Charge_7 said:
"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
