"Ban the Koran"

[KristinT]

nothing like a book burnin' to warm your cobbles on a winters night

[mak247mlh]

Thanks for posting that silver. The following comments are not directed at you but rather the arguments presented.




1) He runs a support group for people who have left Islam, do you think he would hear anything good about Islam from said people? I personally doubt it.

2) I haven’t come across anything regarding apostasy in the Qur’an, which shows his lack of knowledge and the lack of good achieved in banning the Qur’an.

3) I’ll talk about apostasy in greater detail in my next post, hopefully.



1) Yes, that’s exactly it radical Islam. The contact he’s had with Islam is with people who want him dead and people who hate Islam (why else would they leave?)



1) I’ve heard of Buddhists committing such acts, although I may be wrong.

2) Hindus have committed genocides during and near the time of Indian Independence.

3) Christian terrorists include the IRA and these guys.



I think that’s a bit of an exaggeration, I would put the number closer to 3500. Which is not really a huge amount considering that casualty numbers in modern warfare are massively bigger than this. Take the Iraq War -~630 000, the Iran-Iraq war-~500 000- 1 000 000 (on the Iranian side alone).

Also, the reasoning, contrary to popular belief, is usually not religion. In fact, the terrorists themselves openly sate that their acts are in response to the Wests involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is ironic, since the West is continuing to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to combat terrorists (supposedly anyhow).

[Rosalie]

Apostasy is a complicated issue and I will try to explain it with my limited knowledge.

Firstly there are two types of apostates, natural and otherwise. Natural apostates who are Muslims and did not convert to Islam, I've read the punishment does not extend to this type. The other apostate is does apply to.

That being said, however, most of the apostates, if not all, were Jews who became Muslim and left to undermine Islam which was obvious. It was meant as an attempt to destroy Islam and is comparable to treason in that religion and the state are one in Islam.

[Maintainingmyanonymity]

Although not to quite the same extreme as the original story this http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3129658.ece shows that there are people out there (some with a degree of influence) who would agree with such obvious racism.

[croquembouche11]

Care to try and explain that quote??????

[Tha_Prince]

I think what this guy is proposing is stupid, pure and simple.

But for every one of him, there is just as many Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, communists, fascists...who want to ban things and rule the world or country the way they want to.

There are a few Muslim states that wouldn't open their arms up to others and take in immigrants of different nationalities, religions and cultures like we do in the west, and do all we can to make them have rights and fit in.

There is evil on all sides, as too there is good.

[zoro]

Thanks for the inteligent response Vertex, I'll try to return in kind here.





I quite agree with this, and actually we're on the same page here. My original point with this was that the reason for his actions is the grow out of his negative experiences with extremists. That being the case, it's not so much a case of mindless hatemongering with this individual as it is a case of extreme and repeated experiences with a rather limited crossection of the whole of Islam. It doesn't make his actions any more correct, just more understandable than otherwise.





Well, yes and no on this point. In fact, the Qur'an says little on the subject of apostasy, however, it must be remembered that in Islam fatwas have great weight and:




source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

For those who want to play the "Wikipedia isn't entirely accurate" card, the above is corroborated by these other sources, which also provide a fuller, ritcher backgroud if you care to read them all:

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/is_killing_an_apostate_in_the_is.htm

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NgRsVyozlo
(video for those who don't want to read articles, and produced by progressive muslims who distain the policy in fact)

and

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
(biased, but interesting)

and especially:

http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=islam

(This one is a case study of somene actually sentanced to death in Afghanistan for being apostate)



So, in a regard you're quite right, the Quran itself does not perscribe death for apostates, and getting rid of the book wouldn't get rid of that ideology. The man is most likely entirely ignorant of that fact. However, I see the attempted ban on the Quran, for reasons previously mentioned by me, as more correctly an attempt to ban Islam entirely. Hard to have a religion without it's central source of doctorine. If this lawmaker was to actually achieve that impossible end, then I suspect, in his mind he would have accomplished his task, ban the religion and objectionable practices go with it.








I won't argue with this at all because you're right. If you want me to say his view of Islam isn't skewed, I'll say no such thing, clearly it is.





Haven't heard of that myself, though I can't rule out the possibility. I would like a verifiable citation before I conceed this particular point though, as doing such a thing would fly in the face of just about every fundamental tennant of Buddhisim.




Not so fast on that one, it was quite more correctly a civil war. Once the Britts pulled out of Inda the power vaccum (predictably) led to a civil war between the two largest factions, the Hindus and the (hey, there they are again) Muslims. This eventually led to the formation of Packistan, the "two state soloution" of the time. Horrific, and full of outrage on human rights and dignity it was, but I think calling it genocide is quite the stretch. It was a civil war, with all the ugly trappings there of, no more or less, and there was plenty of killing on both sides. I'm not personally aware of any credible scholar who would class this incident as genocide (contrast this with the Turkish Ottoman Empires attempted anihilation of Armenians, and the difference between the two situations becomes all the more apparent). If you have links to papers by legitimate academics that support the theory of Hindus attempting genocide after Indian independence, I'd be very interested in reading them. However, at this point, I'm going to just have to disagree with this one, I don't think the facts bear it out.




Perhaps, but though religion is tied up in the IRA/English conflict, it has more to do with sovergnty for Ireland than it does religion in and of itself. This is a rather stark contrast with most radical Islamic terror attacks which are based predominantly around religion.

Again, I'm not going to pretend the christian religion is in any way innocent of attrocites, but I think the particular case you're citing here is a bit of a straw man, the two have very distinct differenes that set them apart.







Actually, you could tally up better than 3500 civilian casualties due to radical Islamist terror attacks just in the last 15 years thanks in no small part to the World Trade Center. The exact number is going to depend on who you decide to count and what your methodology for counting is (killed only, or does wounded count? How about maimed? Does a soldier killed by a roadside bomb (a war crime) count? How about if he's not on duty? Etc. ad infinidum). Let's not get into a debate of the exact numbers though, as it's really only tangentally related to our actual topic in this instance which was the reason the reactionist right wing is so hung up on radical Islam. The reason still stands: thousands (this is I'm sure at least a number all have to agree on) of high profile murders of people unrelated and unknown in any way to their attackers. More than even the IRA is responsible for if one insists on making a comparision of who's evil is more vile. Moreover, these attacks occur without apparent provocation. The US was not at war with anyone in the middle east prior to 9/11.




Unfortunetly, that reasoning purported by the terorists is quite circular and fails the basic "chicken and egg" test. If the terrorists acts are in response to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, why did they attack us when we had no military presense there on 9/11? Why were our embasies bombed years and years prior to us ever being there? How about the USS Cole which was refuling and resuppling in the waters of a country which had invited us to establish bases there? Why then did the staff of the American embasy in Iran get taken hostage decades prior to our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan? Sorry, but the reasons given by the terrorists just don't hold water at all. Religion, a stated desire by the radical islamists to re-establish the caliphate and quite litteraly convert the entire world to (their very extreme and narrow interpretation of) Islam by force of the sword is the reason.


Looking forward to reading your responses sir! Cheers!

[bagsy84]

Acknowledging all agreements I will respond to where there is difference or I wish to make a comment.



Fatwas don’t come out of thin air , they are based on Islamic sources such as the Qur’an. I think what you meant was interpretation.




The more I think about this the more stupid it seems to ban the Qur’an. What do you do about people who have committed it to memory?







Same could be said about just about any religion. I don’t have any sources just a faint memory, I’ll try to bring it up if I get some.




I was using the term “genocide” very loosely to mean murder. Both side committed them, sometimes provoked other times not.



In Islam, religion and the state are one. Also, one is allowed to fight in Islam to protect one’s state, which could be a possible motive of “terrorists”. So the two with my knowledge are quite similar.



I don’t have much knowledge on history. Saying that though, the US or the West has been involved in the Middle East for a long time. It was US raised Muslims who destabilised the Ottoman Empire. The US supported Saddam in nearly every form against the newly formed Islamic Republic of Iran. I’m sure there are more but these are off the top of my head.



Where did you get this from? I have seen no evidence to suggest that terrorists want to force everyone to become Muslim but lots of evidence points to the Wests involvement in the Middle East as a motive.

Also, I find your comment on the caliphate odd. The caliphate is noting more than the idea that Muslims should be ruled by a Muslim leader who is just, accountable and elected. This is exactly what Bush supposedly wants to set-up in the Middle East yet he calls the caliphate “evil”.



Hehehehe, first time I’ve been called that.

[jaypart2]

I don't live in America nor do I support the death penalty. In any case, you cannot honestly compare the crimes you can receive the death penalty for to deciding to leave a religion!

Even something like treason, while it shouldn't receive the death penalty, can be very dangerous for a country (i.e. giving secret information to an enemy). Leaving a religion on the other hand hurts no one.


So you're basically admitting that Islam cannot stand on its own merit... that Islam can only progress by eliminating 'threats'. If the religion really holds truth then surely it welcome any challenge, right?

This essay deals with this very issue:




If a embryologist went around killing everyone who he felt was a threat to his stem cell research, would that be justified? This is basically what you're saying.

[AnniePretty]

A short history leading to current events, from memory:

The US helped Saddam against Iran.

Saddam subsequently becomes very powerful in the Middle East

The US felt this power could be of harm to their allies, Saudi Arabia... so the put a military presence there.

Said military presence pisses off bin Laden and his friends.

The US gets attacked (WTC '93, USS Cole, Embassies, WTC '01).

US invades Afghanistan then Iraq....

It all started because of the military presence in Saudi Arabia, but this alone is not a justification for the actions taken by the extremists.


Yes, the presence of the United States and allies in the Middle East is the justification given by the radical Muslims, but nevertheless the are acting as they do because they think there is a divine duty to do so. They are under the impression that they have a divine duty as a Muslim to fight the 'enemy' - and under their radical worldview the enemy is anything/one that doesn't conform to their strict version of Islam, which could even include moderate Muslims - so we are all liable to do/say something that can trigger a response, be it criticism and/or any involvement in their region.

So yes, they might be doing it in response to the Wests presence in the Middle East, but the West is labeled as a enemy or threat for religious reasons, mainly, because the West doesn't conform to their religious ideology.

See this from Scott Atran (an anthropologist), taken from an essay "What Would Gandhi Do Today?" in which is writes about his interviews with jihadists, where they clearly talk about their commitment and devotion to got:

"Rather than obey a utilitarian 'logic of rational consequence' these actors perhaps more closely follow a 'logic of moral appropriateness. ' Consider, for example, our recent interviews with a number of self-identified recruits for martyr attack from the Hamas Block at al-Najah University in Nablus (which provides more suicide bombers than any other demographic group of Palestinians) as well as a number of active fighters in Indonesia from Jemaah Islamiyah, Al-Qeda's main ally in southeast Asia, trained in Afghanistan, the southern Philippines, Sulawesi and the Mollucas. All were asked questions of the sort, 'So what if your family were to be killed in retaliation for your action?' or 'What if your father were dying and your mother found out your plans for a martyrdom attack and asked you to delay until the family could get back on its feet?' To a person they answered along lines that there is duty to family but duty to God cannot be postponed. 'And what if your action resulted in no one's death but your own?' The typical response is, 'God will love you just the same. ' For example, when these questions were posed to the alleged Emir of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Bakr Ba'asyir, in Jakarta's Cipinang prison in August 2005, he responded that martyrdom for the sake of jihad is the ultimate fardh 'ain, an inescapable individual obligation that trumps all others, including the four of the five pillars of Islam (only profession of faith equals jihad). What matters for him as for most would-be martyrs and their sponsors I have interviewed is the martyr's intention and commitment to God, so that blowing up only oneself has the same value and reward as killing however many of the enemy.

So again, while it might be in response to a political situation, how the enemy comes to be viewed as an enemy derives from the religious ideology, and the action taken - blowing yourself up - has a deeply religious significance in that it shows your devotion to god.