If Obama was muslim would you vote for him?

I disagree. I understand that a person's religious background will influence their opinions and convictions and that, in that sense, religion does have an impact on how a state is run. However, the important thing is that there is a wall of separation between church and state, no matter what church the people who run the state are members of. And that is precisely why I have problems with the idea of a non-moderate Muslim running any country - because it seems to be part of the way they practice their religion that their religious beliefs always have to trump their loyalty to any constitution.

 

Except couldn't that be said of any non-moderate practictioner of any religion? It seems like Islam and its holy text is being singled out when if you consider Christianity and Judaism there are just as much extreme things in there histories and holy texts.

 

I mean he's basically Muslim changed his religion just like Bobby Jindhal which I think is strange but he's a good candidate. It's a tricky issue.

 

It could, in theory. It's just that Islam is currently the religion in whose name more violence is committed and whose non-moderate followers seem to try to enforce their intolerance more aggressively than those of other major religions. I certainly wouldn't want any fundamentalist of any religion running any major country.

 

Or its just that Islam is the one that you hear most about. As you note other religions, even currently, have had radical elements enforce strict and narrow agendas politically, for example the Hindu JVP party in India, radical Jewish groups in Israel, and Christian fundamentalists in the US.

Let me ask you this:
If Obama was a moderate Muslim along the lines of how JFK was a moderate Catholic, would you vote for him? (hypothetically since I know you can't vote in US elections)

 

I read it.

I have now typed out at least 4 responses, and deleted them all. I just can't bring myself to feed the pinheads unless it amuses me, and this topic does not amuse me.

Religion sparks passion in people, and I have no doubt that you are a fine decent person, and good for you for standing up for your beliefs. I am sure that the majority of the 1 billion plus muslims in the world are just as fine and decent as you are.

It is clear, however, that there are wildly diverse translations and interpretations of the teachings of islam. Obviously, your opinion differs from theirs. If you have a problem with the differing interpretations that some various organizations might have, I suggest you take it up with them. I am sure they will have an appropriate response.

I have acknowledged your response. There is more that could be said, but this is simply not the place for it, and I am instead withdrawing from the topic. Just know that it does not give me any pleasure for you to be offended.

 

I hear most about it because more terrorist acts are committed in its name than in any other religion's name.

I haven't seen them fly planes into the World Trade Center, among many other things.

If it was absolutely certain that he was really a moderate muslim and I could be sure that he would not change toward more radical positions, then I guess yes. However, I think there are some differences to other religions. It seems to me that the religion itself, depending on how it is interpreted, forbids being "moderate" - insofar as it demands that it be put above, e.g., the constitution. I understand that followers of other religions can have similar internal conflicts. But the countries where I see the least separation of church and state are usually Muslim countries.

 

Nero,

Take out all the misinterpretations we discussed. The website you provided simply lied by virtue of all those lines being taken from different, randon, unrelated passages.

Do you accept that?

 

How is it a lie? Perhaps it was taken out of context, but the passages are there.

 

You only HEAR about more terrorist acts. Believe me more attrocities are being done in the name of other things.

Other than WTC, what's the next biggest attrocity committed in the name of Islam?

 

* 4 September 1972 - Munich Olympic Massacre.
* 18 April 1983 - April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. 63 killed.
* 26 February 1993 - World Trade Center bombing, New York City. 6 killed.
* 13 March 1993 - 1993 Bombay bombings. Mumbai, India. The single-day attacks resulted in over 250 civilian fatalities and 700 injuries.
* 24 December 1994 - Air France Flight 8969 hijacking in Algiers by 3 members of Armed Islamic Group and another terrorist. 7 killed including 4 hijackers.
* 25 June 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.
* 14 February 1998. The 1998 Coimbatore bombings occurred in the city of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 46 people were killed and over 200 were injured in 13 bomb attacks within a 12 km radius.
* 7 August 1998 - 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured.
* 12 October 2000 - USS Cole bombing, 56 killed
* 11 September 2001 - September 11, 2001 attacks 4 planes hijacked and crashed into World Trade Center and The Pentagon by 19 hijackers. Nearly 3000 dead.[118]
* 13 December 2001 - Suicide attack on India's parliament in New Delhi. Aimed at eliminating the top leadership of India and causing anarchy in the country. Allegedly done by Pakistan-based Islamist terrorist organizations, Jaish-E-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba.
* 3 March 2002 - Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 29 dead, 133 injured
* 9 March 2002 - Café suicide bombing in Jerusalem; 11 killed, 54 injured.
* 7 May 2002 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured.
* 24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.[119][120]
* 12 October 2002 - Bombing in Bali nightclub. 202 killed, 300 injured.[121]
* 16 May 2004 - Casablanca Attacks - 4 simultaneous attacks in Casablanca killing 33 civilians (mostly Moroccans) carried by Salafaia Jihadia.
* 11 March 2004 - Multiple bombings on trains near Madrid, Spain. 191 killed, 1460 injured. (alleged link to Al-Qaeda)
* 3 September 2004 Approximately 344 civilians including 186 children, are killed during the Beslan school hostage crisis.[122][123]
* 2 November 2004 - Ritual murder of Theo van Gogh (film director) by Amsterdam-born jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri.
* 4 February 2005 - Muslim militants attacked the Christian community in Demsa, Nigeria, killing 36 people, destroying property and displacing an additional 3000 people.
* 7 July 2005 - Multiple bombings in London Underground. 53 killed by four suicide bombers. Nearly 700 injured.
* 23 July 2005 - Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed.
* 29 October 2005 - 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus, just 2 days before the Diwali festival.[124]
* 9 November 2005 - 2005 Amman bombings. Over 60 killed and 115 injured, in a series of coordinated suicide attacks on hotels in Amman, Jordan.[125][126] Four attackers including a husband and wife team were involved.[127]
* 7 March 2006 - 2006 Varanasi bombings. An attack attributed to Lashkar-e-Toiba by Uttar Pradesh government officials, over 28 killed and over 100 injured, in a series of attacks in the Sankath Mochan Hanuman temple and Cantonment Railway Station in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi.[128] Uttar Pradesh government officials.
* 11 July 2006. Mumbai, India. 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings were a series of seven bomb blasts that took place over a period of 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay). 209 people lost their lives and over 700 were injured in the attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

I know there are many missing from this list, like when German tourists got attacked and murdered in Tunisia, etc. etc.

What's not even listed there is the small, daily acts of aggression and intolerance of Muslims against others all over the world, and all the various suicide bombings within Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.

And no, I do not believe you - more atrocities are NOT committed in the name of other things.

 

Here is an 8- year snapshot of ONE conflict. Keep in mind that this conflict is 41 years long. You are looking at facts of less than 20% of the conflict:

Population
At the end of 2006 the global Palestinian population numbered over 10.1 million people. 70% of Palestinians (almost 7.5 million people) are refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Six million Palestinians have been refugees since 1948.
More than 450,000 Palestinians are currently IDPs in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
More than two thirds of Palestinian refugees live in exile.

Palestinian Deaths and Injuries
Figures up to and including 16 August 2007
Total of Palestinian conflict related deaths since September 2000: 4,502
Total of conflict related injuries: 31,531
The majority of injuries were caused by:
Live ammunition 8,329
Rubber and plastic bullets 6,937
Tear gas 6,653

Total of conflict related deaths and injuries since September 2000: 36,033

Prisoners
In April 2006 at least 9,599 Palestinian prisoners were being held in Israeli jails.
By April 2007 this figure had increased to 11,229 Palestinians, including 104 women and 375 children of both sexes - representing an increase of 1,630 prisoners.

Refugees
There are 58 official Palestinian refugee camps:

Jordan 10
Lebanon 12
Syria 9
West Bank 19
Gaza Strip 8

There are 4,375,050 Palestinian refugees in the region (less than a third of them living in camps).

Jordan 1,835,704
Lebanon 405,425
Syria 434,896
West Bank 705,207
Gaza Strip 993,818

You were saying? How about you calculate the total number of deaths and injuries of your list, and I compare it to the numbers in this one conflict?

Unless the blood of the people in your list is more valuable, your point just got flushed.

 

I think part of the problem is that Islamic terrorism has often targetted western targets where as terrorism commited by radical Hindus have been directed at Muslims or in the case of Sri Lanka at nominally Buddhists. Suicide bombings by Tamils in Sri Lanka don't gain much coverage or destructions of mosque by JVP supporters in India.

Another problem is that religion isn't always the motivating factor and that list that of Islamic terrrorists acts you provided for Ehsan forgets to mention that many of those acts, such as the Munich Olympics, weren't done in the name of Islam. The PLO and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine are avowedly secular organizations. One of the reasons why there is such infighting within Palestinians.

Except that applies to many other religions and particularly the monotheistic religions. A narrow interpretatation of the Old Testament also calls for the slaughter of non-believers. In regard to separation of church and state though there are Islamic countries like Turkey that have maintained a separation of church and state to the point where there are violent secularist upset about an extremely moderate Islamic primeminister. Malaysia has been able to stay peaceful and prosperous for decades as an Islamic state but one with large non-Muslim minorities. Also as someone who lives in the congressional district with the first US Muslim elected to Congress I haven't seen Keith Ellison propose any laws pertaining to Islam.

 

But stringing passages out of context you can paint a completely false picture. Just because the words are there without the textual context they have no meaning and can be twisted anyway. That can be done with any document.

 

If you'll allow me to play internet referee....this conversation is happening in circles. Pick up the Koran..read these passages in context...decide for yourself what you think they mean. I have read them in context..absolutely...I have to say they come off pretty strong to me, even in context. They're not fit within the confines of story or metaphor. Particularly those about how to treat Jews and Christians....in one text you'll read that People of the Book are "most like you (as Muslims) because they're humble." Later you'll read that you shouldn't befriend them.

There is very deeply the concept in Islam...as far as I can read...that believers are literally the hand of Allah in judgment of others. There is not the reservation of judgment for Allah...but rather, actively being involved in his judgment...being his hands and feet in judgment. That concept is foreign to my faith....I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE WRONG!!!!...I'm saying that concept can be twisted really easily into something that looks awful.

To my Muslim friends here...Sura 9 freaks the crap out of me. I'm sorry, but it just does. It misstates my faith as a Christian and says, "may Allah destroy them."....it speaks of bring non-believers as subjects to be ruled over. Again, it doesn't leave judgment up to God from my reading...it suggests that you as Muslims are to be the hands and feet of the judging God. I do not find concepts of praying for or loving your enemies. In fact, at one point it says you're specifically not to pray for polytheists.

Help me understand why I'm not to read this literally. I'm really not trying to set up an argument here...I really want quite desperately to believe neither you nor I are to read these verses literally. But it seems to me that...with what the Koran purports to be and its style of presentation...there isn't much room for metaphor. Can someone help me understand that?


(Inevitably, someone is going to respond with Biblical criticism....I'm fine with answering those questions too...but please understand that Christians don't hold the same theological regard for the Bible that Muslims do for the Koran. They're very different in what they are and what they purport to be. Happy to have that discussion, but it's not really responsive to my questions.)

 

Max,

Actually, the misunderstood part is that we don't judge. We just believe. We do what told, what is said. There is no room for metaphor, but there is room for interpretation.

For example. There is the Koran and then there is the Prophet's saying. These two sets of passages are LAW. No room for negotiation. Then there's stuff that isn't explicitly stated which is done in other ways. Some of these decisions are based on taking examples from Koran and Prophet's saying, having a vote, and drawing a conclusion. These things are not law, they are up for debate forever, and they DO get outdated.

However what is in the Koran and Sunna is NOT up for debate. "Times are different" does not apply. There is specifically a Koranic verse which states that the Koran applies to ALL TIMES.

Now, for judging who the non-believers are, the text is there. For example, we can marry people of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, David and Mohammed (known as the 5 texts in Islam). There are not "kuffaar".

But then there is a law that says the intent of the heart comes first. This law supercedes other laws. Therefore, for example, Mother Teresa may be exempt, depending on what's in her heart.

Praying is to God and for God only. It is an act of worship, which as far as I can gather, is to thank God for having a shot at heaven and for all the things he's given us. Dua'a is where you can ask for things. It is seperate from prayer. You can ask for anything you want in Dua'a bearing the reprecussions of what you're asking for.

I don't know if I answered all your questions. I hope I did and feel free to ask where I could clarify more.

 

EXACTLY. It's the equivalent of me taking sentences from SJC or Nero's post throughout their BBS history and constructing a paragraph which supports my theories.

 

How about I quote out of Sura 9, specifically, and you tell me how you interpret it...if it's law to be followed by you today...fair?? Thanks in advance

 

blaaah. I think taking parts of some centuries or milleniums old books and interpreting them literally is stupid. same goes for literal interpretation of the bible.

 

You remain a fundamentalist with blinders on, whether you changed your user name from the previously banned Sane to this one or not.

You asked what other atrocities have been committed in the name of Islam. I quote EXAMPLES of islamist terror AROUND THE WORLD and you come up with some random crap from a regional conflict which is more like a civil war - and dare to tell me "my point got flushed".

That is dumb beyond words, and it is in line with the "logic" of the Muslim fundamentalists - "because many Palestinians (supposedly) got killed, how can you complain about us killing people around the world". DUMB.