h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Whats the foot steps about?

Adib

I'm sorry to repeat myself and I mean no disrespect, but I find I must ask my question again: would it be safe to say that Islam is a religion claimed by some destructive people?

OOps sorry forgot to reply to that.
I would say that it is safe to claim that some people say they are Islamic so as to suit there goals. If you get my drift.

Adib

OOps sorry forgot to reply to that.
I would say that it is safe to claim that some people say they are Islamic so as to suit there goals. If you get my drift.

Adib

yes, I understand. I think that it is that claim to religious faith, whether Islamic, Christian, or otherwise, by destructive people, which colours the opinion others may hold of the faith. It is unfortunate for the peaceful believers, but it is a burden all faiths bear.

Very true.

Adib

This entry violates the Writing Guideline of Balance. It also omits valuable information that pertains directly to the topic. Here are a number of bloodthirsty, dogmatic and intolerant suras:

22:19 As for the unbelievers for them garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skins shall be dissoblve and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.

17:4 When you meet unbelievers, strike off their heads, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives

9:5&6 Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God...[I have snipped the rest of this ayaat]

8:12 I will instill terror in the hearts of Infidels, strike off their heads, then and strike off from them every fingertip.

8:38&39 Say to the infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forvien them; but if they return to it they have already before them the domm of the ancients! Fight against them till strife be an end, and the religion be all of it God's.

9:39 If you do not fight, He will punish you severely, and put others in your place.

Whether any particular christian, buddhist, shinto, or communist culture or religion is *also* a religion of destruction is fascinating, but mostly irrelevant to this thread. For the purposes of balance, perhaps an example of how Islam is not particularly different in real-world application, especially in the context of the current nasty fighting in India might be appropriate.

The purpose of Peer Review is to decide if this is an Editable article or not.

Musaakboy wants to rationalize what philosophers call 'monster exclusion': he is claiming that certain behaviors aren't truly Islamic. I like Musaakboy and think he is sincere. I also like to think that if we were to discuss the girls murdered because Islamic men thrust them back into a burning school because they weren't properly dressed per the Koran; or the two Nigerian adulteresses that will be stoned after their two-years's nursing are up (especially since it takes two to tango and the men involved aren't also horribly dying), that he would find these situations as uncivilized and barbaric as we all do. But when you are done excluding every real world 'umma as 'not a true version of x', then there won't any Muslims (or Christians, Confuscians, etc.)left!

Oops, in post 107: for 'domm' read 'doom'.

Hi SC,

I disagree. I think that, since this article represents the views of 99+% of Muslims worldwide, it is fair to say that it is a factual discription of Islamic thought.

If it were retitled (or sub-titled) to something along the lines of 'How the media misunderstands the attitude of Muslims towards violence', with a few similar minor changes to the text, would you consider this suitable for guide entry? Surely it is a fact that Muslims believe this?

You are right, PR is to determine whether an entry is suitable for the Guide - and, if possible, to help the author edit it to make it suitable.

Gif

I have already answered all these on another thread to this entry I think it was for this entry or it may have been for one of my other Islamic entrys. I showed on that all of your refernces to the Quran was out of context.

Adib

This post has been removed.

Gif,

I've heard this figure that "99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
of all muslims..." many times. Where do you get this number? What poll or calculation was used to come up with it, and what was the methodology used? It's easy to claim this, but no one has ever explained it. Also, how is it possible that there are countries whose governments condone this violent behaviour in the name of religion, if none of the people in the country support this kind of violence? Who is out there stoning people to death? Is it the non-muslim minority?

Also, this entry does use sections of the koran to prove the non-violence of the religion, so it MUST be un-biased if it doesn't mention sections of the Koran which do directly mention/condone violence.

dave

They are all of context as i already said. I do not wish to go through the whole list of points again here. But anyway every single one of them is out on context. If you know the back ground f the sura's where when it was written and the verses before and after them it shows that it is actually talking about diffence etc. When I come back on here maybe on friday I will look up which entry I answered these questions on and tell you where to look then.

Adib

That's fine Adib, but...that still doesn't get around the fact that in order to balanced, you need to include with explanation these seemingly violent sections.

dave

Why should he take things out of context and then explain them? Better to leave them in the context and let the context explain them, I think.
Two senators in my state walked out on a prayer given by a muslim cleric blessing the assembly. Clerics of many different religions were invited. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported:

'She said her departure was not a protest, but a personal decision not to participate because "the religion is the focal point of the hate-America sentiment in the world."

"My god is not Mohammed," McMahan added.'

The great societal vacuum of ignorance demonstrated by her last statement (and the assumption that adib is a person's name) is rapidly being filled by the media, which produces impressions such as that of McMahan's first statement.
This entry is not required to rehash the one-sided media representation of Islam as a 'violent religion' in the name of 'balance'; it is presenting the other side. And *that* is balance.

I am sorry Muzaakboy, I had missed the other thread. Can you post a link?

I cited these particular ayaat for brevity. There are parts of the Koran that read quite violently when I read it, so I looked these particular ones up to make a point. It's good to tell people about the Koran. They can be in context, and I think that would be great.

Tamurlane invaded India from (now) Kazakhstan to the Deccan plains, and instead of holding the areas and making conversion or making life easier for missionaries, he destroyed and looted. I don't know how much Turk-Mongol and how much Muslim he was supposed to be. This seemed consistent with what I read in the Koran, so I will be delighted to learn I am wrong.

What worries me about what context or not these particular ayaat might or not might be in, is that there is a tradition of abrogation in the Koran, in which later ayaat on the same subject are said to supersede earlier ones. Most of the violent ones seem to be part of Medinan verses, and the peaceful ones mentioned here by Muzaakboy seem to be Meccan. But I don't know this for certain-this part has always confused me somewhat.

If there is any Hadith on these, that would be good to know, too.

Dave,

The 'calculation' was based on my experience, i.e. Muslims I have met and Muslim areas I have seen. This includes Amman (up to 75% Palestinian) and 'Middle' Egypt, not to mention Bayswater!

In most Muslim countries, the governments are hugely unpopular for many reasons. Since they are not democracies it is a little unfair to hold the populace responsible for the actions of their governments.

SC: um, I guess that Medinian is older than Meccan ... am I right?

Musaakboy: I too thought Adib was your name ... am I wrong?

Gif

il viaggiatore AKA Tea????p? AKA Graveporn,

Your point doesn't really seem relevant. You said:

"Why should he take things out of context and then explain them? Better to leave them in the context and let the context explain them, I think"

He's already taken all the peaceful ones out of context and explained them. Why not BALANCE the entry and take the violent ones out and explain them?

Anyone who can read can go to the Koran, and see these violent verses. Either Adib can explain them, or they can come to their own conculsions about violence in Islam. Adib & you profess to want to balance out the media portrayal. What the media is doing is playing up the mis-interpretation of these verse. Why not put a more reasoned interpretation of these verses out there?

If you ignore the fact that these violent verses exist, then you're sticking your head in the sand. Why not confront the issue (the fact that there are violent verses in the Koran), rather than pretend it doesn't exist?

dave

Gif,

you said:

"In most Muslim countries, the governments are hugely unpopular for many reasons. Since they are not democracies it is a little unfair to hold the populace responsible for the actions of their governments"

What about the people in government? what's their religion? What percentage of the population are they?

Also, in general, what about muslim clerics that extol violent attacks? They exist don't they? What about the people that attend their sermons?

dave