Number of Muslims protesting London terrorist attack = ZERO. Number of Muslims protesting forced Mosque closure in France = HUNDREDS

by kpop 233 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  bohm

  This means that he's not devout. ISIS kills Muslims and infidels for insulting the prophet. This means that they're very devout.

  Well, I think that was what I wrote...

  'Good' and 'bad' Muslims are highly subjective terms that muddy the waters.

  Okay, great. I was discussing Simons use of the term "good Muslim". If you don't think we can define it, I suggest you take it up with him.

  we're not discussing Christians, we're discussing Muslims.

  ???

  Because they westboro baptist church are an inconvenient example we should not talk about them? lol. Sorry, but I am looking for consistency in my beliefs so I will have to keep them in mind as an example of very devout christians who I don't think are good christians...
• 

  bohm

  what cause/belief is ISIS committed to?

  Try this if you have an IPhone. Press and hold the home button. Then say with a clear voice to your phone:
  

  Search the web for ISIS wikipedia

  (hint: consider what "ISIS" is an acronym for)
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Because they westboro baptist church are an inconvenient example we should not talk about them? - WBC are devout Christians but on this thread we're talking about Muslims. Why are you having trouble grasping this?!

  Well, I think that was what I wrote - ok, we're in agreement that ISIS are more devout than Maajid Nawaz.

  Can we then say that ISIS are more Islamic than Maajid Nawaz?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Try this if you have an IPhone. Press and hold the home button. Then say with a clear voice to your phone:
  

  Search the web for ISIS wikipedia

  (hint: consider what "ISIS" is an acronym for) - I have no IPhone. Please just answer the question. Thank you.
• 

  redvip2000

  What I object to is the view that we should think ISIS is what it means exclusively to be a "Good Muslim

  ISIS are certainly not good muslims. On a final analysis, we want all muslims to view their religion like christians view christianity -- more of an identity than a real faith.

  The issue is that ISIS is truly taking their religion seriously and have a very literal interpretation of their faith. They follow a horrible religion and choose to do exactly what it says. That's why it's important to criticize the religion as a whole.
• 

  bohm

  Can we then say that ISIS are more Islamic than Maajid Nawaz?
  

  Yes/maybe and no/maybe. Look at the dictionary definition of Islamic:

  1.
  the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.
  2.
  the whole body of Muslim believers, their civilization, and the countries in which theirs is the dominant religion.

  
  

  I think the answer is yes/maybe according to the first definition, maybe/no according to the second. And we can parse this endlessly in a tiresome religious debate, for instance we can debate if a person can fully submit to allah if he does what the head of the islamic state does and bla bla bla. At the end of the day we get to the problem that all of it is 100% made up bullshit and trying to accuse someone of making something up is moot. Compare to the various attempts to even define "true Christianity".

  I digress. I don't think this answers what it means to be a "good Muslim"

  I have no IPhone. Please just answer the question. Thank you.
  

  Are you really unaware what Islamic State tries to accomplish or is this some kind of rhetoric device I don't get?

  If you are not aware of what the Islamic state tries to accomplish I will really recommend you to read the wikipedia page.

  If you are aware and this is some kind of silly rhetorical device perhaps we can just skip it?
• 

  Simon

  bohm: it's getting to be hilarious how you twist and turn to avoid answering the actual simple question at all costs.

  It's not whether "a" person or group is a muslim or not. It's which is more Muslim.

  And it's not simply who is most obsessive. Because the WBC are obsessive but they are not really devout followers of Christianity by most people's measure of what it means.

  You must agree that there is a sliding scale of how closely someone follows or choses to ignore the various teachings and dictates.

  So your choice is simple: does Maajid Nawaz or ISIS follow Islam the closest. That is, who more closely follows the teachings from the Quran and example in the Hadith?

  It's an easy question. Pick one answer and try and back it up.
• 

  Simon

  ISIS are certainly not good muslims.

  The issue is that ISIS is truly taking their religion seriously and have a very literal interpretation of their faith. They follow a horrible religion and choose to do exactly what it says.

  Those statements seem to be contradictory.

  Do people have a problem separating the meaning of "good muslim" from "good person"? You can be a fantastic Muslim but a complete inhuman bastard. In fact, that is my argument - that it is the sad reality and indictment / true measure of the religion.

  If you are a good person, as in a good, decent human being, then by definition you are a lousy Muslim, a fake and a liar. But those are the best kind of Muslims.
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Oh, boy! Have not got time to read 140 posts, so apologies if my comments duplicate anyone else's arguments.

  I'd better say one thing before starting, I don't like Islam anymore than I like Judeao-Christianity, so I'm not presenting my arguments to convince someone that Islam is 'good.' I'm just trying to see the other side of this issue.

  First, we've all had a bit of experience in attempting to convince someone that dying for YHWH/JESUS is an OK thing to do.
  

  So, have you ever thought that if you were trying to convince some young (or older) guy that it would be an OK thing to die for Allah (who is more or less the same YHWH that we once thought it a good thing to die for), what would you say?

  For my part, I think I'd raise the point that the west scream their heads off when a few people get killed, but usually do not get upset when anyone in a Muslim nation gets killed. That bastion of freedom and justice, the USA can kill a few kids with a drone strike aimed at some insurgent leader and non-one cares.

  I could explore that a bit and ask them to check some history, and make sure that the first time bombs were dropped from a plane onto civilians was during the Christian Italian invasion (and takeover) of Libya (circa 1911). And, that the first time civilians were machine-gunned by an aircraft was during the British take-over of Iraq following WW1, when a champion of freedom and justice named Winston Churchill authorised the RAF to machine gun dissenting villagers who resisted the British occupation of their land (Same old story, the Brits need the Iraqi's oil to power their battleships - newly converted from coal fired to oil burners). I guess a few people protested in the streets of London, but apparently not enough to deter Churchill.

  I could go on and on with stories like that - eg. The French army torturing Algerians during the Algerian resistance to the French. And onto the very flawed decision in recent years to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - but even before the 2001 invasion, the USA was interfering in Afghanistan as part of the CIA's cold war operations. When Russia invaded a guy called Charlie Wilson persauded the US government to begin arming the Mujahideen - and you could say that was the start of the huge growth of supplying modern weapons to Islamic forces.

  So I'd be telling these young guys, that the only people that seem to be getting hurt are Muslims, is that fiar? Is that Just, Do you love Allah? What are you going to do about it, and some kids/adults fall for it.

  As reasoning adults - we need to ask, does all the blame lay on one side?

  Don't think I'll go on further, just inviting people to think about it. Don't forget also that other Muslims (probably more so than westerners) are often the victims of Muslim terrorism.

  And, one final point, the UK Guardian has recently published this refutation that all Muslims support terrorist tactics.

  Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats?CMP=soc_567

  The 712-page Google doc that proves Muslims do condemn terrorism

  When a classmate told 19-year-old Heraa Hashmi that “all terrorists are Muslims” she began to compile a dossier of all instances of Muslims condemning terror attacks
• 

  bohm

  Simon: The issue of who follows the teachings of the Quran most closely is very different than being a "good muslim". I think it is uncontroversial that ISIS is more closely following the Quran than Majiid if you look at the rules in Sharia and check off boxes, but I don't think that is the same as being a good Muslim.

  I don't think Islam (or christianity for the matter) is consistent. For instance I think it is inconsistent to say that you are a religion of peace and have the laws and rules in Sharia. If we accept it is not consistent that means you can interpret it in different ways depending on what teachings you accept as literally true and which you interpret to make stuff fit. For instance a person can say that he begins with the "religion of peace" and then remove all the things that don't jive with that using the same methods that modern Christians do; methods for interpreting the crap out of the Islamic texts have been around since the middle ages. Does any of this make sense in an objective way? not really, but none of it makes any sense because it is build on false premises...

  Since there are no truth claims at the bottom of it all I don't see why we have to say that person is not as "good" a muslim as the crazy guy in the desert with the AK47. Do we even know if the texts in the Quran has been faithfully transferred?

  You can find lists of things Muslims object to that ISIS do. Some items on those lists seems like theological waffling, some seems more concrete. My point is that I think it is both more correct (and a heck of a lot more useful) to either accept that the term "good muslim" is vacuous, or at least that it admits a definition which allows a person like Majiid to say he is as good a Muslim as anyone.