Muslims, Islam and violence.

[Big RICHARD]

Where did you get the quotes from slick, you obviously did no research about them.

They are taken out of context and well designed to incite hatred against islam.

The others are similarly made to have different meanings because of the way they have been removed from context.

You have to remember the pseudo historical nature of holy books, quotes from them are often referring to specific events in the stories.

Idolatry wasnt looked on very kindly in the Bible either:

Why is it not remembered to take things in context when they are used to incite war and hatred?

[Taz]

As a Muslim, I don't follow any so-called Muslim leader - Islam doesn't actually allow that! They do not speak for me or for the vast majority of Muslims - they speak for themselves just like the leaders of neo-Nazi groups that take advantage of race-hate situations.

That 'cleric' should be locked up. Period. And that's just me speaking as a British Citizen, not as a Muslim!

There's a really disturbing trend in the British media at the moment. They like to get soundbites off so-called 'Muslim clerics' rather than ask 'normal' Muslims who live day-to-day just like everyone else. Those 'clerics' are probably followed by a tiny percentage of the Muslim population - just like the tiny minority of people that follow people like Nick Griffin of the BNP.

[nichomach]

Why is it not remembered to take things in context when they are used to incite war and hatred?

For the same reason that extremist "Christians" forget all the stuff about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when they call for burning "fags" - their terminology, not mine.

As a Christian, I'm frequently dismayed by some of the nastier elements within my own faith, but I am also aware that they don't reflect the view of the majority. I'm ALSO aware that the same holds good for Muslims.

Taking the views of a few extremists as reflecting "Islam" is about as valid as taking the views of a bunch like the Westboro Baptists as reflecting Christianity. WARNING: The link leads to a site that I find deeply offensive, and I only include it to demonstrate that any faith or ideology will be used as a justification for pre-existing prejudices by nasty people.

[Big RICHARD]

For the same reason that extremist "Christians" forget all the stuff about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when they call for burning "fags" - their terminology, not mine.

As a Christian, I'm frequently dismayed by some of the nastier elements within my own faith, but I am also aware that they don't reflect the view of the majority. I'm ALSO aware that the same holds good for Muslims.

Taking the views of a few extremists as reflecting "Islam" is about as valid as taking the views of a bunch like the Westboro Baptists as reflecting Christianity. WARNING: The link leads to a site that I find deeply offensive, and I only include it to demonstrate that any faith or ideology will be used as a justification for pre-existing prejudices by nasty people.

Fair point well made. I was just trying to compare one type of mis-interpretation with other mis-interpretations through mis-quoting of sources.

[RVF500]

FFS you equal "A Muslim Cleric" to the Archbishop of canturbury.
There's opne archbishop of canturbury. There's a lot more muslim clerics.
If you compared that to a priest that would be fairer. Can you say for sure that no priests have ever put contracts out on someone?

FFS can't you put your brain in gear before engaging your keyboard? Look at the context. Go on, make a change. Look at every post I've made and you will see that I am refering to perceptions being made. Also drawing difference between old text and present day standards. Taz' response is more measured. Pointing out where a cleric sits in the scheme of things. Thanks for clearing that up Taz as I was under the impression that a cleric was actually someone important. Perhaps I should have said priest instaed of archbishop. But then not many people listen to lower order priests. Or react to what they say in quite the same manner.

In response to your other question. I am more than sure that priests have put out contracts at one time or another. I drew a comparison to show how the pope himself manipulated the commandments to get the crusades started. That led to a few deaths didn't it? I am more than aware that the priesthood has come under fire historically for it's political machinations. However, when was the last time a priest publicly offered a cash reward for the killing of an individual?

[theuncharmed]

For the same reason that extremist "Christians" forget all the stuff about "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when they call for burning "fags" - their terminology, not mine.

As a Christian, I'm frequently dismayed by some of the nastier elements within my own faith, but I am also aware that they don't reflect the view of the majority. I'm ALSO aware that the same holds good for Muslims.

Taking the views of a few extremists as reflecting "Islam" is about as valid as taking the views of a bunch like the Westboro Baptists as reflecting Christianity. WARNING: The link leads to a site that I find deeply offensive, and I only include it to demonstrate that any faith or ideology will be used as a justification for pre-existing prejudices by nasty people.

Totally agree. I personally believe those who practice a religion and stray away from what is generally accepted as their religion (by the majority and their word of truth), are in fact going directly against their religion and beginning to form their own.

I'm a christian and I find that there is no problem with Islam in general, it is a peaceful religion, but as pointed out earlier in this thread, that those who listen to wrong truths and accept them as truths can be very dangerous, but not through their own fault. The problem of course lies with those who are educated about the religion and knowingly take the opposite road.

How would you fix the problem?, and not just for Islam, but for Jews, Christians, heck even the buddhists have some cults that are un-toward, education is key, but from those who are correct in their teachings. But who is correct? Well I'll take the bible for me and that'll be all.

Taz's point about the UK media dipicting Islam from the perspective and voices of, may I say, 'wrong' clerics are possibly doing more harm to our country then the informing news does good. I would for one like to hear directly froma 'normal' Islam forum on their views of the situation and for this to be accepted as the official view. The UK media is only creating more chances for people like Nick Griffin to get a greater following.

[pp05]

To portray 10000+ peaceful protesters on 5-10 individuals who hijacked it with disgusting placards is slightly unfair but thats life. Most people take what they see on telly with a pinch of salt. They (the media) have sensationalized the issue and went for the stereotype image once again and as Taz says one that isn't true or relatable by vast majority of muslims.

I also don't agree with the attitude "oh we took p*ss out of Christianity and so why not Islam".. that simply should not be reasoning from educated individuals as ourselves on the matter.

[Nick]

I also don't agree with the attitude "oh we took p*ss out of Christianity and so why not Islam".. that simply should not be reasoning from educated individuals as ourselves on the matter.

Why not?

Why can one religion be made the subject of jokes and not another?

[badass]

FFS can't you put your brain in gear before engaging your keyboard? Look at the context. Go on, make a change. Look at every post I've made and you will see that I am refering to perceptions being made. Also drawing difference between old text and present day standards. Taz' response is more measured. Pointing out where a cleric sits in the scheme of things. Thanks for clearing that up Taz as I was under the impression that a cleric was actually someone important. Perhaps I should have said priest instaed of archbishop. But then not many people listen to lower order priests. Or react to what they say in quite the same manner.

Still stand by the comments.
I did not suggest that a muslim cleric was having no effect on public perception, but you compared the effect onmpublic perception one cleric would have to the effect on public perception the Archbishop of canturbury would have doing the same thing. I still say it is totally invalid, and that it would be more vaild if you had used a priest in yuor example rather then a cleric. If you meant something different, then perhaps you should engage your brain before typing ond word your posts properly!

In response to your other question. I am more than sure that priests have put out contracts at one time or another. I drew a comparison to show how the pope himself manipulated the commandments to get the crusades started. That led to a few deaths didn't it? I am more than aware that the priesthood has come under fire historically for it's political machinations. However, when was the last time a priest publicly offered a cash reward for the killing of an individual?

I'm sure you're not trying to say christins are better people or more responsible than muslims, but the way that reply is worded suggests that you are. I am unaware of any priests publicly offering cash rewards for murder, but then again I am unaware of any muslim clerics sexually assaulting little boys and having their religious organisation cover it up.

Acutally, on the release of the film "Dogma" I vaguely recall certain extremists doing exactily what this muslic cleric did.

[Nick]

Well it's an absolute certainty that ANY organisation will attempt to cover up mis-deeds by their members.

I think the key issue here is that religions, ALL religions, will use the religion itself as a defence against the law.

The law and religion are not the same thing.

For example, a religion that practised human sacrifice, if it existed today, would soon have the law to deal with, as murder, regardless of belief, is illegal.

No religion should be above the law of whatever country that religion is practised in.

You could almost say that religion was the first form of 'law enforcement'. Before there was a judicial system or police force, how did you keep the masses under control? Scare the hell out of them by telling them that unless they were good in this life, they'd suffer in the next.

It's an early form of law; be good or be punished.

It's interesting to note that pretty much ALL the religions with a long history have the same basic tennents: Don't kill, don't steal, don't shag the neighbour's wife etc etc. All the stuff we've come to expect to see displayed by a modern civilization.

However, all religions also have the caveat of worshipping the one true god, whoever that may be and that that religion is the ONLY religion that's worth bothering with.

THIS is where the friction comes in. You've got two religions, for example, both claiming to be the only right and proper religion. Followers of religion A are going to think that religion B's followers are obviously 'bad guys' as they're not believers in religion A and vice versa.

Of course, in a modern society, we know that religions can co-exist quite happily because, at the root of it, all religions prech the same basic message of harmony.

Of course, the modern day problem is when a religious leader gets it into his head that this status quo is against his religion's preachings and writings. So we get a modern day crusade kicking off.

Throw in the politics of geography, natural resources and the like and you've got a time bomb with a short fuse and huge explosive power.

But what's the solution? Arresting and imprisoning out-spoken militants never works. British history alone has shown us that with the failed 'purges' of Catholism by Henry VIII, the Crusades might have brought Chritianity to North Africa but it didn't wipe out Islam.

No, religions cannot and should not be expunged just becuase they don't conform with the a particular person's beliefs, but they should, at all times, be subject to the law and the law should recieve full support from the heads of that religion.

[pp05]

Nick religion is just used as a cover up. You are happy it seems making sweeping generalisations without recognising shades of gray.

Wars are fought for economics. The only thing the current cartoon fiasco has done is distract the publics attention from the more important real world issues like for example Iran, like Hamas winning Middle Eastern election recently democratically whose Impact isn't limited to the region. Most of us do not even understand what is going on over there which is alarming. Like I.D cards that will infringe on our freedoms... etc

[Nick]

Sweeping generalisations?

Oh please, not that old chestnut!

Of COURSE I'm going to generalise! I'm talking about ALL religions, be it Catholic, Methodist, Muslim or Purple Alien Mind Waves...

I only mentioned politics and geography, whilst deliberately NOT mentioning any ongoing conflicts, to highlight how these can further confuse the situation AND to show that religion is used as an excuse there too.

So we do sort of agree on that one I think...

Wars aren't necessarily fought for economics, or at least the didn't used to be a loooong time ago. Modern warfare, yes, may have an economic basis but even some modern wars had political motives, such as Vietnam.

And I think that recognising that we do not understand what is happening in Iran etc is as important as actually knowing what's going on. At least if KNOW we don't know, we can then make a better judgement... not that our thoughts will be heard anyway.

[nichomach]

Nick, the Vietnam War was ALL about resources, at least indirectly; the whole point was to stop the "Domino Effect" where more countries in the region would be expected to fall into the Communist sphere of influence. Why was that a concern? Because a lot of those countries were exactly the same that, say, the Japanese wanted to incorporate into the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Why? Because of extensive resources of oil and strategic materials.

At one point it was posited that after successfully zapping most of Asia, the Communists would invade Australia - one reason for extensive Aussie involvement in Vietnam.

Clausewitz said that war was a continuation of politics by other means; I think he was incorrect. War and politics are both a continuation of economics by other means. Even so-called religious wars of the past like the Crusades were primarily a land-grab in the East to provide estates and incomes for aristocratic offspring who weren't in a position to inherit.

[spazman]

If you look at history over the past few thousand years (excluding the last hundred or so) Islam has been much more tolerant than Christians were. Look at Moore run spain, Christians, Muslims and Jews lived in harmony, that is untill the christians decided they wernt having any of this and basically started slaughtering everbody till they got there way (VERY basic description dont flame thats basically what happened). All thats happened is that a handfull of people have used (abused ??) positions of power to basically brainwash people into beliveing their warped views to either maintain or increase that persons position of power. I would agree though that Muslims need to do more to curb violence and go about sorting issues out in a more civilised way, they would have done 500 years ago why not now?

[Nick]

Sorry Nicho, got to disagree with you there.

Vietnam might have had the added benefit of secured resources, but that wasn't why it kicked off in the first place. 60's America was lousy with anti-Communist paranoia and the so called Domino Effect was the US's way of verbalising their concerns.

Sure, you can trace it through to resources, economics and the like but the main cause wasn;t a hidden agenda of oil fields, it was about stopping Communism... secured resources were a side-effect, not a cause.

Similarly, the Crusades being a land-grab... again, a side effect, not a reason. But you can argue that one around in a circle all day. How's that saying go? 'To the victor the spoils of war'... well that's what it's all about.

You might go to war over one particular reason or cause... or a whole bunch of them, but returns for success are always going to be far more than what you set out to war for.

[pp05]

Spaz an important point made there. I would add securalism has been reponsible for more deaths than Islam has in last 300 years. Yet securalism is painted as a saint and the other is painted as *axis of evil, uncivilised, evil, monsters, fanatics* etc.. Reality does not backup our claims. I hope that people move forward by geniunely listening to eachother points and where it's beneficial for us to lean on certain parties to push foward plans for a more peaceful world to pursue it.

Nick yes maybe some earlier wars were fought to shape ideas but it is not true currently. If anything now it is an attack of ideas so that they comply to being forced to give up there natural resources without fighting their case. This is oppression.