Anything wrong with the phrase "Radical Jihadists"?

[Moonbeam]

There is no argument. "In battle" isn't in the text. Nobody disagrees with that.

But if what arsjum is saying is factual, why would the obvious need to be stated. Every time the Bible mentions God, it doesn't say the one and only true God because every Christian has already picked up on the fact that is intended.

 

[buckshot24]

But if what arsjum is saying is factual, why would the obvious need to be stated. Every time the Bible mentions God, it doesn't say the one and only true God because every Christian has already picked up on the fact that is intended.

How is it obvious?

 

[arsjum]

I am very glad you have made an effort to post. I am an ignorant person who knows little about religion generally and find some of the stuff I hear is part of the Koran somewhat troubling, as well as the seeming willingness of some who practice some sort of what they call Islam to hold people who have no direct involvement in attacking them responsible and accountable for those attacks. That violates my basic sense of justice.

I especially find your statement that those at a loss as to the meaning of verses in the Koran should seek the guidance of scholars.

As far as buckshot24 is concerned, people here find him to be a difficult case. I find people often to see their own problems in others and he has suggested to me that I'm an idolater. Perhaps the reason for that is because the logic that there is only one God is imminently more logically rational then that Jesus was a living God and not just a Prophet of God. He may in fact be trying to defend an idolaters faith, Christianity, against a more rational religion, at least in that one respect. Just an outsider's view, you understand.

As a personal note, I once had a conversation with someone of the Islamic faith and she said that basically I believed in some list of things she knew about that because I agreed with them I could technically qualify as a Muslim too. That there is only one God was one of them but I remain curious as to what the others were as I never got very clear on them. Then again, maybe she had a special idea of what is required to be of the Muslim faith, not shared by other. I don't know.

Dear Moonbeam,

I am sorry I am responding to you this late. I have no problem discussing anything with folks like yourself. It is a pleasure to have a discussion with people who use reason and open-mindedness towards others. It is understandable you see problems with Islam, for you are not a Muslim. If you agreed with everything in Islam, you'd most likely be a Muslim. Since you are not, it is natural you have disagreements with it.

You are right that buckshot24 seems to be a complicated person. But at least he is not resorting to stupid "you are practicing taqiyya with me" nonsense. I just think buckshot24 is woefully ignorant of the complexity of text and language, oblivious to the fact that a literal word-for-word reading of a pre-modern text written in classical Arabic with its modern English translation will lead one, even with the best of intentions, to total misunderstanding.

I keep telling people this joke, but it is worth mentioning it here as well. When I was just learning English in the 90s, I read the following joke (I am paraphrasing):

A producer decided to make a blockbuster movie and invited Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Jean-Claude Van Damme, and asked them about their tastes in classical music. Who would you rather choose or be, the producer asked? Stallone said, "I always admired Tchaikovsky." Van Damme said, "Mozart, no question." When it was Arnold's turn, he took a pause and said, "I'll be Bach!"

Now, consider the last phrase. There is absolutely no way you can translate it word-for-word into any language and convey its original meaning. That comes from a simple modern language. And of course there is so much more attached to language (culture, context, history, prose, allegory, etc.) that trying to read it in literalist way, the way buckshot24 suggests, is ignorant.

Speaking about taqiyya, I've noticed it comes up fairly often here as well. Even political candidate Ben Carson mentioned it recently. In reality, the charge of taqiyya is one of the most ridiculous and mind-bogglingly ignorant things I've ever come across. Here is the funny part of it. I became a practicing Muslim when I was 16 and it was not until I was 28 (listening to thousands of lectures and reading hundreds of books in-between) that I learned there was such thing as taqiyya. It came up when I thought I was just explaining Islam to one Evangelical American who suddenly accused me of practicing taqiyya because my presentation of Islam contradicted what she had learnt from listening to Dutch anti-Islamic polemicist Geert Wilders! Then, and only then, did I look up the word and learned what it was. That should tell you the difference between what we, Muslims, prioritize in terms of learning our religion and what anti-Islamic demagogues suggest we do.

More importantly, the word taqiyya does not mean what these demagogues say it does. And you don't have to go too far searching for its meaning but just look up something like Encyclopedia of Islam published by Oxford or Britannica Encyclopedia to find out that taqiyya basically means hiding your true faith when revealing it puts you and/or your relatives in mortal danger. And it is a permission rather than a command. Shia Muslims often practiced it when they lived under oppressive Sunni Muslim states. Both Muslims and Jews practiced it in Spain after Reconquista, publicly "converting" to Christianity to save their lives, while continuing to be Muslims and Jews in private.

I am sure even in such relatively liberal societies such as the United States, atheists may hide their atheism, pretending to be Christians, to hold high public offices because revealing their atheism can jeopardize their career promotion--which is much lesser a problem than mortal danger to your life.

But I keep encountering this nauseating charge "you are practicing taqiyya" by people who ironically have absolutely no compunction about lying, suggesting that there is this Islamic doctrine that gives Muslims blanket authorization, and even encouragement, to lie to and deceive non-Muslims as they see fit.

Just think about the implications of this. Basically, if I tell that I am a blood-thirsty lunatic, ironically my words are taken for granted (am I not a liar from their perspective?). If, however, I say that I am just an ordinary human being and want to have a peaceful life, I must be lying, i.e. practicing taqiyya, to deceive my non-Muslim interlocutor, adding further credence to their belief that I am irredeemably evil. Can there be a worse case of blanket dehumanization? And how can you entertain a rational discussion with folks who distrusts you with such hateful convictions?

My pet peeve is that across North America and Western Europe, there are thousands of scholars (professors and graduate students) enrolled in Islamic Studies programs who regularly produce excellent work. These scholars learn classical Arabic and Persian, dead Middle Eastern languages, study the Qur'an exegesis, Hadith compilation, Islamic jurisprudence, History, and many other branches of Islamic knowledge, and do so with sincere honesty and objectivity. But these people are virtually absent in public domain, which is dominated by folks like Bill Maher or Sam Harris from the liberal camp, or Fox News, now Trump, and certain Evangelical Christian polemicists (I emphasize, certain) from the right, neither of the camp having a fraction of qualifications real scholars in academic institutions possess.

Anyway, Moonbeam, I am glad there are folks like you around. Enjoyed talking to you.

 

[buckshot24]

You are right that buckshot24 seems to be a complicated person. But at least he is not resorting to stupid "you are practicing taqiyya with me" nonsense. I just think buckshot24 is woefully ignorant of the complexity of text and language, oblivious to the fact that a literal word-for-word reading of a pre-modern text written in classical Arabic with its modern English translation will lead one, even with the best of intentions, to total misunderstanding.

I totally understand you can't get a word for word translation and get the real meaning. I speak a bit of Spanish and know you can't do a word for word translation of "I am hungry" because literally the way they say it, word for word, is "I have hunger". That isn't the issue here. The issue is "in battle" simply isn't in the text and when a Muslim interprets it as a general command the text itself can't show him he is wrong.

Why haven't you answered me about husbands being commanded to "strike" their wives if they get out of line?

 

[arsjum]

I totally understand you can't get a word for word translation and get the real meaning. I speak a bit of Spanish and know you can't do a word for word translation of "I am hungry" because literally the way they say it, word for word, is "I have hunger". That isn't the issue here. The issue is "in battle" simply isn't in the text and when a Muslim interprets it as a general command the text itself can't show him he is wrong.

Your hypothetical "when a Muslim interprets it as a general command" doesn't exist. If it does, that Muslim is a total ignoramus who doesn't understand what the Qur'an is.

Why haven't you answered me about husbands being commanded to "strike" their wives if they get out of line?

Why haven't you answered me when I said: how did you come to the conclusion that all Qur'anic commands are for all people and for all time? Or was that just another assumption on your part for which you sought no proof?

I thought that was clear. Answer that and I'll gladly answer yours.

 

[IGBT]

I understand the reasoning of the President not using "radical Islam". He doesn't want to acknowledge terrorists are really practicing Islam. We also don't want to alienate Muslims we are going to need to win the ideological part of the war. Republicans use the phrase Muslim terrorist so often I believe it helps fuel an increase in violence against Muslims.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...cases-across-the-nation/ar-AAgaSli?li=BBnb7Kz

Republicans continuously harp on his lack of using their phrase. Like that will change the number of drone strikes. Wouldn't the phrase "radical Jihadist" do the job of identifying the bad guys? Why not tie terrorism to their actions, not religion?

your obama in his heart of hearts knows full well islam has become a weaponized belief system.

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'...

 

[buckshot24]

Your hypothetical "when a Muslim interprets it as a general command" doesn't exist. If it does, that Muslim is a total ignoramus who doesn't understand what the Qur'an is.

So does it exist or not? You can't point to the text and tell me why somebody would be an "ignoramus" which is the problem. The koran is subjugated to your "experts".

And to say they don't exist is a complete head in the sand attitude. It exists.

Is there a word for "battle" in ancient Arabic? If yes, why do you think it was excluded in this text? My guess is it was not a part of the original message and the Koran commands people to cut the heads off of unbelievers.

Why haven't you answered me when I said: how did you come to the conclusion that all Qur'anic commands are for all people and for all time? Or was that just another assumption on your part for which you sought no proof?

I think I said it seems to be a general command. Explain to me, from the text, how this isn't a general command. Key phrase here, "from the text".

I also didn't say all commands in the Koran either. I have limited myself to 47.4 here.

 

[buckshot24]

your obama in his heart of hearts knows full well islam has become a weaponized belief system.

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'...

Those are just coincidences.:wub:

 

[HomerJS]

your obama in his heart of hearts knows full well islam has become a weaponized belief system.

The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims'...

Careful going back in history. Christians have Muslims beat by a mile.

BTW - In this country I have a greater chance of being killed by right wing, white supremacist group then a Muslim group.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You must ignore the Old Testament when it comes to Christians. However, when it comes to the Quran you can't ignore those same texts that were based on Hebrew scriptures.

One God, most Prophets are the same among 3 religions.

 

[buckshot24]

You must ignore the Old Testament when it comes to Christians. However, when it comes to the Quran you can't ignore those same texts that were based on Hebrew scriptures.

One God, most Prophets are the same among 3 religions.

I'm asking you how those passages should be interpreted but you won't respond. The OT commands to wipe out tribes was a one time thing for a specific people, not, what seems to be, a general command like we find in the Koran. I don't ignore any of the bible I read it in context.

So how are people bastardizing the text by reading it as it is written?

You'd have to be stupid to believe all of these acts of terrorism, in the name of Allah, are mere coincidences.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Those passages are the same ones that are found in the Old Testament. Are you also required to carry out such commands as a REAL Christian????

 

[buckshot24]

Those passages are the same ones that are found in the Old Testament. Are you also required to carry out such commands as a REAL Christian????

What passages? If the commands in the Koran were for a specific people, please explain how that is true.

Lets assume the commands in the OT to wipe out specific nations is a general command. What if that nation no longer exists? How could that be a command for Christians?

So once and for all, are you abandoning your "bastardizing" assertion?

These commands are NOT the same type of thing.