Can Muslims improve the image of themselves?

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr. Skeptic, retorting as you have doesn't help convince anyone -- it merely makes the argument personal.

 

Sorry, I got a little carried away.

 

Anyhow, the passages iNow shared about punishment for hitting or cursing your parent, the ones he now alluded to about homosexuality, the ones limiting what you can eat, requiring circumcision, etc. all go together -- same book, same context. They were laws for old Israel, and not all of them were followed even by them.

 

As I said, they are interpreted as obsolete by most Christians. Much of the reason for that is the "new covenant" that Jesus made. Note that Paul, the most prolific writer of the New Testament, rejected these laws -- specifically, circumcision and food ones, claiming that Gentiles (non-Jews) should not be burdened with them. Peter drew together a council of the Apostles and they agreed.

 

The New Testament does have a few passages against homosexuality, but does not advocate a death sentence for it (nor, I think, any punishment -- the early church was in no position to be punishing anyone at the time anyhow). This is consistent with how many Christians act.

[CaptainPanic]

Qur'an (3:56)

YUSUFALI: "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

PICKTHAL: As for those who disbelieve I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers.

SHAKIR: Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers.

 

Qur'an (3:151)

YUSUFALI: Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

PICKTHAL: We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

SHAKIR: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.

 

Qur'an (4:76)

YUSUFALI: Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.

PICKTHAL: Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak.

SHAKIR: Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak.

 

Do I need to quote any more?

 

You should also look up the life of Muhammed, the perfect Muslim ever to have lived.

 

Makes one wonder why Bush thought these people were against him. If I ever have seen a leader of the world who thought exactly along the lines of these selected Qur'an quotes, then it was the previous president of the USA - albeit a fundamentalist of a different religion with a different name of the same god.

 

But ajb, you did answer the question. In your eyes, perhaps, these quotes are all there is to Muslims. And therefore they can try as hard as they want to seem like peaceful people and improve their image - they'll fail.

You closed your eyes to them, and therefore any attempt to improve the image will surely fail.

 

Pity really - I do advise you to visit some Muslim countries before the Western countries, led by the USA, invades the next (Yemen?). Open your eyes.

[Pangloss]

Makes one wonder why Bush thought these people were against him.

 

He didn't.

[john5746]

Hopefully, we can agree that having governments with a secular foundation would help muslim(any?) society and their self-image. Basing government on the objective of serving the people seems to work better than bowing to god-men. IMO, this is the chief reason that the west is somewhat civilized.

[ajb]

But ajb, you did answer the question. In your eyes, perhaps, these quotes are all there is to Muslims.

 

Not all there is, but it does add some rational to the extremists both Islamic and anti-Islamic.

 

"Muslims believe the Qur'an is absolutely true and must be followed. Thus, we should in principle expect any believing Muslim not to hold the lives of Kafir in any way dear."

 

Of course this is not quite true, otherwise we would already be involved in some kind of civil-religious-ethnic Armageddon.

 

I personally do not hold much regahttp://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=536232#post536232rd for religion, I would quite welcome the day we get over all this.

 

It is not just Islam that needs to improve it's image. For example the Catholic church in Ireland has had some shameful events come to light recently, see the BBC report.

 

Muhammed also like them young,

 

Book 008, Number 3309:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ajb

[Syntho-sis]

 

As I said, they are interpreted as obsolete by most Christians. Much of the reason for that is the "new covenant" that Jesus made. Note that Paul, the most prolific writer of the New Testament, rejected these laws -- specifically, circumcision and food ones, claiming that Gentiles (non-Jews) should not be burdened with them. Peter drew together a council of the Apostles and they agreed.

 

Where does it say he made certain practices obsolete?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Matthew 15:10-20 repeals the old practices of certain foods being "ritually unclean". I'll look further; I recall there being other places as well.

[Mr Skeptic]

Acts 15 for the most part says that Gentiles (non-Jews) are not bound by those commands that were given to the Jews, other than 4 things which they decided they would do well to avoid.

 

Moving back on topic, the Qur'an has some violent passages, but most Muslims consider theirs a religion of peace. Do they have a justification for this considering those passages?

[john5746]

I would think they would do the same as other religions - say that the bad verses are taken out of context, were for a different, specific time, etc.

 

If it were clear, you would think more people would get it right the first time.

 

So, maybe Islam is the worst religion in terms of possible violence, but I think convincing them into a secular government would be easier and more effective than trying to convert or change their religion.

 

I would rather they stay Muslim under a secular, democratic state than become a Christian theocracy.

[Syntho-sis]

Acts 15 for the most part says that Gentiles (non-Jews) are not bound by those commands that were given to the Jews, other than 4 things which they decided they would do well to avoid.

 

Moving back on topic, the Qur'an has some violent passages, but most Muslims consider theirs a religion of peace. Do they have a justification for this considering those passages?

 

Hmm...That's odd.

 

So what you're telling me is that those verses are in direct contrast with the book of James?

 

And I thought we were just discussing taking verses out of context and whatnot?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Matthew 15:10-20 repeals the old practices of certain foods being "ritually unclean". I'll look further; I recall there being other places as well.

 

Every single concordance I could find says the otherwise. The message was about eating foods with unwashed hands. Not about clean and unclean foods. The Pharisees had a strict practice of washing hands before every meal which was not according to the old covenant law. They were adding to the law thus adding to the burden.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Acts 15 for the most part says that Gentiles (non-Jews) are not bound by those commands that were given to the Jews, other than 4 things which they decided they would do well to avoid.

 

Yes and apparently you didn't finish the book of Acts.

 

In the context the topic was of referring to people as Jews and Gentiles. Showing partiality to only the Jews was wrong.

 

Read the rest of the book, from a scholarly approach it it quite clear.

[Mr Skeptic]

I would think they would do the same as other religions - say that the bad verses are taken out of context, were for a different, specific time, etc.

 

If it were clear, you would think more people would get it right the first time.

 

Well yes, what I'm wondering is just how much interpreting they need to do to ignore violent verses. For example, how well could they support their claim by showing context? Is it the most accurate interpretation or do they look like they're making stuff up when they do so? That sort of thing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hmm...That's odd.

 

So what you're telling me is that those verses are in direct contrast with the book of James?

 

And I thought we were just discussing taking verses out of context and whatnot?

I think contradiction is inevitable in a book such as the New Testament, a compilation of the writings and theologies of many different people made over many years. But could you be specific? My readings have not yet taken me to James.

 

 

Every single concordance I could find says the otherwise. The message was about eating foods with unwashed hands. Not about clean and unclean foods. The Pharisees had a strict practice of washing hands before every meal which was not according to the old covenant law. They were adding to the law thus adding to the burden.

I suppose this is a sort of ambiguous point, yes. Jesus' argument that what goes into the mouth does not make one "unclean" could be used either way.

 

I'm also curious what kind of concordances you have that interpret rather than acting as indexes.

 

Yes and apparently you didn't finish the book of Acts.

 

In the context the topic was of referring to people as Jews and Gentiles. Showing partiality to only the Jews was wrong.

 

Read the rest of the book, from a scholarly approach it it quite clear.

I'm curious how you arrived at this position. In Acts 15:10-11 Peter specifically speaks about the "yoke" of the law and that they would be saved through Jesus, not the law.

[greenprogrammin]

As I understand it, only a very few Muslims are crazy killers. However, it takes only a few crazies to very badly damage their reputation. Many of their religious leaders will denounce the violence, at least publicly.

 

My suggestion would be that the peace loving Muslims start a program to provide assistance to the people hurt by the crazy violent groups. Actions, after all, speak louder than words. As a bonus, this would provide a strong incentive to discourage violence.

 

If it is not in the Quran then they will not do it. Their every action is so tightly governed by the text that their society is not meant to evolve a complex society in which the world has become.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Islam has a negative image in much of America and Europe, that's for sure. In Europe in particular it seems to be the focus of most xenophobic/anti-immigration sentiment, with stuff like Switzerland banning minarets. In the U.S. it's less about immigration, but the Muslim=terrorist meme is possibly even more prevalent, with stuff like iNow's relatives.

 

Also, something like 12% of Americans somehow believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, so, you know, just try and unpack that.

 

Anyway, I agree that it's hardly the responsibility of some Muslim in Indonesia to befriend iNow's relatives or something, but the question might be rephrased as how Islamophobia might be mitigated in general. And I think the answer is probably just integration and moderation. In America, Catholics were once a similarly hated and feared group, but that was unsustainable given the level of integration. The average person isn't going to hate and fear a group that includes their next door neighbor who's an alright dude.

 

The idea that Obama is a Muslim is mostly due to the fact that he is an Indonesian and is hated by such a large republican party among other racially and hate motivated people.

 

I don't think the issue is about Islamophobia. I believe it is about the human rights issues that develop through the interpretation of Sharia Law and other strict Islamic laws.

 

I believe that everyone will hate and fear the alright dude next door that is living with such interconflict within their own head and households. These interconflicts rise from living in society that is not aligned with the Quran. We are Infidels and will always be. As Islam spreads they will always try to create an islamic state in which they can live. This would completely trump every constitutional and human right we have ever developed.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't think it would make muslims look guilty to make reparations to victims of Islamic terrorism, especially if it gives muslims a humanitarian name to go with the faces. We sometimes fear nameless strangers so it would go a long way to know that Hasan is a good and beautiful person who wants to help fix what some extremists from his religion have broken. It's easy to fear "that muslim guy" and harder to fear "Hasan the plumber from Toledo who just wants to help".

 

I think a better use of those resources would be encouraging muslim governments to remove the ability of jihadists to work within those countries. Diplomacy and economics are the only way to fight terrorism, since we've proven waging war on terrorists costs insane amounts of lives and money and in the end just makes more terrorists.

 

Waging war on terrorists does not cost a lot unless your occupying the area (as we chose to in respect to help re-stabilizethe a government for democratic developmental purposes of the indigenous). We are spending so much because we are trying to rebuild a country that is in civil war. The majority of the war is violence directed between sunni and shite. While trying to maintain a presesnce and influence in a region that is fed hate and lies by Persian / Iranian Influencial puppets such as Irans "President". We all know it is the Ayatollahs that are running the country and oppressing Reform. The Ayatolahs are Revivalists with a strong influence into Strict Islamic Law. This is the obvious oppression of the GREEN PARTY which IS SUPPORTING ISLAMIC REFORM!!!!! NOT ISLAMIC REVIVAL!!!!!

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER THE GOOD GUYS. Then you have the Malitias supporting ISLAMIC REFORM.... These are the guys supporting the Revival (Going back to the old days of no human rights just live by interpretation of the Quran). These Malitias are the guys that support similar views of strict Islamic law as that of Osama Bin Laden.

 

We are losing these wars because we have destabilized the region and spent so much trying to fight and restabilize. We have tried to win the hearts and minds of a people that are told that we are there to steal their oil and convert and kill muslim people.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Muslims could improve their self-image if they would unilaterally come out against and reject radical Islamicism, espousing the core tenants of Islam: PEACE.

 

Until then... no, Muslims cannot improve their self-image, because the radical contingent dominates world affairs.

 

Note this applies equally well to chickenhawk Christians who apparently do not follow the principle of peace espoused by their central deity, Jesus Christ.

 

How can you expect "Islam" to reject radical islam when Islam is divided in itself (ex. Shia, Sunni, etc...). At the same time you have to define Radical Islam. I define radical islam as any form of islam that does not consider human rights, womens rights, civil rights, etc... and uses any form of Quranic interpretation of Sharia Law or any Strict Islamic law.

Edited January 8, 2010 by greenprogrammin
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

How can you expect "Islam" to reject radical islam when Islam is divided in itself (ex. Shia, Sunni, etc...). At the same time you have to define Radical Islam. I define radical islam as any form of islam that does not consider human rights, womens rights, civil rights, etc... and uses any form of Quranic interpretation of Sharia Law or any Strict Islamic law.

 

Well, really, I don't know what to make of Islam. I'm an atheist and find all religions pretty ridiculous. On the one hand I see Muslisms as victims of racism/neo-McCarthyism while the same time I recognize that Sharia Law is diabolocal, hypocritical, evil, and mysogynistic. I don't know what judgment to render upon Muslims. They are at the same time unfairly persecuted while unfairly persecuting others.

[ajb]

They are at the same time unfairly persecuted while unfairly persecuting others.

 

Islam supports slavery.

 

Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but rather used to pay off the debt.

 

Death to those who criticise Islam.

 

Qur'an (33:61) - Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.

 

But if you pay they may not kill you.

 

Qur'an (9:29) - Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

 

 

Islam is not very chartable to non-believers.

 

Qur'an (16:71) - Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others: those more favoured are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favours of Allah?

 

 

So in all I would say that they are doing the wrong, not the secular world.

[iNow]

Islam supports slavery.

So does the New Testament of the bible.

 

 

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

~ Ephesians 6:5

 

 

 

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.

~ 1 Timothy 6:1-2

 

 

 

As if that weren't enough to discredit ridiculous claims of the "goodness" of the new testament, Jesus even approves of beating the above referenced slaves even if they didn't know they were doing something wrong:

 

 

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.""

~ Luke 12:47-48

 

 

 

 

 

Death to those who criticise Islam.

<...>

Islam is not very chartable to non-believers.

Nor is Christianity.

 

 

He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

~ Exodus 22:20

 

 

that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy[a] all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors.

 

“The Lord your God will be merciful only if you listen to his voice and keep all his commands that I am giving you today, doing what pleases him.

~ Deuteronomy 13: 13-18

 

 

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

~ 2 Chronicles 15:12-13

[ajb]

So both religions suck. All the more reason to dump them.

 

The old Testament is full of violence and hatred on non Jews.

[foodchain]

*In response to greenprogrammin

 

The point I was trying to make is unless you favor destruction of human rights on an atrocious level the use of armed conflict as a means to change some group of peoples perception of things I seriously doubt to work or last. Plus there is no way I think to tell how much of that conflict is truly just the natives wanting to kick you out of there homeland because they don't want to learn the kings English, and why should they have to in all reality, I mean if they don't are they "terrorists"?

 

Past terrorist events I think allowed for enough fear and hatred to support such a move, like the preemptive war in Iraq, which was something that even as a solider I thought was wrong morally and doomed to failure because the west in general is not a bunch of monsters that are prepaird to do anything to win the objective.

 

From what I know "terrorists" in terms of Muslims really does not mean Muslim. Sure some terrorists are Muslim, but using it like that is pretty much like saying all white people are white supremacists because some are, its faulty logic overall because it does not grasp the reality at hand. Not every Muslim nation is some barbaric place that sticks to some Interpretation of a religious text to a level of life and death.

 

There is such a History to all of this also that I think lacks understanding. I mean didn't the west carve out the national boundaries to a lot of the Mideast, to our involvement with Iran over the years. I am not trying to be pro any side in this debate overall though, as my big fear is that such a situation could deteriorate in the course of a few years to the point in which it truly is horrible relations between say Muslims the world over and everybody else. This picture of international relations currently does not exist, but its very possible.

[Syntho-sis]

So both religions suck. All the more reason to dump them.

 

The old Testament is full of violence and hatred on non Jews.

 

Isn't that a bit naive?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suppose one could argue that there is a difference between the definition of those religions (as laid out in their holy books) and the implementation of them, as represented in the majority of their believers. But that disparity leaves open the possibility of fundamentalism.

[ajb]

Some examles

 

Exodus 17:14-16

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."

 

Numbers 31:1-30

The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. etc

 

 

Exodus 21:20-21

If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

 

But then

 

Deuteronomy 24:7

If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.

 

So, slavery is ok, just as long as it is not Israelites?

[Syntho-sis]

What was their primary concern at that point in time?

 

What were they trying to do?

[ajb]

The New Testament is also not particularly tolerant in places

 

Romans 13:1-2

LET every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What was their primary concern at that point in time?

 

What were they trying to do?

 

So you want to place all this in some historical perspective? That is great, however if you believe the bible or Qur'an presents a model of how to live today then one must address the moral content of these (and other) books.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I suppose one could argue that there is a difference between the definition of those religions (as laid out in their holy books) and the implementation of them, as represented in the majority of their believers. But that disparity leaves open the possibility of fundamentalism.

 

That is a good point.

 

However, if one believes a book to be the literal truth and the word of god(s) then how can one then pick and chose what to obey and what not to?

 

If some of the word of god is not to be followed then why the rest? Picking and choosing just places the whole thing in question, which is surely not what an organised religion wants.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That is a good point.

 

However, if one believes a book to be the literal truth and the word of god(s) then how can one then pick and chose what to obey and what not to?

 

If some of the word of god is not to be followed then why the rest? Picking and choosing just places the whole thing in question, which is surely not what an organised religion wants.

 

Well, at least with the Bible (not the Koran), one can make the argument that it was never meant to be the literal word of God as dictated by God. The epistles and the gospels are letters and histories, not God's commandments; I believe Paul states in one of his epistles that his beliefs are inspired by God, but then also makes some "off-the-record" judgments on issues that are not as clear. The New Testament reads to me more as a history of Jesus, his teachings, and what they mean, as written by people who faithfully believed in him and his work. Some of its preachings claim to be taught by God, but not all.

 

Unfortunately, however, in a document that's thousands of pages long and compiled over thousands of years, picking and choosing is all you can do.