaining power, the 'citizens' do not have the right to protest and free-speech. That kind of behaviour would get them killed. Not just killed as in a clean bullet to the back of the head, but stoned or flogged to death. That is the problem. That is why these other people are silent and not having an anti-protest. Not because they don't want to, but because the conditions they live under simply do not allow them to, and, those conditions, as previously explained, are not down to Islam, Christianity or any religion, but down to dictatorial regimes using a corruption of a religion to maintain power.

As for where are the people who want her released, I already linked two articles about British Muslim peers who have travelled to Sudan to try and negotiate a swift release.

@ Jon Fort - Again, if you have something specific you disagree with about my posts, please say so. If you are not going to actively participate in this debate, please have the courtesy not to rate the posts I make in it. I am all for difference of opinion, but simply slapping a 'disagree' rating without putting your reasons and own opinions for discussion is not debate, and, I hate to say, rather cowardly.

Edited December 2, 2007 by TeeJay

[TeeJay]

I can only define 'Islam' as the way it is practiced in this day and age. 1000 years ago I would be saying a lot of the same about Christianity. But, the scriptures haven't changed. Christians evolved. On the other hand, what goes on in the name of Islam today is incompatible with the civilized world. What they really need, in my opinion, is a reformist movement.

Yes, religions can change over time.

This is a much more accomodating post, but, something which needs clarifying, is that Muslims accept two basic things: That there is One god, Allah, supreme and unique; and that the revelation given through the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the genuine, final and complete revelation from this god, and supersedes all revelations that came before it.

That means that the scriptures cannot change, and indeed, have not changed since the time of the prophet, peace be upon him. What has changed though, is the importance given to the hadiths attributed to the prophet, peace be upon him, and the cultural values of the regions under discussion. People's perceptions of religions can certainly change over time, as can the religion's involvement with governmental power, but on a personal level, they remain the same.

Edited December 2, 2007 by TeeJay

[HauteHippie]

Yes. One of social and cultural problems. One where tin-pot dictators use perversions of religion to keep the masses uneducated and compliant. As mentioned before, this was the same problem with Christianity, when the scriptures were delivered solely in Latin, when Latin was not the common language of the people. Before the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, began to give the recitations (which is what 'qur'an' actually means - the recitation ) Arab women were treated extremely poorly and as little more than cattle or property, but the emergence of Islam changed that treatment. The Holy Qur'an has a specific sura devoted to detailing how women should be treated, be it as wives, mothers, divorced wives, etc etc.

As I tried to point out before, many of the problems facing Muslim women in Islamic countries are not because of Qur'anic teaching, but because of cultural issues within that country/region.

One must believe all parts of the Holy Qur'an, both positive and negative, because they are all the will of Allah, and as a Muslim (one who submits to the will of Allah) The choice is to obey, or not. If one obeys and submits to the will of Allah, as laid out in the Holy Qur'an, then they are a Muslim. If they do not, then they are not.

False assumption. The 'true principles' of Islam exist in the Holy Qur'an.

Yes, thousands of Muslims living under an extremist regime, where, as in Iraq under Saddam's rule, dissent was not tollerated. As previously discussed, those thousands are a miniscule percentage of the 1.1-1.8 billion Muslims world-wide who do not agree with such extremist ways. I'm no mathmagician, but what percentage would, say 5000 be of 1.8 billion? Would it even be 1%?

I don't think you are quite grasping the differences in cultures between America and these countries which live under extremist rule. Under these regimes, which have departed from the true principles of Islam, for the previously discussed reasons of maintaining power, the 'citizens' do not have the right to protest and free-speech. That kind of behaviour would get them killed. Not just killed as in a clean bullet to the back of the head, but stoned or flogged to death. That is the problem. That is why these other people are silent and not having an anti-protest. Not because they don't want to, but because the conditions they live under simply do not allow them to, and, those conditions, as previously explained, are not down to Islam, Christianity or any religion, but down to dictatorial regimes using a corruption of a religion to maintain power.

As for where are the people who want her released, I already linked two articles about British Muslim peers who have travelled to Sudan to try and negotiate a swift release.

@ Jon Fort - Again, if you have something specific you disagree with about my posts, please say so. If you are not going to actively participate in this debate, please have the courtesy not to rate the posts I make in it. I am all for difference of opinion, but simply slapping a 'disagree' rating without putting your reasons and own opinions for discussion is not debate, and, I hate to say, rather cowardly.

Oh, I'm totally grasping what you're saying about culture differences. Perhaps you're not grasping the fact that I'm just not buying it. I'm counting 49 majority-Muslim countries. And I'm sure it's fair to say that a huge percentage of them have laws derived from the Koran. But if people don't want to live that way, where is the mass outrage? I would expect to see revolts from time to time if the majority of the people didn't want to live under a repressive regime. In any given country, it could take decades to topple an unpopular government, but with ~50 countries to choose from, odds are that we would see some action somewhere every few years. So, really, we haven't established that the silent majority who want an anti-protest even exist. You just expect us to take your word that they do. Further, what 'dictatorial regime' is responsible for the Muslims in Canada and the UK who want to establish sharia law in their adopted countries? Now, I can believe there is a minority of Muslims who want the lady released without harm. After all, there is always some diversity of opinion in a large group. And the Muslims in the West are also aware that their public reactions are being watched, so it is important to realize that they may or may not be expressing heartfelt beliefs.

Enough time has been wasted, indeed... Amen.