The sad fact of the matter is that there is an Islamic culture of violence, mysoginism and racial hatred. This culture has existed independently for centuries and is beginning to permeat einto western societies as the case of Theo van Gogh shows.
None of us is free to speak out against any aspect of Islam. This is outrageous.
I worry for the religous tolerance of the world. Bush wins the election essentially on moral grounds (statistics show that the single most important factor to his supporters was his alleged ‘Christian morality’ and ahndling of issues like abortion and gay marriage). This is a reflection that teh kind of desecularised state which at once seems most sensible in multicultural societies is still a distant dream even in the most advanced societies.
I hope events in the Netherlands viz. Van Gogh won’t contribute to a similar move to wards religious fundamentalism among inhabitants there.But the Islamic fundamentalists are making it hard to keep religion and politics separate.
Is a secular state in a democratic system a distant dream? Quite possibly.
The murder of Van Gogh is just sickening, but is it because it happened in the Netherlands rather than the West Bank? Killing in the name of God seems to be a world-wide pastime.
You ask about the viability of a multicultural democracy. We obviously don’t have one yet I’m ashamed to say, but we must continue to read the history of our follies and make the attempt to create a more benign world.
For all the veneer of civilization we pretend to, we aren’t but steps away from primitive tribalism, that’s clear. We sit complacently in our easy chairs in bewilderment at the tribal genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. What’s wrong with those savages? Then we fix ourselves a drink and ignore what is happening in our own backyard. But hey, we’ve got reality TV!
The dilemma is how do we begin to demand rationality and at the same time, make room for that which may go beyond rationality? I don’t believe that government will provide the answers. It may be part of the solution, but it must start with the individual.
I denouce that action and it is not Islamic. So don’t even mention the word Islam, gavtmcc.
If you want proof, I will give you proof. But you first made an assumption, so give your proof gavmtcc, an Islamic one. Proofing that Islam fully supports the killing of non-believers when you reside in their country.
I am too a fundamentalist, believing and acting according the fundamentals of Islam.
What about the 16 or 17 fatwas hanging like a noose round van gogh’s neck?
Proof? The proof is in the pudding, hadj: van gogh is dead and was killed by a muslim for challenging the moral standards of certain subvertive arab states.
The proof is that muslims wanted van gogh dead. If he had criticised christian culture, no christian would have acted in the same way. Say what you like abou twhether the murderer was really ‘islamic’. WHatever the case may be, he carried out the murder under what he believed was a valid islamic religious premise. IT IS THIS CULTURE I CRITICISE, NOT SCRIPTURE.
The Qu’ran can’t pick up aknife and kill anyone: it is its readers that are the liability.
What are you talking about? Just give me one! (I do expect from you to give a fatwa from a respected scholar and not from a figure like Ibn Laden who himself is already denounced by the respected scholars)
P.S. Ibn Laden himself isn’t a scholar for that matter, he did never received a scholarship.
Altough he is killed by a Muslim does that mean that Islam was his motivation to kill him? If not, why blame Islam?
Ok you’re criticizing that culture…why are you suggesting it is an islamic one (not a political movement) if it has no roots to Islam itself? Why marking it to be Islamic, my fellow-member?
You clearly said:
“there is an Islamic culture of violence, mysoginism and racial hatred.”
"But the Islamic fundamentalists are making it hard to keep religion and politics separate.
"
Right, the fundamentalist who life according the actual fundamentals of Islam are to be blamed. Big mistake, you should have said “extremists”
Nonsense. ‘Respected scholars’ aren’t responsible for teh actions of all muslims. Any person with the authoirty to propose a fatwa is a representative of a strand of Islam.
I never blamed ‘Islam’ per se. I blamed an intolerant and immoral strand of Islamic culture. Like it or not, hadj, these people profess to be muslims.
Political movement? Shoving verses of the Qu’ran into a man’s body is political? When exactly does it become religious, hadj?!
I agree. Extremists is more approopriate. But is my point so far off? Is Islamic doctrine conducive to the separation of religion and politics?? Not in my experience.
Before we get into a lenghty discussion, give me atleast one fatwa which makes the blood of Theo van Gogh permissible. Otherwise take back your statement for bringing false facts.
Islamic culture
The interesting thing is you could have said ‘extremistic political pan-arab culture’. But no, you insisted to use the word Islam when trying to identify this dispicable culture. I would like to hear your definition of the Islamic culture and what is so ‘Islamic’ about? Using the word Islamic as an adjective suggest that the difference is between a culture and an islamic one is like the one who is peaceful and a terrorist.
For example do these terrorist have a human culture? Well, yes they are humans. Are they terrorists? Well yes, but we don’t say they have a terrorist culture. We say they have an Islamic culture although there is no connection between terrorism and Islam.
So why keep saying they have an Islamic culture? And I know they are muslims. But when Israelis demolish homes, we don’t say: well, those people with the Jewish culture are demolishing homes. We know they are jews but it is not because they are jewish making them demolishers.
As last, Islam is all aspects of life including politics. Like the atheists have their politics.
Not sure if these are relevant but thought I’d post them anyway. I’m not saying I agree with gav’s view, just providing some texts.
Surah 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them
Surah 9:73 73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end.
Surah 9:123 123 O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you
Surah 2:191 191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Hadj, I’d imagine there is an Islamic interpretation of these verses, but they do seem pretty clear to me. Is this not a clear incitement to kill non-believers?
I’m almost amazed by your atempt to stir up this discussion. Without keeping the straight line of the discussion you simply post few Ayah’s.
Taking texts out of their context, Ben, is dangerous. And you know this; do you realize you are doing this?
Ok fellow-members, look at this:
After the Ayah 4:89, which Ben posted, there is a markable piece of evidence that Ben actually tried to decieve you and me.
Except those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allâh willed, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, then Allâh has opened no way for you against them. (An-Nisa 4:90)
Now, Ben, why didn’t you post this verse after it? Did you actually read the Quran or did you use google.com to find some ‘controverial verses’?
The same applies for Ayah 2:191 which you posted:
But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Al-Baqarah 2:192)
I didn’t post to stir up trouble, I’m here to ask questions just as much as anyone else. Accusing me of stirring trouble doesn’t get you off the hook that easy, you still need to explain the verses that are not taken out of context. And this one…
But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Al-Baqarah 2:192)
Cease what? Being non-believers? So if they convert then they will be spared. That’s still not great. You asked gav to provide evidence that “kiling non-believers” was Islamic. I have provided a few quotations from the Qu’ran. Can you explain what they do mean, if not to encourage muslims to kill non-believers?
I believe it means if they (the non-believers) cease to fight you or persecute you, then you are obliged by, the will of Allah, to also cease fighting as well.