Terror attack in Barcelona

[Chilloutman]

Are Kurds kinda like protestants of Islam world?

[smjjames]

No, the Kurds are an ethnic group and are actually pretty diverse as far as what religion people follow

 

I don't know what the Islamic equivalent of the Protestants would be. I'd hesitate to say the wahhabist/salafist stuff and islamist stuff would be since, as much as they and Roman Catholics dislike each other, Protestants aren't exactly out for the blood of Catholics. Not now anyway. The Christian Reformation took over a century to resolve itself, so, if there is some kind of Reformation happening in the Muslim world, we shouldn't expect any kind of quick resolution.

[Gfted1]

Lets widen the goalposts to get some points on the board! Can anyone provide a single example of Reformation within Islam since its inception? Sincere question.

[Chilloutman]

well there are Sunni and Shia right? They are supposed to be different in something?

[Gfted1]

That's a good example! +1 point for Gryffindor Chilloutman. I don't know whats different either but it must be something!

[smjjames]

well there are Sunni and Shia right? They are supposed to be different in something?

 

That's more like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church split.

[Hurlshort]

The Arab Spring? Only Tunisia has really seen a positive change, but you've got to start somewhere.

 

(I am sure someone will argue that is political and not religious, but I fail to see how you can separate the two at this point. If the end goal is to have a separation of religion and state, instituting democratic ideals would seem to be an important step.)

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

pmp10 i don't take things literally, i take them exactly as the islamic religion preaches them

islam says that you go to hell if:

you commit a sin (eating pork or having any contact with pigs is a grave sin as is consuming alcohol) and do not confess the sin to an imam to get forgiveness.

you are beheaded

you kill yourself without being ordered to do so by a priest

you leave islam

any sin committed with the intention to deceive infidels is automatically forgiven but sins committed willingly or even by trickery, force or accident must get formal forgiveness or its hell

in my highschool we had theology classes where we learned about many religions and their quirks. it wasn't an in depth analysis but enough to know the basics of what they teach and how their followers practice these teachings. plus my grandfather has lived some years in the middle east when he was young because of his work and has read the quran in the original version (not translated) and knows exactly what it says.

I'm sure it also teaches that murder is wrong.

If they found a way to rationalize around that I doubt they will lose any sleep over pork.

 

of course it is wrong, as long as the victim is another muslim man. if the victim is an infidel or a woman who is in violation of religious rules there is nothing wrong and is even encouraged by the holy texts... which by the way are filled with excuses to kill people.

 

redneckdevil

as i said, christians did their fair share of evil but they did it because of corruption and greed among the priests and against the teachings of their religion (and most of the followers didn't even know what the religion was about except: "pay the priest - do as the priest says - go to heaven" - and most still don't know to this day). the doctrine and purpose of the christian religion was to act as a tranquilizer for a population on the brink of revolt within a multinational empire.

islam has no need for corruption and greed among its priests because the religion was made from the ground up by Muhammad as a tool to raise fanatical-warmongering followers who would do anything for his ambitions. in today's terms, it was a successful attempt at creating a hive mind like human society where every single individual was thinking and acting the same way and would mindlessly follow the orders of their prophet-king. no questions, no doubts, no fear, no mercy, no remorse - all is as the prophet commands and as allah wills.

 

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20 13

“You shall not sacrifice to the Lord your God an ox or a sheep in which is a blemish, any defect whatever, for that is an abomination to the Lord your God. “If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. .." Deuteronomy 17 1-20

"But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." Luke 19 27

“Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." Exodus 22:19

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25 44-46

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.  If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.  But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.  And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter.  If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife.  If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." Exodus 21 7-11 (and yes, this is saying its okay to sell your DAUGHTER as SEX SLAVE)

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21 20-21

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6 5

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." 1 Timothy 2 11-15

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." 1 Corinthians 14 34-35

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" Ephesias 5 22-24

 

 

Christianity! Not evil you say. **** you.

 

i don't say its all flowers and rainbows, but what you quote are not supposed to be a part of the christian religion but of judaism. the catholic church that considers christianity an evolution of Judaism (and did so just to differentiate itself from the orthodox church) adopted in their scriptures the entirety of jewish traditions without however applying these traditions to anyone or anything except whenever it fit the agenda of the clergy (the majority of the most devout believers don't even know about many of these quotes).

people at the time didn't like gays so the pope publicly announced that "god hates gays". however part of the judaic heritage was the prohibition of pork and seafood for public health reasons due to the native environment of the jews and it was going against the millennia old way of life of europeans, so they kept that hidden from the illiterate population that had no other way of knowing anything besides being told by the priests.

 

the orthodox church (that was the original form of the christian religion) on the other hand considers itself a completely separate thing from judaism and has not adopted a single line of the old testament as part of their creed. they kept it as a backstory of where the world and faith originated and how Jesus came to be, but they did away with all the above quotes and more. it is not a coincidence that the Byzantine empire never had a dark age and that after its fall renaissance happened to the west. of course they weren't saints by any stretch of the word. the priests had a huge influence on the population and capitalized on it at every opportunity, even starting a revolt when the idea of separating church and state was proposed. however, unlike their catholic colleagues who usually had only the education they received within the church and it was almost entirely composed of the bible, high ranking orthodox priests in byzantium were usually from rich families and were well educated before joining the clergy, so they had a broader perspective and did not stifle social and scientific progress... at least not as totally as the catholics did during that same time.

 

islam, borrowed heavily from judaism because Muhammad wanted primarily to convert and control the rich jewish merchants of the region and their wealth that was necessary for his plan to build an empire. however his plan failed as they were very devout to their faith and would not abandon it for some self proclaimed prophet. so he added parts of christianity in his mix to broaden the potential converts and created the "convert, enslave or kill infidels" rule because he knew that the lower classes would jump at the chance to mess with the rich merchants as in the social structure he created a muslim beggar was above the richest infidel merchant in status and could demand of the merchant whatever he wanted with the freedom to kill said merchant on the spot if he so desired. through manipulating the "word of god" to fit his interests, Muhammad created the first islamic caliphate with him as the ruler and when he died he left a final divine edict: make islam the only religion in the world!

 

people of all religions have done stuff that were as shameful and evil as anything, but the clergy that was usually instigating it have settled down and took a back seat in the last 200-300 years, allowing societies to grow and evolve. the faithful still used their faith as an excuse to do some pretty nasty stuff, but in almost all cases it wasn't the faith itself or its leaders to demand of them to do what they did. for example settlers in the west USA just hated indians, but to kill just because of hate was a sin so they came up with the excuse that "its ok to kill them all, they are not christians". had the indians been christians, they would have come up with another excuse.

 

today you will almost never hear of people of any religion going wild with divine fervor and taking violent action against anyone they deem their god hates (hardcore catholics hate gays, but they do not stone them to death in public) and you will never see any priest instigating that sort of behavior in the faithful, instead they do their best to prevent it. that is all except the priests and faithful of islam who still stone gays to death in public, stone unfaithful women to death in public, behead criminals in public, instigate terrorist attacks and so on, all in the name of a god who takes full responsibility for your actions and allows you to do whatever you want (or are told) with no remorse or guilt

[213374U]

A pattern is a pattern for a reason.

 

What's this pattern you're referring to?

 

And by the way, nobody is justifying violence. However, considering historical and current contexts is useful when you're trying to understand why stuff happens and maybe help solve problems. If I wasn't such a cynic, I might also believe it may prevent similar mistakes from being made in the future.

 

 

Lets widen the goalposts to get some points on the board! Can anyone provide a single example of Reformation within Islam since its inception? Sincere question.

 

Just one?

 

For example, Muhammad Abduh was a 19th century Egyptian Islamic scholar that was big on opening re-interpretation of Islamic doctrine to better relate to current times. In this regard, he encouraged the use of reason and independent discussion to modernize the religious doctrine, and was personally against polygamy, forced conversion and in his view jihad was understood as a purely defensive business. This is especially radical in the sense that in Islam, the average joe isn't meant to interpret jack squat, he's to defer to his local imam or other religious authorities to do the thinking for him. He's far from the only Islamic reformer to have ever existed though, but from what I know, sadly his views and those of other modernists were mostly buried in the aftermath of WWI.

 

Then, more recently you have Ba'athism, a markedly secular, pseudo-socialist, authoritarian pan-Arabic movement... that has been crushed by the West wherever it took root. Aw crap, I'm "splaining away" stuff, again. My bad.

[teknoman2]

 

well there are Sunni and Shia right? They are supposed to be different in something?

 

That's more like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church split.

 

no, its much more minor, but still enough to make them mortal enemies.

i'm not sure which is which but the gist of it is that one group believes that the ruler of the state must not be a religious leader and should act independently of religion for the sake of the country and its people. the other, more orthodox group, believes that like the prophet himself, only the highest ranking priest is suited to be the ruler of the country... and if possible (but not mandatory) that priest should prove some genealogical connection to the prophet

it all comes down to separation of state and religion and they are currently in a civil war over it

[Gfted1]

Now weve got the ball rolling with two examples in the last century! So its the White Devil holding Isam back from joining the 21st century? Dammit, its always the White Devil in the end. smh. Some may say teaching intolerance as a tenet is the problem, as observed with various religions hating on gays, but that probably circles back to being someone else's fault too. Guess were just screwed.

[213374U]

And by "various religions hating on gays" you mean Christianity too, right? Oh wait, no, that was yesterday, it doesn't count.

 

Am I doing this right?

[teknoman2]

And by "various religions hating on gays" you mean Christianity too, right? Oh wait, no, that was yesterday, it doesn't count.

 

Am I doing this right?

when was the last time christians killed a gay in public just because he is gay?

somewhere in the muslim world they are probably killing one right now.

all religions have some ****ty beliefs, but in this day and age only one encourages its followers act freely on them at the expense of any number of innocents.

Edited August 22, 2017 by teknoman2

[Gfted1]

Of course I mean Christianity too! Matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single faith that doesn't make its bones by crapping on someone else.

 

When I rule the world, all religion will be abolished.

[Malcador]

when was the last time christians killed a gay in public just because he is gay?

 

Pretty recently, I would guess

[213374U]

 

And by "various religions hating on gays" you mean Christianity too, right? Oh wait, no, that was yesterday, it doesn't count.

 

Am I doing this right?

when was the last time christians killed a gay in public just because he is gay?

somewhere in the muslim world they are probably killing one right now.

all religions have some ****ty beliefs, but in this day and age only one has its followers act freely on them at the expense of any number of innocents.

 

Lol. Are you for real?

 

 

Wait, wait. That doesn't count because... they aren't shouting "God is great" while they do the deed, right?

[Gfted1]

Yay, Im glad to see LMGTFY is still around. 

[213374U]

Yeah, it's seriously second to none when I need that extra smarmy demeanor in my posts.

[teknoman2]

 

 

And by "various religions hating on gays" you mean Christianity too, right? Oh wait, no, that was yesterday, it doesn't count.

 

Am I doing this right?

when was the last time christians killed a gay in public just because he is gay?

somewhere in the muslim world they are probably killing one right now.

all religions have some ****ty beliefs, but in this day and age only one has its followers act freely on them at the expense of any number of innocents.

 

Lol. Are you for real?

 

 

Wait, wait. That doesn't count because... they aren't shouting "God is great" while they do the deed, right?

 

let me rephrase it because you missed the point.

when was the last time a christian mob killed gay people in public just because they are gay and the action was publicly endorsed and applauded by both the church and society with no legal action taken against the killers because killing gays was seen as a civic duty?

[Zoraptor]

I don't know what the Islamic equivalent of the Protestants would be. I'd hesitate to say the wahhabist/salafist stuff and islamist stuff would be since, as much as they and Roman Catholics dislike each other, Protestants aren't exactly out for the blood of Catholics.

 

The comparison does work to a point- the more extreme protestant sects (Westboro Baptist types) share much of their base philosophy with Salafis as much as they'd explode in apoplexy if anyone suggested it, still hate catholics etc. They aren't literally out for blood though, and there is little in the way of the more moderate and mainstream protestant equivalence.

 

But salafism is actually an old philosophy, wahhabism is just the latest spin on it popularised by Saudi Arabia as domestic political pandering and a way to spread influence.

 

 

These are the 5 pillars of Islam: Faith, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and a Pilgrimage. Doesn't say anything about killing non-Muslims. 

 

For Sunni Islam, and those pillars come from a Hadith, not from the Quran. Shia have a very different interpretation of the source passage and follow the Usul and Furu al-Din. Which translates to the 5 foundation beliefs, and the 10 branches of practice. In the practices includes jihadIsma'ilis also have their own set of 7 pillars of which jihad is included. Jihad itself has multiple facets but is vastly predominated by it's references to actual warfare which is both physically and metaphysically a struggle against evil. Further, this aspect of jihad is Quranically enshrined, not just found in some Hadith or apocrypha. Another part of the Furu al-Din is forbidding evil and disassociation with it, infidels repeatedly referenced alongside jihad as part of that evil.

 

 

That does show the contradiction between theory and practice though, since Shia are practically far less prone to going full Jihad than Sunnis despite them theoretically having a more extreme philosophy. Even shia 'extremists' like Hezbollah fight alongside and are associated with non muslim groups including both Christians and Druze in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon- can't say the same for their sunni equivalent extremists who have no tolerance at all for difference. Most salafi style extremists are also takfir (basically claim certain groups aren't 'real' muslims) whether they'd implicitly admit to it or not and refer to groups like Alawites as fire worshipers (Zoroastrians) instead of muslims.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Zoraptor

[injurai]

 

 

These are the 5 pillars of Islam: Faith, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and a Pilgrimage. Doesn't say anything about killing non-Muslims. 

 

For Sunni Islam, and those pillars come from a Hadith, not from the Quran. Shia have a very different interpretation of the source passage and follow the Usul and Furu al-Din. Which translates to the 5 foundation beliefs, and the 10 branches of practice. In the practices includes jihadIsma'ilis also have their own set of 7 pillars of which jihad is included. Jihad itself has multiple facets but is vastly predominated by it's references to actual warfare which is both physically and metaphysically a struggle against evil. Further, this aspect of jihad is Quranically enshrined, not just found in some Hadith or apocrypha. Another part of the Furu al-Din is forbidding evil and disassociation with it, infidels repeatedly referenced alongside jihad as part of that evil.

 

 

That does show the contradiction between theory and practice though, since Shia are practically far less prone to going full Jihad than Sunnis despite them theoretically having a more extreme philosophy. Even shia 'extremists' like Hezbollah fight alongside and are associated with non muslim groups including both Christians and Druze in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon- can't say the same for their sunni equivalent extremists who have no tolerance at all for difference. Most salafi style extremists are also takfir (basically claim certain groups aren't 'real' muslims) whether they'd implicitly admit to it or not and refer to groups like Alawites as fire worshipers (Zoroastrians) instead of muslims.

 

 

It does seem like like the majority of terrorist organizations are Sunni, but the Ayatollahs of Shia Islam were the ones issuing the most wide resounding jihadist fatwas during the 90's. I think Shia jihadism is different because Iran is a fully top down Caliphate for shi'asim. You have Hezbollah like you said (which I believe in-part was removed as a terrorist group because it has a "legitimate" political party componenant to it,) but there is also the PIJ, Hamas, and Houthis. The groups that are funded are external to Iran and have a particular state in mind to disrupt. Iran seems more focused on Israel as a prime target and operates more through well funded Immams that implore the responsibility of jihad as to create solo actors with very little in the way of formal organizational ties.

 

As far as Al-Qaeda, it's organization structure largely grew out of US involvement with rebel forces in fending off invasions from Russia, so I think a lot of those aspects of a largely more technically organization remain from that inceptions.

[Zoraptor]

IIRC Shia don't have a practical potential Caliphate due to their doctrine difference to Sunnis. Iran also didn't issue any expansionist fatwas at all, indeed Iran hasn't invaded anyone in literal centuries. Hamas is Sunni, Houthis are Zaydis (separate sect sort of intermediate between sunni and shia, albeit sometimes included with shia) and aren't extremist in any meaningful way and certainly not in the 'jihad' way, PIJ is sunni as well.

 

Hamas at least hasn't had Iranian support since they chose the wrong side in the Syrian Civil War either, their main backing is from ikwhan (brotherhood) sources, so nowadays mostly Qatar financially and politically Turkey. Qatar certainly buys weapons from Iran to support Hamas with, but that's a purely financial arrangement.

 

In terms of 'jihadi' groups there basically aren't any shia ones without stretching the definition a lot to put Hezbollah or the PMU or IRGC in there, and if you do that then you end up including far, far more sunni groups as well.

[injurai]

Yeah, it certainly is an interesting discrepancy at face value. While jihad is framed less as a pillar under the Sunni branch, I think jihad ultimately ends up interpreted by a different tradition. It's particularly the Hanbali and Hanafi schools of Sunni Islams which give credence to spreading the caliphate by sword as modeled by Muhammad which spurs respectively the Wahhabi and Deobandi reformation movements of today. Of course all of Sunni Islam is fundamentally based on bringing to fruition the model that is set by Muhammad, quite literally being in accordance to a manner of living as set forth by the prophet. So while the major and minor struggles may be more forthright in Shia Islam, it is Sunni Islam that most deeply explores the example of Muhammad in full. So if an account of the prophet exists thereof, it is of potential source for inspiration. Nothing further need be said for what they the most committed and devout have found, upheld, and propagated. Additionally the west has only had a sliver of the taste of what the woman of the Sunni world have experienced through history, the jurisprudence over women is not pretty. It is here were the extreme revulsion towards secular freedoms develop, as the kafir embody the ultimate affront against the mumin and the pursuit of Ihsan. So it is that pursuit that reaps the seeds sowed by the Sunnah Fiiliyyah.

[BruceVC]

Now weve got the ball rolling with two examples in the last century! So its the White Devil holding Isam back from joining the 21st century? Dammit, its always the White Devil in the end. smh. Some may say teaching intolerance as a tenet is the problem, as observed with various religions hating on gays, but that probably circles back to being someone else's fault too. Guess were just screwed.

Islam is indeed making progress, 200 years ago as 2133 correctly pointed out we did see a progressive Islamic scholar who wanted to separate religion from state....what would be ideal though is to see the same positive objectives in the  year 2017, its just a thought and doesn't necessarily apply 

 

 

 

 

And by "various religions hating on gays" you mean Christianity too, right? Oh wait, no, that was yesterday, it doesn't count.

 

Am I doing this right?

when was the last time christians killed a gay in public just because he is gay?

somewhere in the muslim world they are probably killing one right now.

all religions have some ****ty beliefs, but in this day and age only one has its followers act freely on them at the expense of any number of innocents.

 

Lol. Are you for real?

 

 

Wait, wait. That doesn't count because... they aren't shouting "God is great" while they do the deed, right?

 

 Oh please 2133, stop making ridiculous suggestions that Western countries have the same views around human rights and how minorities are treated compared to countries under Sharia law. Its not even in the same ballpark. There are many countries in the ME where its the death penalty for homosexuality. As in its legally institutionalized ..of course homophobia exists in all countries but in many ME  countries its illegal 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_the_Middle_East

 

I encourage you to do some research before suggesting the degrees of legal discrimination against minorities are the same in Western countries and countries under Sharia law 

Edited August 23, 2017 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

let me rephrase it because you missed the point.

 

when was the last time a christian mob killed gay people in public just because they are gay and the action was publicly endorsed and applauded by both the church and society with no legal action taken against the killers because killing gays was seen as a civic duty?

 

 

Sounds like something that happens in Russia.