I see what you're saying TOO but the accounts of the prophets life and his views, like the Hadiths, his 'story,' in essence; all recorded in Arabic. Linguistically speaking it is an ambiguous language and the Muslim holy texts especially (lacking certain devices which make the meanings more clear) are very much open to personal interpretation. This is why you can have one Muslim who leads a normal, well adjusted life in a modern Western country and another who lives in a cave and shoots at people all day, both of whom follow the same book, the same man's example, and both of whom claim to be acting in concert with the advice given by said book / man, both of whom claim the other is failing to understand the true meaning of the faith. Of course this also occurs with other religions, but it is especially prevalent among Muslims, and especially Middle Eastern Muslims due to the incongruity and ambiguous quality of the language of their holy texts.

In regards to this:

Eventually Islam will have to be dealt with, you will see that I am right when the shit hits the fan in Europe and you watch im mute horror at the unfolding tragedy.

I think you misunderstand me. I do not propose that we simply ignore the issue. There certainly is an issue. The problem, as I see it, is not so much a problem with Islam as it is a problem with the West. We, as a people, do not seem to value our institutions; so that when something (Islam for example) threatens them, it elicits little reaction. It is clear that Islam is a threat to global stability, but as long as Europe and America are languishing under the rule of political correctness and other such tripe, nothing will be done on the basis that it would be intolerant, or immoral. Now while I think religious discrimination is immoral, self preservation is not, and therein the issue lies, not in our refusal to see Islam as a danger or a threat, but in our refusal to value (and therefore defend) our own institutions, for which Islam does not care. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and so on. Even less militant forms of Islam are not compatible with such Western institutions.

Quote from dad_savage

I see what you're saying TOO but the accounts of the prophets life and his views, like the Hadiths, his 'story,' in essence; all recorded in Arabic. Linguistically speaking it is an ambiguous language and the Muslim holy texts especially (lacking certain devices which make the meanings more clear) are very much open to personal interpretation. This is why you can have one Muslim who leads a normal, well adjusted life in a modern Western country and another who lives in a cave and shoots at people all day, both of whom follow the same book, the same man's example, and both of whom claim to be acting in concert with the advice given by said book / man, both of whom claim the other is failing to understand the true meaning of the faith. Of course this also occurs with other religions, but it is especially prevalent among Muslims, and especially Middle Eastern Muslims due to the incongruity and ambiguous quality of the language of their holy texts.

This is simply incorrect though. Moderate Muslims do not refrain from violent acts because they interpret the Qur'an or the Hadith differently to the Jihadists, they do so either because they are ignorant of what Islam truly teaches, or because they made a conscious decision to not engage in the violence which their religion demands (either out of a lack of committment to the faith or because they cannot stomach it or for some other reason).

Islam is really very clear on what is expected. There is not some way of interpreting the Arabic that will make it a peaceful religion, even if there was, such an interpretation would be belied by the actions of the prophet, and by his immediate successors.

The degree to which any Muslim is peaceful is the degree either to which he does not take his religion seriously or to which he is engaging in al'taqiyya ie concealing his true intentions until the tide turns and it is Muslims who have the upper hand (more Islamic immigrants, further decay of western societies etc) at which point violent Jihad will be resumed. Most seemingly moderate Muslims obviously fit into the first category, but I have absolutely no confidence that, should the time come when Jihad is openly resmed (possibly in part by those Muslims already here) that these will put up anything more than the most token protest.

This is why, for example, when some cartoons are drawn of Mohammed and printed in newspapers, Muslims complain that their religion is being profaned, there are riots and people die, yet when terrorists murder civilians, what happens? Is there even a fraction of the outrage? For all their pretty talk that such acts go against the teachings of Islam and are an affront to their religion is there even a fraction of the outrage? Of course not, they just mumble some excuses and whine about ''Islamophobia''. This is because even the moderates know that terrorists acts do not go against the teachings of Islam, that terrorist violence is legitimate Jihad waged against unbelievers in accordance with the teachings of the prophet and is totally sanctioned by their religion. That is why they say nothing.

I see little point arguing further with you TOO. No offence, but you're simply not accepting my idea because it is not in fitting with your ideas about Islam. Now while it's fair enough for you to have your ideas, and I'm sure they come from good scholarship and you've researched them well (you talk about these things with a level of confidence and understanding, you obviously know the subject) you don't seem to be making the same allowance in regards to my points. Something is obviously amiss; either you, or I have been exposed to scholarship which is not being wholly honest since our points seem to be mutually exclusive, and yet different sources for each point will affirm their supposed basis in fact. My information about the ambiguous quality of the Arabic language, particularly in regards to Muslim holy works, comes primarily from Christopher Hitchens; he is a famous anti-religion campaigner who especially dislikes the three 'great monotheisms' Christianity, Judaism and Islam, so from a professional and academic standpoint it is unlikely he has personal reasons for wanting to make Islam out to seem better than it is. The point he makes in regards to this ambiguity is actually a negative one in regards to Islam (evidence of it's man-made origins) in that it makes no sense for Allah to have created books which are supposed to be the final revelation, and incontrovertible, absolute truth in a language that is so ambiguous, and further to be lacking certain linguistic devices to make it's message apparent and not open to different interpretation, but I suppose this is an aside, regardless. It is clear we're unlikely to reach an agreement, as we both appear to hold contradictory views; at first perhaps thinking them misunderstood it appears we have both attempted to clarify out points, yet done nothing to sway the other. I have of course made a final attempt to clarify my point, as well as to reach the source of our disagreement. Naturally, I doubt you will come around to this, you might not even agree with my analysis of how and why we are disagreeing, but since I will only become frustrated if I continue to engage in this unresolvable dispute, I shall withdraw.

It has been interesting. I won't say it hasn't, and you have given me some things to think over. I will endeavour to do more research on my own view to confirm its veracity, as well as seeking out some scholarship which agrees with your attitudes to see what has made you come to the conclusion you have and examine its veracity also. Still, one positive thing is that we both do see and understand that Islam is a problematic issue, one being roundly ignored by those in authority, and that a firm policy needs to be created in order to deal with it; I think if we are in agreement in regards to that, the most important element, we need not quibble over the details.

Edit - If you're interested in finding out about Christopher Hitchens, his views and so on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Work (don't worry about the use of Wiki; I know they're prone to liberal bias but this article is ok)

You are correct about the Arabic, it just makes little difference. The earliest Qur'ans are written in a form of Arabic that does not have those dots they use above ther letters to denote vowels, making the whole thing very vague as you say. Still, like I said, the actions of the prophet have had real, measurable affects that you can see. That Mohammed was a warlord is simply a fact, that his Caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali made sweaping, brutal conquests is similarly simply a fact. The actions of the prophet and the men near him simply confirm the violent form of Islam as the correct one.

If you only had to deal with the Qur'an, it might be possible to go back to the early Qur'an and reinterpret it to be peaceful. It would require extremely selective reading and twisting of the actual message. Like I said the original Arabic doesn't have vowel pointers, but if language is that open to interpretation then it wouldn't function as a means of communication. Make no mistake, even in the very crude Arabic of the early Qur'an, the Qur'an remains a book instructing violent conquest of the world.

The thing is though it isnt just the Qur'an you would have to rewrite the history of the prophet and of the ''rightly guided'' Caliphs. You just arent ever going to rewrite history to make Mohammed a peaceful and good man, and you arent going to manage to convince the Muslim population that some new, peaceful interpretation of the Qur'an, filled with inconsistences, omissions, and distortions as such a thing would inevitably be, is the correct one and they should accept it. Those Muslims who want to live by the true Islam would still have their justfication and their instruction, they would still have the obviously correct interpretation of the Qur'an as abook instructing world conquest on their side, they would still have the entirity of Islamic history on their side, they would still know they were following the example of the prophet Mohammed.


And by the way I know who Christopher Hitchens is, though in my opinion Peter Hitchens is the better Hitchens brother.

All good points. I have always understood however that more moderate Muslims view the actions of Muhammad and the other early pillars of Islam as being founded upon a less advanced moral zeitgeist; that the need to fight and struggle (Jihad) is still the central and most important element of their Religion, but that the only acceptable form of struggle is the 'struggle against self,' if some people can come around to this way of thinking, why not many? I don’t know. Of course, I’ve not met every Islamic person and I know that in some countries this kind of attitude would be impossible, but I see that as a problem with those countries and not with the faith itself. Still, as I have said, Islam remains a problem; even if looked at via my more generous interpretation.

Quote from dad_savage

All good points. I have always understood however that more moderate Muslims view the actions of Muhammad and the other early pillars of Islam as being founded upon a less advanced moral zeitgeist; that the need to fight and struggle (Jihad) is still the central and most important element of their Religion, but that the only acceptable form of struggle is the 'struggle against self,' if some people can come around to this way of thinking, why not many? I don’t know. Of course, I’ve not met every Islamic person and I know that in some countries this kind of attitude would be impossible, but I see that as a problem with those countries and not with the faith itself. Still, as I have said, Islam remains a problem; even if looked at via my more generous interpretation.

Yeah, so in other words they reject the foundational premise of Islam.

Anyone who actually takes the religion seriously is dangerous however. You could have people identifying themselves as Nazis it wouldn't be a problem as long as they didn't actually do any of the stuff that Nazism was about, in other words, if they viewed their affiliation basically as a joke of some sort. That does not change the fact that Nazism is a diseased and dangerous ideology.

As I've said I don't really see it that way.

Well, all I can say then is watch this space.

Over the next couple of decades, maybe sooner, things are going to get extremely unpleasant over here.

Oh, I don't doubt that, TOO, I don't doubt it at all. Even if Islam did, as I believe, have the potential to become moderate very little is being done to promote that transformation; it's certainly not going to occur if the West simply sit back and ignore the problem, which is precisely what they're doing.

These who are God's people, christain, muslim or jew will be saved because they have lived as God,Yaway, Alha the God of gods told his people to live and that way of living is based on respect and love for God and love for one another, doesn't matter who you are so long as you living a loving, Godly(respectful life to God and others) you will be saved or so it seems to me to put it simpley Good people will be saved and rewarded for their good and evil people will be damned and punished for their evil.
Does that make any sense to you all?