Sunnis or Shi'ite muslims where and why? - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
January 11th, 2005  
Pogue Mahone
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
"Or are we forbidden to look at this simply because Islam is a "religion" and therefor not open to criticism - which is the Muslim attitude toward the matter"

That's just not correct. You're encompassing an entire religion from the actions of various Muslims. My friend for example, is quite willing to find things in the Muslim religion to be criticized. He also criticizes those he feels have debased and misinterpreted Muslim law. Jihad for example is the wrong term for what the Wahhabi fundamentalists are doing. He explained to me what the correct definition is and I can't remember it clearly enough to post it here now. I will later once I've asked him about it again. Let me be clear about this, however, continue to lump all Muslims into one catagory and you'll get nothing but an arguement from me.
Even if you want to interpet my words to mean I am encompassing an entire religion in my criticism - is that wrong?

I am sure your friend is quite a nice person and he follows an interpetation of Islam that is not anything like that of the Wahhabi sorts who are fundamentalist zealots out to kill us - but does that mean he is practicing "true" Islam - or are the fundamentalist zealots practising "true" Islam?

Just because you don't recognize specific instructions to kill or enslave non-believers or to extend the realm of faith by the sword as part of a legitimate "religion" does not mean that this is not part of any religion

It is perfectly clear that the majority of Muslims don't participate in Jihad and other aspects of Islam - just as it is clear that it is much more than a small minority that does support such things

The Sura's ( the interpetations of the Koran ) are understood in order of release - so if an early Sura calls Jihad an "inner struggle" but a later one calls it "forceable conversion by the sword" it is the later one that takes the form of "religious law"

Much as Christians observe the New Testament as the final version - so when the OT says "An eye for an eye" and the NT says "Turn the other cheek" - its the later instruction that is to be followed.

In the case of Islam - many of the early Sura's are the "cheek" kind - while the later ones are the "eye" variety


This relates to the circumstances of M'hmed's position - early on when he had few followers he was more accomodating to others - later, when he could, Islam became more a matter of "join or die"

Of course, it is easier just to ignore all of this and go on treating Islam as a "religion" and therefor off-limits to any criticism

Easier to just accuse anyone of "bigotry" who even trys to understand why while not all Muslims are terrorists - just about all terrorists are Muslims

Thats what Muslim groups routinely do

Knowledge is power - so understand that Jihad has different meanings - just as Islam does ( you will be told it means "peace" - it actually means "submission" - which is a kind of peace I grant you ) and that constructive criticism is desperatly needed in the Muslim world
January 11th, 2005  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc.S
Very interesting guys I say - Have I got this right - The part of the religion Islam that is generating most of the violence we see today is the the Sunnis
You're forgetting the many other sects of Islam, Sunni and Shi'ite are not the the only two, however the most popular. It's the sub-sects, I've found, to have the most violent teachines. These have largely branched off on their own and are growing.
January 11th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Wahabism might not be the sweetest version of all, but check out what Deobandi is all about http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...m-deobandi.htm To have an idea, the Taliban was Deobandi Muslim.
--
Boots
January 11th, 2005  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Wahabism might not the sweetest version of all, but check out what Deobandi is all about http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...m-deobandi.htm. To have an idea, the Taliban was Deobandi Muslim.
Yes, Deoband teachings are extremely fundementalistic, and similiar to Wahhabis in many ways - though they are generally not as agressive, in principle and teachings, that is. In other words, they aren't as likely to chop your head off for being Western or non-Muslim.

The Taliban was a right fringe of Deobandi in that along with the fundamentalist ideals, they also incorporated much of their own culture, making them far more dangerous.
January 11th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Yes, I agree.
January 11th, 2005  
SwordFish_13
 
 
Hi,
Quote:
Wahabism might not be the sweetest version of all, but check out what Deobandi is all about http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...m-deobandi.htm. To have an idea, the Taliban was Deobandi Muslim.
Italian Guy Can you Edit your Post and remove the dot (.) at the End of your URL ..............it's not opening Due to it here


Deoband are Sunni Muslims .................you are kinda going into too Much Smaller Sub Divisions

Major fractons of Islam are

#Sunni

#Shiia

#Ahmadi

# Sufi

# Salafi

rest of them are Too small to be considered .

Peace
-=SF_13=-
January 11th, 2005  
Pogue Mahone
 
There was an interesting piece on this issue some time ago basically argueing that rather than a Protestant style reformation, what Islam really needs is a Pope

A leader who can lay down the law and make it stick

If Jihad is an inner struggle - and Fatwa is only for religious matters - and Islam does mean Peace - well then, what we need is for someone with authority to come out and say this

Unfortunately - the closest we have to a Pope in Islam is the Shiite version, Sistani in Iran for example, and he most certainly is not saying any of those things

So again, why the reluctance to examine Islam - the ideology - in light of these facts?

Because Islam is more than a religion - it is a political and social structure and as such qualifies as an ideology

Or we can re-classify any number of other ideologies as "religions" - why not consider the USSR and its cult of personality around Stalin as a religion?
January 11th, 2005  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwordFish_13
rest of them are Too small to be considered .
The sub-sects are the most dangerous .. and have thus far, wreaked the most havoc on the Western World. I'd say they aren't too small to be considered.
January 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
"Easier to just accuse anyone of "bigotry" who even trys to understand why while not all Muslims are terrorists - just about all terrorists are Muslims

Thats what Muslim groups routinely do"

Seems like a pretty good definition of "bigot" to me. Also I never once said Islam wasn't open to criticism, in fact, I pointed out that even my friend finds things to criticize about it. It seems you are not open to criticism because you've determined it all already. Muslim = bad. Well it just isn't so.
January 11th, 2005  
Pogue Mahone
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
It seems you are not open to criticism because you've determined it all already. Muslim = bad. Well it just isn't so.
Thanks for inventing things that you think I said

Since I never said any such thing - I'd ask that you either retract the statement or show where I said it.

Too much to ask I suppose

The point being made is that one can look critically at Islam ( or Christianity, or Bhudism - whatever ) as an ideology if it meets the criteria to be considered as such

I suggest that you study the topic a bit more before deciding to throw around accusations of bigotry

Perhaps read a book or two on the subject - and then you won't have to depend on your friends interpetation of Islam to be the foundation for your opinions


So lets be clear - what you are saying is basically

"One shouldn't criticize Islam as a whole because a minority is mis-interpeting it to commit violence in its name"

Would that be close to correct?

If so - on what basis of knowledge do you claim that the Islam of OBL say is "wrong" and that of "your friend" is right?

And what % of muslims support the activities of OBL, or Hamas or the Chechen "separatists" of Beslan - in your opinion?

I don't want to drag you into a discussion you are not interested in - if your understanding and interest in the subject goes no farther than "condeming any religion is wrong" then there really is no point