Religion, what's the point?

[2cents]

If salahuddin was alive today and doing what he did back then I wonder if he'd get the same hate as ISIS or if he'd be a hero.

Surely he'd be fighting against ISIS, given he fought against their medieval equivalents, the Crusaders?

 

[Raoul]

You seem to be thinking I'm having a go at atheism here. I'm not. The buck stops at the individual, even when there is a religious text being followed. Especially ones as open to interpretation as the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.

I don't think you're having a go at Atheism, just that you are struggling to grasp the idea that atheism isn't belief system like religions, and is therefore impervious to criticisms that are applied to belief based religions.

The buck does indeed stop at the individual, but that's not what this discussion is about. Its about whether people who subscribe to religious texts are influenced by what they read, how they interpret their religious books of choice, and why Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with either because its not a belief system.

 

[Dante]

I don't think you're having a go at Atheism, just that you are struggling to grasp the idea that atheism isn't belief system like religions, and is therefore impervious to criticisms that are applied to belief based religions.

The buck does indeed stop at the individual, but that's not what this discussion is about. Its about whether people who subscribe to religious texts are influenced by what they read, how they interpret their religious books of choice, and why Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with either because its not a belief system.

No, I'm not.

Atheism is a control group for human behaviour and, as such, it's necessary to reference it.

 

[Raoul]

No, I'm not.

Atheism is a control group for human behaviour and, as such, it's necessary to reference it.

What's a control group ?

 

[Dante]

What's a control group ?

If you think religion is the major influencing factor to certain behaviours, you need to have something to compare it to, or else the assertions are meaningless. A control group is a group that's free from the influences being tested.

 

[Raoul]

If you think religion is the major influencing factor to certain behaviours, you need to have something to compare it to, or else the assertions are meaningless.

That's true, but its a galactic straw clutch to desperately try to compare it to something that is not a belief. You have to get out of the binary world of Atheism being a real thing that can be compared to religion, and start comparing religions to one another and to other belief systems.

Atheism is not a belief system.

 

[Dumbstar]

They are striving to establish a caliphate and to expand it to create the Ummah. Whatever your views are on your religion, the fact is that ISIS are following the Qu'ran and hadiths to the letter. Funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia they are implementing a hard line (salafist) doctrine.

There are lots of things going on right now in ISIS controlled territory that are in sync with their religion:
On sex slavery (IS in relation to captured Yazidi and Christian women):
Qu'ran 33:50 "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.”

Qu'ran 4:3 permits men to have sex with “what your right hands possess,” a term categorically defined by the ulema as “infidel” women captured during the jihad.

On jihad - mass executions / beheadings:
Qu'ran 47:4 “When you encounter infidels on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely”

Qu'ran 8:12 “I will cast terror into the hearts of infidels—so strike off their heads and strike off all of their fingertips [i.e., mutilate them]”

On crucifixions happening inside the Islamic State:
Qu'ran 5:33 “the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.”


Of course they are. Islam differs from the two other abrahamic religions in that it is a COMPLETE package, it's very much so political as it is a religion. Sharia law will govern society, Qu'ran and the hadiths will govern people's individual spiritual life as well as society at large.

They are fighting for domination of the World. They do so, because it is their cause, they fight to dominate for allah.

Essaux, I'm happy you're taking the time to look up and through the Qur'an rather than going through the usual stereotype route. Muslims use the Qur'an and hadith, along with trusted scholar leadership, together before any judgements, rules, laws, fatwas are established. This sounds like a cop out answer but it really isn't. ISIS and various similar groups are showing exactly what happens when you use your ego to decide what the Qur'an is telling you rather what has been established directly after the passing of Prophet Muhammad (saaw) (i.e. Qur'an, hadith and established learned scholars).

For example, all of the above could and would only happen under a correct Islamic leadership (khalifah) which has not been around since the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the 1920s. If anyone is using the above texts to justify what they are doing now then its their egos over-riding the correct understanding. No one is saying its easy, its far from an easy time. God foretold of such splintered and miguided Muslims as one of the signs of the end of times.

For the rest of us 'ordinary' Muslims, we continue to follow Islam in the way it should be followed (mentioned above). Which is why the majority of Muslims denounce such groups and their misguided egoistical following of the Qur'an. Not that you hear that in the media often when some brainwashed Salman or Fatima from Birmingham has gone to Syria. A much better headline maker.

 

[Dante]

That's true, but its a galactic straw clutch to desperately try to compare it to something that is not a belief. You have to get out of the binary world of Atheism being a real thing that can be compared to religion, and start comparing religions to one another and to other belief systems.

Atheism is not a belief system.

You still seem to think I'm having a go at atheism. I've only ever criticised human nature in this thread. I'm not reifying a lack of belief. It's just that that lacks of belief needs to reside within a person, and people can be cnuts regardless of anything else. That's the thrust of everything I've said so far.

Having said that, both Nietsche and Sartre talked about the absence of a belief system and its effects on the human psyche, so it's certainly not clear cut imo. In a lot of ways, use of the internet and the ensuing democratisation of religion has brought the same issues to everyone else. A religion being open to interpretation is materially the same as creating your own ethical code. It's pretty much how ISIS was able to be created.

 

[Relevated]

Surely he'd be fighting against ISIS, given he fought against their medieval equivalents, the Crusaders?

He fought for the same reasons so he'd probably be apart of them

 

[MrMarcello]

Atheism doesn't have an ethical code. Its simply a rejection of belief in deities. There's no atheist manifesto or equivalent to religious texts that can be drawn on to murder people such as in the Abrahamic religions.

Spot on. If an agnostic or atheist wants to wage war/commit genocide/kill/rule/oppress, it's because he/she has some kind of internal power lust, and/or a hatred born from whatever.

If a religious person does such, it too is due to whatever egocentric reasons but also with a mindset influenced by religious beliefs. He/she may truly believe this is what their god wants, while some are just hiding behind a religion (like most politicians and rulers).

An agnostic/atheist is not influenced by religious doctrine. However, he/she could be influenced by his/her dislike of religion. But he/she is not committing atrocities in the name of/for religion.

The bible and quran both contain violent context which instills belief for the reader to take extreme action if desired. There is no such context for agnostic/atheists. Hate can be instilled into any mindset, but only one side does such with religious belief as his/her backing.

 

[Winrar]

Spot on. If an agnostic or atheist wants to wage war/commit genocide/kill/rule/oppress, it's because he/she has some kind of internal power lust, and/or a hatred born from whatever.

If a religious person does such, it too is due to whatever egocentric reasons but also with a mindset influenced by religious beliefs. He/she may truly believe this is what their god wants, while some are just hiding behind a religion (like most politicians and rulers).

An agnostic/atheist is not influenced by religious doctrine. However, he/she could be influenced by his/her dislike of religion. But he/she is not committing atrocities in the name of/for religion.

The bible and quran both contain violent context which instills belief for the reader to take extreme action if desired. There is no such context for agnostic/atheists. Hate can be instilled into any mindset, but only one side does such with religious belief as his/her backing.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

For example, in America, religion has been used many decades ago to justify slavery (later segregation) and restriction of women's rights. It is still now used today to pass laws that oppress homosexuals.

Religion is also harmful in one other way: promotion of intelligent design, specifically in my case creationism. Creationism goes directly against scientific methods and logical problem-solving, because creationism requires faith-based thinking which have no scientific value. For this reason, I think any school using creationism to teach students science should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[marukomu]

It's a great way to make money.
My nephew has become a mormon and is now doing his 2 year whatever.
He can only live on about £25 a week but has to pay £2,000 for the privilege.
They will then expect him to have shit loads of wives and children so they can do the same.

 

[crappycraperson]

Folks fighting for ISIS may be after power of some kind but you can't deny that a belief in after life, that too of good kind as per their logic, makes it some what easier for them to risk their lives for the same.

 

[Wolverine]

Spot on. If an agnostic or atheist wants to wage war/commit genocide/kill/rule/oppress, it's because he/she has some kind of internal power lust, and/or a hatred born from whatever.

If a religious person does such, it too is due to whatever egocentric reasons but also with a mindset influenced by religious beliefs. He/she may truly believe this is what their god wants, while some are just hiding behind a religion (like most politicians and rulers).

An agnostic/atheist is not influenced by religious doctrine. However, he/she could be influenced by his/her dislike of religion. But he/she is not committing atrocities in the name of/for religion.

The bible and quran both contain violent context which instills belief for the reader to take extreme action if desired. There is no such context for agnostic/atheists. Hate can be instilled into any mindset, but only one side does such with religious belief as his/her backing.

Any belief in dogma/philosophy can be pernicious. Doesn't necessarily have to be religious. Some of the worst crimes were done by those striving for some sort of utopia or serving an ideology (sometimes secular).

Case in point Albania, Mao ZeDong (who told the Dalai Lama that religion poisons everything), etc. The worst things in the world are due to self righteousness, tribalism, identity politics, paranoia etc.

 

[Wolverine]

Folks fighting for ISIS may be after power of some kind but you can't deny that a belief in after life, that too of good kind as per their logic, makes it some what easier for them to risk their lives for the same.

Nope that's undeniable. Part of them genuinely must believe in the afterlife and the veracity of what they are doing in terms of permissibility.

In terms of the scale of their atrocities though, consider how the Nazi's managed to convince their population to make them believe ethnically cleansing an entire group was the right thing to do. Groupthink/mob mentality doesn't always need religious overtones. Many have given and taken lives for non-religious ideologies as well. Whether religion (with its emphasis on an afterlife etc) is a stronger pull in that regard as compared to say other things like totalitarian communism is probably debatable (but I'd say true).

 

[2mufc0]

He fought for the same reasons so he'd probably be apart of them

He was a Kurd, in this political environment I would wager he would be fighting against them. That's the problem with people like ISIS and the Salafis they have no background or context to their interpretations, they are literalists which allows them to twist religion to meet their own power hungry selfish ways.

 

[Relevated]

He was a Kurd, in this political environment I would wager he would be fighting against them. That's the problem with people like ISIS and the Salafis they have no background or context to their interpretations, they are literalists which allows them to twist religion to meet their own power hungry selfish ways.

You make it sound like he was a patriotic warrior but in reality nationality didn't matter to him. IS has like a mini kurd army that they sent to kobane to fight the other kurds. He would be a top commander for them and that's the truth. He'd be on the terror list.

 

[2cents]

He fought for the same reasons so he'd probably be apart of them

Can you expand on this a bit?

No doubt many Muslims around the world would like to see the caliphate restored, doesn't mean they're willing to support the Islamic State's particular (and very exclusive) vision of it.

 

[2mufc0]

You make it sound like he was a patriotic warrior but in reality nationality didn't matter to him. IS has like a mini kurd army that they sent to kobane to fight the other kurds. He would be a top commander for them and that's the truth. He'd be on the terror list.

Not so much patriot but he wasn't a barbarian, he wasn't they type to go around beheading non Muslims and Muslims alike ala ISIS, I'm sure you know about his rule after he captured Jerusalem. I would like to think had some sort of moral code.

 

[Relevated]

Can you expand on this a bit?

No doubt many Muslims around the world would like to see the caliphate restored, doesn't mean they're willing to support the Islamic State's particular (and very exclusive) vision of it.

Okay let me alter the words a bit. They claim to be fighting for similar reasons to salahuddin and khilafah is a major reason as well as liberation of al aqsa and unity of the ummah. God knows how many people (shias too) salahuddin killed in order to get some unity amongst muslims. They're so similar that I reckon he'd fight for them.

 

[Relevated]

Not so much patriot but he wasn't a barbarian, he wasn't they type to go around beheading non Muslims ala ISIS, I'm sure you know about his rule after he captured Jerusalem. I would like to think had some sort of moral code.

are you Muslim, before I carry on?

 

[2cents]

Wasn't Salah al-Din famous, among other things, for showing mercy to the Christians of Jerusalem after taking it back from the Crusaders (who massacred the city's Muslims and Jews after initially conquering it)? Sounds like the opposite to the Islamic State.

 

[2mufc0]

are you Muslim, before I carry on?

Yes, why does it matter?

 

[2mufc0]

Wasn't Salah al-Din famous, among other things, for showing mercy to the Christians of Jerusalem after taking it back from the Crusaders (who massacred the city's Muslims and Jews after initially conquering it)? Sounds like the opposite to the Islamic State.

This, also well respected by Richard I who was his enemy at the time, the same can't be said by ISIS who i highly doubt anyone respects.

 

[Relevated]

Yes, why does it matter?

You're talking about barbarity but have you heard of khalid ibn al-walid? He was the harshest upon kuffar and beheaded many but is he any different to salahuddin? They were both great leaders. Back to the point here, in war it doesn't matter how lenient you are or barbaric - you just have to achieve what you want. Ask any world leaders who kill people and pretend they've killed Taliban or Hamas soldiers.

 

[2mufc0]

You're talking about barbarity but have you heard of khalid ibn al-walid? He was the harshest upon kuffar and beheaded many but is he any different to salahuddin? They were both great leaders. Back to the point here, in war it doesn't matter how lenient you are or barbaric - you just have to achieve what you want. Ask any world leaders who kill people and pretend they've killed Taliban or Hamas soldiers.

But they were executing opposing soldiers, in war if someone is coming to kill you i would say it's fair game to want to survive and kill them, whether it be by the sword or gun, whatever the technology was used at the time.

What I'm distinguishing Salahuddin and ISIS from is the indiscriminate killing by ISIS who kill innocents not only non Muslims but Muslims alike. And who is this Bag Dhahdi clown to lead this caliphate? what are his credentials? this whole movement is a joke, why would he fight for such a cause? this is why i say he would not be part of ISIS. This is a silly discussion anyway, there is no way we would ever find out.

 

[Relevated]

But they were executing opposing soldiers, in war if someone is coming to kill you i would say it's fair game to want to survive and kill them, whether it be by the sword or gun, whatever the technology was used at the time.

What I'm distinguishing Salahuddin and ISIS from is the indiscriminate killing by ISIS who kill innocents not only non Muslims but Muslims alike. And who is this Bag Dhahdi clown to lead this caliphate? what are his credentials? this whole movement is a joke, why would he fight for such a cause? this is why i say he would not be part of ISIS. This is a silly discussion anyway, there is no way we would ever find out.

Lol yeah man you're right. We're not even there and we're going on like we are at each one of their meetings. Salaam brother.

 

[2mufc0]

Lol yeah man you're right. We're not even there and we're going on like we are at each one of their meetings. Salaam brother.

Walaikum salam.

 

[Momochiru]

Nope that's undeniable. Part of them genuinely must believe in the afterlife and the veracity of what they are doing in terms of permissibility.

In terms of the scale of their atrocities though, consider how the Nazi's managed to convince their population to make them believe ethnically cleansing an entire group was the right thing to do. Groupthink/mob mentality doesn't always need religious overtones. Many have given and taken lives for non-religious ideologies as well. Whether religion (with its emphasis on an afterlife etc) is a stronger pull in that regard as compared to say other things like totalitarian communism is probably debatable (but I'd say true).

No doubt atrocities have been committed both with religious and non-religious justifications. What makes religion the most dangerous of all is the most basic concept of religion - faith. Religion requires people to blindly believe in God and never question anything - if they ever do question, the answer is that God is much greater and mysterious and they shouldn't let their pride make them think that they know better, or something to that extend. This kind of thinking (actually this is the opposite of thinking) has been instilled for generations and people are inoculated from very early age.

The difference with other ideologies like fascism, communism, etc. is that they use fear as major means to control the people - the opposition to these ideologies was sent to concentration camps, gulags, etc. and the number of dissidents decreased very quickly - everyone stopped voicing their views when they saw how the most outspoken people disappeared. The majority of the population knew very well that the ideology was bullshit, but paid lip service to it out of fear. The moment the power grip was released, the ideology collapsed and the majority of the population overthrew the regime and never looked back. The differences with religion are obvious - no matter what the political, social, economical, etc. situation there is - religion is always there, always brainwashing, always on the prowl for the next wannabe martyr. You don't hear many people saying that national socialism is good, just Hitler's interpretation was wrong, yet we hear this about religion all the time - Islam (or any other religion) is good, just the fanatics interpret it wrong...

Nationalism/patriotism is a bit different - similar to religion it is instilled from early age for many generations, so it can be used to manipulate people in a similar manner, but less efficiently - it works well when there is a significant threat to the country - people would give up their lives to defend it, but otherwise they would prefer to live peaceful and enjoyable life. Religion on the other hand can manipulate people in any condition - Bin Laden was a multimillionaire, he had everything you could think of, yet he still gave up his life (and destroyed the life of thousands) for an imaginary heaven.

 

[Wolverine]

No doubt atrocities have been committed both with religious and non-religious justifications. What makes religion the most dangerous of all is the most basic concept of religion - faith. Religion requires people to blindly believe in God and never question anything - if they ever do question, the answer is that God is much greater and mysterious and they shouldn't let their pride make them think that they know better, or something to that extend. This kind of thinking (actually this is the opposite of thinking) has been instilled for generations and people are inoculated from very early age.

The difference with other ideologies like fascism, communism, etc. is that they use fear as major means to control the people - the opposition to these ideologies was sent to concentration camps, gulags, etc. and the number of dissidents decreased very quickly - everyone stopped voicing their views when they saw how the most outspoken people disappeared. The majority of the population knew very well that the ideology was bullshit, but paid lip service to it out of fear. The moment the power grip was released, the ideology collapsed and the majority of the population overthrew the regime and never looked back. The differences with religion are obvious - no matter what the political, social, economical, etc. situation there is - religion is always there, always brainwashing, always on the prowl for the next wannabe martyr. You don't see many people saying that national socialism is good, just Hitler's interpretation was wrong, yet we hear this about religion all the time - Islam (or any other religion) is good, just the fanatics interpret it wrong...

Nationalism/patriotism is a bit different - similar to religion it is instilled from early age for many generations, so it can be used to manipulate people in a similar manner, but less efficiently - it works well when there is a significant threat to the country - people would give up their lives to defend it, but otherwise they would prefer to live peaceful and enjoyable life. Religion on the other hand can manipulate people in any condition - Bin Laden was a multimillionaire, he had everything you could think of, yet he still gave up his life (and destroyed the life of thousands) for an imaginary heaven.

Yeah that's mostly fair. However I think that for a significant number of laypeople, religion is quite laid back in the sense that there is a gradient of how strong their belief if, and how strongly they choose to practice it.

In terms of ideas, religion with fear of an afterlife etc is can be the most pernicious but doesn't always translate into perniciousness in real terms unless ofcourse you disagree with the social customs/norms which fair enough many rightly do. Where I disagree is regarding the fear factor. ISIS, al queda, and these groups are very vociferous in making sure they rule by fear. They use religious ideology to justify it but are aware of the effect of brutality on the human psyche in getting people to comply. Iran has secular dissenters but there is always the fear of Evin Prison should they go against the theological hierarchy of Ayotallahs there.

Again I'll point out, you'd expect a monopoly of religious right party to be dominating politics in countries. But whether its Pakistan for Islam, or something like Ireland for catholicism, people would subscribe to religion in terms of belief and their own personal choices, but don't necessarily want to impose it on others, and might not believe in it dogmatically enough to be radical/fundamentalist.

Bin Laden and a lot of other jihadis though don't just leave cushy lives for an imaginary heaven (that is a significant factor), but also frequently cite geopolitics, occupying powers as factors. Then you have to consider glory seeking behaviour, identity crisis, lack of social cohesion in their own communities (which I know British jihadis frequently fall into).

Religion certainly makes it easy to entice people (given its claim to be divinely inspired) but far right groups and militias, whether its the unabomber, timothy mcveigh or anders breivek also have been willing to effectively give up their lives for causes. The tamil tigers did so. And the (relatively secular) PLO did so too in palestine. The lure of non-religious ideologies which has claimed millions of lives (the great leap forward, the holocaust) have cost just as many lives, if not more. And thats what we should be fighting. Dogmatism and illiberalism in all forms.

 

[2mufc0]

They are striving to establish a caliphate and to expand it to create the Ummah. Whatever your views are on your religion, the fact is that ISIS are following the Qu'ran and hadiths to the letter. Funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia they are implementing a hard line (salafist) doctrine.

There are lots of things going on right now in ISIS controlled territory that are in sync with their religion:
On sex slavery (IS in relation to captured Yazidi and Christian women):
Qu'ran 33:50 "Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.”

Qu'ran 4:3 permits men to have sex with “what your right hands possess,” a term categorically defined by the ulema as “infidel” women captured during the jihad.

On jihad - mass executions / beheadings:
Qu'ran 47:4 “When you encounter infidels on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely”

Qu'ran 8:12 “I will cast terror into the hearts of infidels—so strike off their heads and strike off all of their fingertips [i.e., mutilate them]”

On crucifixions happening inside the Islamic State:
Qu'ran 5:33 “the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.”


Of course they are. Islam differs from the two other abrahamic religions in that it is a COMPLETE package, it's very much so political as it is a religion. Sharia law will govern society, Qu'ran and the hadiths will govern people's individual spiritual life as well as society at large.

They are fighting for domination of the World. They do so, because it is their cause, they fight to dominate for allah.

What Quran are you reading and where are you getting those quotes from? is it ISIS certified?? I am in possession of several Quran's and they differ from what you have posted. Translations often get misinterpreted it's not new, therefore unless you are fluent in Arabic and have historical knowledge of what happened when the verses were revealed you are not qualified to translate or take meaning from it.

For example 4:3 "And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice]." (This translation is taken from the translated Quran on Quran.com which is a popular online Quran and the first one that comes up in Google search, so very much mainstream)

It says nothing of the sort of what you wrote in your post. 33:50 is about Juwariah and Saffiya two slave girls who were freed by the prophet and later married the prophet, i have no idea how this justifies the rape of captured women by ISIS.

As for the other verses on war, yes these are violent but like I've said above you have to read each verse in context and with regards to verses on war it was at a time when Muhammad pbuh was being persecuted and was revealed by god to fight back, that's what the majority of the violent verses are about.

You should be more responsible when spreading things like this it entices hatred between Muslims and non Muslims and could end up with innocent people getting hurt and unnecessary conflict between communities.

 

[2cents]

As for the other verses on war, yes these are violent but like I've said above you have to read each verse in context and with regards to verses on war it was at a time when Muhammad pbuh was being persecuted and was revealed by god to fight back, that's what the majority of the violent verses are about.

I think one of the difficulties Muslims seem to have is coming to an agreement on what aspects of the Qur'an are to be understood in their historical context, and what aspects are to be regarded as eternally valid. Many (most?) Muslims believe that the Qur'an is not a historical document, but rather the eternal word of God, which makes the context of such passages somewhat irrelevant.

 

[Momochiru]

You are making some very good points and I agree with most of what you are saying. I'll reply point by point.

Yeah that's mostly fair. However I think that for a significant number of laypeople, religion is quite laid back in the sense that there is a gradient of how strong their belief if, and how strongly they choose to practice it.

I agree that for most people it's quite laid back. Most people believe that there is a supernatural power and that's perfectly fine from my point of view. To me that's not religion. I also follow some religious customs, but I do it just out of tradition - the same way people pretend there is Santa. This becomes religion when people start considering certain religious writings as the ultimate truth and start following it by the letter and letting it control every single aspect of their lives, even trivial things like what to wear and eat.

In terms of ideas, religion with fear of an afterlife etc is can be the most pernicious but doesn't always translate into perniciousness in real terms unless ofcourse you disagree with the social customs/norms which fair enough many rightly do. Where I disagree is regarding the fear factor. ISIS, al queda, and these groups are very vociferous in making sure they rule by fear. They use religious ideology to justify it but are aware of the effect of brutality on the human psyche in getting people to comply. Iran has secular dissenters but there is always the fear of Evin Prison should they go against the theological hierarchy of Ayotallahs there.

I'm not sure it's exactly the same, sure many people in the occupied territories live in fear, but my impression was that the ISIS army consists of volunteers who join them from many parts of the world, maybe I'm wrong.

Again I'll point out, you'd expect a monopoly of religious right party to be dominating politics in countries. But whether its Pakistan for Islam, or something like Ireland for catholicism, people would subscribe to religion in terms of belief and their own personal choices, but don't necessarily want to impose it on others, and might not believe in it dogmatically enough to be radical/fundamentalist.

Political parties win or loose elections, but religion is always there - influencing all the political parties, not only the right wing ones. In fact religion doesn't need political parties to exert influence - it can manipulate people directly.

Bin Laden and a lot of other jihadis though don't just leave cushy lives for an imaginary heaven (that is a significant factor), but also frequently cite geopolitics, occupying powers as factors. Then you have to consider glory seeking behaviour, identity crisis, lack of social cohesion in their own communities (which I know British jihadis frequently fall into).

Sure they have cited other factors as well, but their view is very distorted - for example infidels allowed to step foot in Mecca is considered like a severe aggression.

Religion certainly makes it easy to entice people (given its claim to be divinely inspired) but far right groups and militias, whether its the unabomber, timothy mcveigh or anders breivek also have been willing to effectively give up their lives for causes. The tamil tigers did so. And the (relatively secular) PLO did so too in palestine. The lure of non-religious ideologies which has claimed millions of lives (the great leap forward, the holocaust) have cost just as many lives, if not more. And thats what we should be fighting. Dogmatism and illiberalism in all forms.

I don't agree that far right groups could be considered even close to religion, when it comes to their power to entice people. Timothy mcveigh or anders breivek are isolated cases - they probably would've done it for any reason. There is a well known psychological phenomenon, where severely depressed and angry people become suicidal and decide to go out with a big bang - usually killing several people and then committing suicide or suicide by cop. Because of their mental state, they are usually alone, or sometimes in couples, like in Columbine. Their anger might be directed at any group of people - co-workers, schoolmates, members of the opposite sex, other races/ethnicities, the big business, the sinners, etc. - pretty much anything can be used as a reason for them, including religion. The tamil tigers and PLO in palestine are different - there was/is a civil war there and as I said in my previous post, people would be willing to defend their country/tribe with their lives. And actually when you look at the reasons for these civil wars you will find out that religion played a major role.

 

[Ryan's Beard]

I think one of the difficulties Muslims seem to have is coming to an agreement on what aspects of the Qur'an are to be understood in their historical context, and what aspects are to be regarded as eternally valid. Many (most?) Muslims believe that the Qur'an is not a historical document, but rather the eternal word of God, which makes the context of such passages somewhat irrelevant.

Pretty much every religion has this difficulty. People who want to use it to justify doing terrible things find plenty of ammunition, people who want to point to examples of good messages will find plenty too.

 

[2mufc0]

Pretty much every religion has this difficulty. People who want to use it to justify doing terrible things find plenty of ammunition, people who want to point to examples of good messages will find plenty too.

@2cents i would reply to you but Ryan pretty much summed it up. The majority of these terrorists are mentally unstable and confused and in the minority when it comes to Islam so i would say it's a problem with people not the religion.

 

[2cents]

Fair enough, I'm not interested in coming on here to bash Islam. I believe religion is only one factor among many driving such actions.

In strictly theological terms, though, is it fair to say that there are no hard rules in Islam for determining which parts of the Qur'an are to be taken literally, and which parts are to be understood in context?

 

[2mufc0]

I think one of the difficulties Muslims seem to have is coming to an agreement on what aspects of the Qur'an are to be understood in their historical context, and what aspects are to be regarded as eternally valid. Many (most?) Muslims believe that the Qur'an is not a historical document, but rather the eternal word of God, which makes the context of such passages somewhat irrelevant.

In strictly theological terms, though, is it fair to say that there are no hard rules in Islam for determining which parts of the Qur'an are to be taken literally, and which parts are to be understood in context?[/QUOTE]

Very good question, a lot depends on what school/scholar you follow, the general rule is when you come up with something you don't understand you speak to a scholar to explain it. Obviously if scholar is Baghdadi you will get his twisted explanation and that's where ISIS comes from.

 

[2mufc0]

Fair enough, I'm not interested in coming on here to bash Islam. I believe religion is only one factor among many driving such actions.

In strictly theological terms, though, is it fair to say that there are no hard rules in Islam for determining which parts of the Qur'an are to be taken literally, and which parts are to be understood in context?

To follow up what i posted above the way i see it and was taught those verses particularly ones related to wars have been abrogated. The more violent verses were commands from god, when the battle finished so did the command, so those verses are only applicable for that time not today because that battle is over. Next question be why is it in the Quran? from my understanding all of gods words were written in the Quran and for historical context, the prophet and his companions later explained through hadith and tafsir what the verses mean and which have been abrogated. Obviously not all Muslims follow this procedure/understanding, but it is what i feel is the correct way.

 

[2cents]

Obviously not all Muslims follow this procedure/understanding, but it is what i feel is the correct way.

Seems a pretty logical way to go about it. If you don't mind me asking, do you associate yourself with any madhhab, (Hanafi, Maliki, etc.) or just follow your own common sense when it comes to these things?

 

[2mufc0]

Seems a pretty logical way to go about it. If you don't mind me asking, do you associate yourself with any madhhab, (Hanafi, Maliki, etc.) or just follow your own common sense when it comes to these things?

I grew up based on Hanifi teachings but do look into the others.