Responsibility? That's even worse than blame. Why must the members of the local mosque down the street take responsibility for terrorism? They have no connection to terrorism and are dead against it. They don't follow the false interpretations of the Koran that Titmouse is spewing about, nor do they follow the Shia Islamic laws of Khomeini. Khomeini was viewed as more the political leader of Iran, than a spiritual leader. So surely mainstream muslims shouldn't take responsibility for terrorism.Perry Mason said:
It's about time Muslims did some introspection
- Thread starter rama putri
- Start date
Titmouse:
Food for thought... but it is a lot to digest and I will respond after I metabolize it...
Thanks for the postings...
Perry
Food for thought... but it is a lot to digest and I will respond after I metabolize it...
Thanks for the postings...
Perry
I "spewed" nothing. I quoted verbatim. If you choose to be blind, that's your choice.*d* said:Responsibility? That's even worse than blame. Why must the members of the local mosque down the street take responsibility for terrorism? They have no connection to terrorism and are dead against it. They don't follow the false interpretations of the Koran that Titmouse is spewing about, nor do they follow the Shia Islamic laws of Khomeini. Khomeini was viewed as more the political leader of Iran, than a spiritual leader. So surely mainstream muslims shouldn't take responsibility for terrorism.
Your logic does not compute!*d* said:Responsibility? That's even worse than blame. Why must the members of the local mosque down the street take responsibility for terrorism? They have no connection to terrorism and are dead against it. They don't follow the false interpretations of the Koran that Titmouse is spewing about, nor do they follow the Shia Islamic laws of Khomeini. Khomeini was viewed as more the political leader of Iran, than a spiritual leader. So surely mainstream muslims shouldn't take responsibility for terrorism.
Blame and guilt are issues that deal with past events. Responsibility means to act and ensure that the future does not imitate the past!
So, who do you think should take responsibility? Who can do anything about what happens in some one else's house?
You mean the owners/occupiers of the house are not to be expected to act? Ridiculous and preposterous!!!!
And if you want to challenge what Titmose posted, if you want to contribute to my evaluation and understanding, why don't you refute it rather than just dismiss it? For me, as I said, I want to think about it first. If you have something meaningful to say, let's hear it; your reflex denials do nothing except undermine your credibility!
Perry
The false interpretations you quoted of the Koran are just that; false. By reading out of context, misinterpretations can easily be made to fit almost any agenda. To overcome this and if you know "al thanni" and the Koran at all, you'll know that a methodology must be followed to debate unclear Koran text.Titmouse said:I "spewed" nothing. I quoted verbatim. If you choose to be blind, that's your choice.
There are 4 Islamic requirements followed to debate al thanni before an interpretation can be drawn.
One: all parties involved should have the sincere intention to seek the truth. You cannot just quote text to justify your position or support one party’s or group’s position.
The second requirement are the rules of interpretation. There must be an understanding of the language and its use, the occasion of a revelation of the verses, and there must be no isolation of any one text to simply build on a theory.
The third requirement of interpretation is to respect specialization. Specialization is respected in other fields of thought, its no different in the matters of Shariah. Some interpretations need referral from people with specialized knowledge.
And the fourth requirement: etiquette. Different opinions should not be considered a deviant from Islam. Etiquette of difference should be there.
I believe these Islamic debating requirements have not been addressed in your quoted interpretations. And like some of the radical clerics in the middle-east, secularIslam.org is not following al thanni and is making the Koran fit their own agenda.
Sorry Perry, but I will not seek responsibility from those that are not responsible. Mainstream Muslims are not owners/occupiers of the house of terrorism. To generalize them as under the same roof, borders on bigotry.Perry Mason said:Your logic does not compute!
Blame and guilt are issues that deal with past events. Responsibility means to act and ensure that the future does not imitate the past!
So, who do you think should take responsibility? Who can do anything about what happens in some one else's house?
You mean the owners/occupiers of the house are not to be expected to act? Ridiculous and preposterous!!!!
And if you want to challenge what Titmose posted, if you want to contribute to my evaluation and understanding, why don't you refute it rather than just dismiss it? For me, as I said, I want to think about it first. If you have something meaningful to say, let's hear it; your reflex denials do nothing except undermine your credibility!
Perry
Here comes Titmouse, right on time, with his 33 posts and each and every one (more or less) a Goebbelian tract of genocial hatred. He gets his information FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH; namely, one website. But, geeze, if one or two or three Muslim says this, it must be true, right? Look, their religion is so obviously wrong even their own people are denoucing it! Nevermind that this involves a collossal distortion of what this website actually says, of which Tit is hilariously unaware...Titmouse said:There it is FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH.
Don't believe what I say. Check it out from any Koran. The fact is that the terrorists are not the radicals, it's the moderates who are not following Islam to the letter. The terrorists are doing exactly what their religion tells them to do.
Has he perused the Koran? No. Has he read the portions of the Torah/Old Testament that cheerfully promote the slaughter of anybody who hasn't has the good fortune to be "choosen?" Or those portions of the New Testament less than generous to the Gentiles or the Jews or women who talk in church? No, or if he has they have slipped blissfully from his mind.
Your handle is no doubt an adequate descriptor of your brain size, thus I will attempt to use small words. You will not find a religion on earth that does not have a plentiful mixture of good and evil within its teachings. Period. Islamists use their selective understanding of their religious code just as Jewish settlers do and Christian Crusaders did, to promote ideological and political ends.
Those calling for a secularisation of Islam are to be applauded for their introspection. Your use of their words to turn every Muslim into a terrorist is despicable.
Sometimes the truth hurts and can't be explained away by flim-flamery. The Koran says what the Koran says. All the theological gyrations in the world will not turn murder into charity.
No. But they are occupiers of the house of Islam... and as has been said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but (in context) all terrorists are Muslim. Don't answer with invective, answer with tenable arguments -- if you can!*d* said:Sorry Perry, but I will not seek responsibility from those that are not responsible. Mainstream Muslims are not owners/occupiers of the house of terrorism. To generalize them as under the same roof, borders on bigotry.
Neither did you address the question as to who should take responsibility: don't you have any suggestions or answers?
And, BTW, I am not accepting Titmouse's post at face value. I have known many Muslims and had, at one time, a very close relationship with a highly respected Imam from a highly respected family of Muslim religious leaders from Turkey and Macedonia. All of them were gentle and sensitive people whose aspirations for peace and good will among us were similar to my own... so I am considering the posted essay with much more than merely a grain of salt.
Perry
And nearly all serial killers are white. Maybe there should be a town-hall meeting to discuss how all white folk should be taking responsibility for serial killings. Give me a break. Being white is not the cause of serial killings. Just as Islam is not the cause of terrorism. Fanaticism over a grievance is the cause of terrorism.Perry Mason said:No. But they are occupiers of the house of Islam... and as has been said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but (in context) all terrorists are Muslim. Don't answer with invective, answer with tenable arguments -- if you can!
Yes I do have a suggestion -the actual ones responsible would be a good start, not the harmless Muslims next door.Neither did you address the question as to who should take responsibility: don't you have any suggestions or answers?
Perry
Actually, bbking, it is not that simple. It is a reasoned argument based on actual passages of the Qur'an (and "Koran" was for a long time an acceptable spelling, so don't be so unfair!) and not outright deception. So bigotry is not a sufficient response.
Totally by happenstance, last night (after the hockey game, of course!) I was surfing the channels and found a "mainstream" Muslim program discussing the exact same issues as here. Several of the same passages were cited and many of the questions were raised. Of course different interpretations were given... so there are at least two sides to the debate. Just because these interpretations are diametrically opposed does not make either of them bigoted!
And you may want to look at the ISIS web site if you want to see cogent arguments in support of what you call bigoted propositions.
I think it is very important to have open minds if we are to have intelligent discussions!
Perry
Totally by happenstance, last night (after the hockey game, of course!) I was surfing the channels and found a "mainstream" Muslim program discussing the exact same issues as here. Several of the same passages were cited and many of the questions were raised. Of course different interpretations were given... so there are at least two sides to the debate. Just because these interpretations are diametrically opposed does not make either of them bigoted!
And you may want to look at the ISIS web site if you want to see cogent arguments in support of what you call bigoted propositions.
I think it is very important to have open minds if we are to have intelligent discussions!
Perry
Did you just call me a bigot?loaded said:1. I meant for you to back up your statements, go to these websites and find some anti-semitism........
2. How are millions of people responsible for the actions of a few saudi's........keeping generalizing you bigot
LOL
Now there is an intelligent and reasonable solution!*d* said:...Fanaticism over a grievance is the cause of terrorism.
...the actual ones responsible would be a good start
The best way to deal with terrorism is to ask the terrorists not to be fanatics. Every body else, just mind your own biz!
Well, *d*, at least I understand the nature of your logic. But that is all I can say in its favour!
Perry
Well, yes. And no.bbking said:This is what I mean by intellectual bigotry, and how it sucks in people with good intentions like yourself, to believe it is something to be discussed, that somehow it has merits.
When we do this, we allow these ideas to somehow thrive and find a voice instead of being called what it is, a flawed argument and a bigoted view.
If we are not open to examining critically what may be anathema to us, then we leave ourselves open to more Galileos, to more Inquisitions, to much more tragedy... I think we must always be willing to examine and consider even what may appear to be heresy, because many "heresies" have turned out to be the kernels of great truths...
I mean, you can always reject an idea -- but only after reasonable consideration. Anyway, that is how I try deal with these things... even though I do not easily endure or tolerate fools or foolishness.
Perry
I agree with this 100% - but I would hate to see the desire to be "rational" interfere with our ability to call out bigots when we smell them.Perry Mason said:Well, yes. And no.
If we are not open to examining critically what may be anathema to us, then we leave ourselves open to more Galileos, to more Inquisitions, to much more tragedy... I think we must always be willing to examine and consider even what may appear to be heresy, because many "heresies" have turned out to be the kernels of great truths...
I mean, you can always reject an idea -- but only after reasonable consideration. Anyway, that is how I try deal with these things... even though I do not easily endure or tolerate fools or foolishness.
Perry
Agreed!Drunken Master said:I agree with this 100% - but I would hate to see the desire to be "rational" interfere with our ability to call out bigots when we smell them.
Perry
Could someone explain how "kill the disbelievers" could be misinterpreted?Titmouse said:The Qur'an tells us: "not to make friendship with Jews and Christians"
(5:51), "kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (2:191), "murder
them and treat them harshly" (9:123), "fight and slay the Pagans, seize
them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (9:5).
Perry:Perry Mason said:
I think it is very important to have open minds if we are to have intelligent discussions!
Perry
Absolutely!!!
In fact, More importantly, it would be helpful if people were informed and accurate in their information.
Regards.
It's amazing how defenders of Islam can never admit the truth. I quoted chapter and verse. I figure if you want to know the Koran says, read the damned thing.
Chapter 109 of the Qur'an, quoted in its entirety:
"Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine."
(N.J. Dawson trans.)
Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me; indeed, can we find a parallel passage expressing such tolerant agreement-to-disagree in the Old or New Testament?
"Say: 'Unbelievers, I do not serve what you worship, nor do you serve what I worship. I shall never serve what you worship, nor will you ever serve what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine."
(N.J. Dawson trans.)
Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me; indeed, can we find a parallel passage expressing such tolerant agreement-to-disagree in the Old or New Testament?
