**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

Yet the only time it seems to happen is when you get a bunch of people who are sick of being shit on by outside forces.

The most well known reformation was not like this. It was endogenous.

If there's a wave of radical Islam in the MidEast now, it's largely thanks to the actions of Christian powers like the US and the UK with their illegal war on Iraq, for example.

It has proximate cause for sure. The "radicalization" is nothing new to Islam, however. Not remotely new.

[Poopadoop]

The most well known reformation was not like this. It was endogenous.

Which one, where and when?

[wufwugy]

Which one, where and when?

Protestant Reformation.

I don't dispute the notion that some Islamic terrorists exists, and that they base their ideology on their religion. What I object to is the insinuation by Wuf that those muslims who don't practice it are somehow an historical anomaly that is destined to be overcome by fundamentalists.

I didn't claim this. I instead claimed that the ideology itself reforms towards violence. This is because of what Muhammad did/taught and that he abrogates all else. It is not through the scriptures that most Muslims move away from this, but by dropping most of the scriptures and dropping the dominant thematic elements.

He says other things that are ridiculous as well and basically echo the fear mongerers by painting Muslims with a broad brush.

The fact that you're equating what I've said to "fear mongerers" is a tell that your mind is persuaded by more than my arguments. Reread my posts. I'm not painting Muslims with a brush. I'm talking about an ideology.

For example, he argues that most of the Muslim world is in peace because the fundamentalists are already in charge and everyone is in line with scripture. It's not even close to being accurate. Iran is a muslim state which, for all it's failings, is a theocracy in theory but largely secular in practice. Iran has relatively low mosque attendance. People follow dress codes in public but wear western dress in private. There's a thriving black market for alcohol. Moreover, Iran has not launched an aggressive war for 800 years. Read that again - 800 years. I'd like to see the US go 8 years without attacking someone. Yet we're supposed to believe Christians are peaceful and Muslims are violent.

Reread my posts to find where this was answered. Islamists conquered all of these areas by the sword. That is one reason why some of them have less violence; the violence already happened before we were born. However, these places have also secularized to some small degrees, which is apostasy to the fundamental reading of Muhammad. This is why violence also returns to these places. ISIS is the reformation that goes back to the text, the fundamental reading, and the way of Muhammad. Most Muslims have abandoned the way of Muhammad to such a degree that they are apostates, which is why in the places ISIS exists they are being slaughtered en masse.

His response to that argument is to suggest that ISIS will get to Iran in due time. Such total crap. It's just fear mongering. ISIS has 30,000 soldiers, Iran could potentially mobilize millions. There's no way in hell ISIS is going to conquer Iran.

I was talking about the hypothetical scenario of ISIS getting what it wants.

Turkey. Another nominally muslim state, it was at peace for nearly 100 years until it started fighting ISIS. That's right, it's fighting ISIS. Liquor freely available in Turkey. Another example that refutes Wuf's claim that Islam is only at peace when it's killed all the infidels.

As Prop Joe would say, you're thinking short when you should be thinking long. A reformation back to scripture doesn't happen immediately upon secularization of a group. This is one area where your point about the western military interventions in the region is relevant. It is possible that helped spawn a reformation. But let's not kid ourselves; the reformation is about going back to the text and the teachings/actions of its prophet.

I don't mind admitting there are bad people who use Islam as an excuse to commit horrible acts. I agree radical Islam is a problem for us these days. I just don't like the fact that some people have overstated the threat to such a degree that they think the answer is to ban all muslims from entering their country.

I certainly don't believe in banning based on identification as Muslim. The vetting must be intense though. Well, it should be intense for all immigration anyways.

The one hesitancy I have is that we just do not know if it is possible for Islam to accept western values. The Muslims who have accepted western values don't do so based on a reasoned reading of Islamic holy texts. Some religions are compatible with western values, which is why we have seen devout adherents to those religions espouse western values. But Islam is not compatible and devout Muslims do not adhere to western values. Muslims that have embraced western values are nominal and don't follow much of the scripture.

But don't listen to me. Listen to Muhammad. He will clear all of this up. You cannot be a devout Muslim unless you follow Muhammad and murder, enslave, and rape for the glory of Allah.

Another argument of Wuf's that fails is the idea that all reformations of Islam are a return to scripture. There have been reforms away from scripture as well. The westernization of the political institutions of the Ottoman Empire are one example, there are others. Historically, this was advocated by some prominent muslim leaders in the argument 'Muhammad was a prophet, not a politician', an argument for separation of church and state that Locke would be proud of.

Those aren't religious reformations, but can be considered societal ones. I'm talking very specifically about reformation of the religion itself. In order for Islam to reform in the direction of western values, there would have to be some theological reinterpretation away from Muhammad. I'm not sure that's possible, but I really don't know because I don't know the details for why worldwide orthodoxy of Islam is that Muhammad is the ideal and that his final actions/teachings abrogate everything else.

Wuf also tries to claim that all Imams teach fundamental radical Islam. It's just lol. If that were true all muslims would come out of the mosque with dynamite strapped around them. Yet it doesn't happen. Why? Because that's not what most Imams teach.

I could have been more clear in how I worded that. Imams teach the perfection of Muhammad and his abrogation of all else. There is no way to interpret this but towards violence and subjugation. Imams are much further down this path than people want to admit, but no they don't all explicitly claim that following Muhammad means murdering infidels.

[Poopadoop]

Protestant Reformation.

I thought you were talking about the biggest reformation in Islam being endogenous.

I claimed that the ideology itself reforms towards violence. This is because of what Muhammad did/taught and that he abrogates all else. It is not through the scriptures that most Muslims move away from this, but by dropping most of the scriptures and dropping the dominant thematic elements.

Still bullshit. The Koran is open to interpretation just as the Bible is. There are plenty of places where the Bible preaches violence towards nonbelievers, just as there are many places in which it preaches peaceful ways. The Koran is the same.

The Koran says "Fight in the name of your religion with those who fight against you." which is similar to places in the Bible that argue for killing nonbelievers (e.g., Deuteronomy 17:12 - Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the [holy man] who represents God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged). The Koran also says "There shall be no compulsion in religion" and "Say to the disbelievers "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine"". It might suit some nuts to follow the violent advice and ignore the peaceful, just as it suits you to make the argument that the violent represents 'fundamental Islam' whereas the peaceful doesn't.

The fact that you're equating what I've said to "fear mongerers" is a tell that your mind is persuaded by more than my arguments.

No, it's a tell that I think you're full of shit.

Islamists conquered all of these areas by the sword. That is one reason why some of them have less violence; the violence already happened before we were born. However, these places have also secularized to some small degrees, which is apostasy to the fundamental reading of Muhammad. This is why violence also returns to these places.

But it doesn't. It returned to the Mid East after the US/UK invaded Iraq, not because Iraq had been secularized. There were revolutions in other Muslim countries in the Arab world recently that had no religious motivations. There were not theocracies set up here. There's also the problem stated above that fundamental Islam isn't what you claim it is.

ISIS is the reformation that goes back to the text, the fundamental reading, and the way of Muhammad.

Again, it's only one interpretation of that text and not one accepted by most Muslims, even the highly religious ones.

I was talking about the hypothetical scenario of ISIS getting what it wants.

Oh well i that case why stop at Iran. I'm sure they want to take over the world with their 30k guys. No fear mongering there.

As Prop Joe would say, you're thinking short when you should be thinking long. A reformation back to scripture doesn't happen immediately upon secularization of a group. This is one area where your point about the western military interventions in the region is relevant. It is possible that helped spawn a reformation. But let's not kid ourselves; the reformation is about going back to the text and the teachings/actions of its prophet.

Again, you're acting like this 'reformation' is something natural and inevitable. Like a plausible outcome is all Muslims (or at least the ones left alive) becoming violent crusaders for their religion. That's where you're fear mongering. And it's because you don't understand what you're talking about.

I certainly don't believe in banning based on identification as Muslim. The vetting must be intense though. Well, it should be intense for all immigration anyways.

You argued, I believe, that taking 65k Syrian refugees was a problem because they were Muslims.

But don't listen to me. Listen to Muhammad. He will clear all of this up. You cannot be a devout Muslim unless you follow Muhammad and murder, enslave, and rape for the glory of Allah.

This would be funny if it wasn't so telling about your ignorance. That just makes it sad.

Hundreds of millions of devout Muslims don't do those things.

[wufwugy]

...

Thanks for not reading what I said. My response is made easy.

[wufwugy]

I decided to respond to this finally.

Still bullshit. The Koran is open to interpretation just as the Bible is. There are plenty of places where the Bible preaches violence towards nonbelievers, just as there are many places in which it preaches peaceful ways. The Koran is the same.

This is a conversation worth having amongst followers of Islam. The issue, however, is that abrogation is king. The Bible says a lot of bad stuff, but it holds little sway because Jesus abrogates it. In the Islamic scriptures, the abrogation is even more resounding. To move the teachings of the religion away from Muhammad, abrogation would have to be broken. While this is probably possible in a technical sense, it is not generally thought of as a realistic idea.

But it doesn't. It returned to the Mid East after the US/UK invaded Iraq, not because Iraq had been secularized. There were revolutions in other Muslim countries in the Arab world recently that had no religious motivations. There were not theocracies set up here. There's also the problem stated above that fundamental Islam isn't what you claim it is.

A proximate cause of the the Islamic reformation of ISIS can be attributed to intervention. However, that is not the motivation of the Islamic reformation of ISIS. They are slaughtering other Muslims en masse because those Muslims are not following Muhammad.

Again, it's only one interpretation of that text and not one accepted by most Muslims, even the highly religious ones.

What highly religious ones? The scripturally devout adherents of Islam run interference when people question Islamic extremism. Have you examined how utterly disdainful Sharia is? I would be beheaded under Sharia. You would too.

Oh well i that case why stop at Iran. I'm sure they want to take over the world with their 30k guys. No fear mongering there.

The goal doesn't include taking over Iran with 30k ISIS warriors. It includes attracting millions of ISIS warriors and subsequently dominating the West as well as the apostate Muslim world.

Again, you're acting like this 'reformation' is something natural and inevitable. Like a plausible outcome is all Muslims (or at least the ones left alive) becoming violent crusaders for their religion. That's where you're fear mongering. And it's because you don't understand what you're talking about.

I am talking only about the religious belief itself. I am not against Muslim people; I am against Muhammad and Islamism. There is debate to be had on how Islam can be separated from Muhammad and Islamism.

You argued, I believe, that taking 65k Syrian refugees was a problem because they were Muslims.

That is not quite my argument. I argued that there is strong reason to believe that the Syrian "refugees" include a daunting quantity of Islamists, partly because of demographic makeup and partly because of ideological makeup and partly because of lack of scrutiny combined with geography.

This would be funny if it wasn't so telling about your ignorance. That just makes it sad.

Hundreds of millions of devout Muslims don't do those things.

And yet, ISIS is killing them because they're not devout Muslims who follow the example of Muhammad.