Pregnant doctor to be hanged for being a Christian in Sudan

Frank Grimes wrote: »

How can there be dialogue with 'Islam' exactly?

That is exactly the problem that Mohamed's contemporaries had. I wonder what happened to them?

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I'm not talking about historical events and neither is that poster.

Indeed not but how does the saying go...

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Edmund Burke

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Quoting Edmund Burke doesn't address the question I asked the other poster, but I realise that isn't your intention.

You are sadly mistaken. It was entirely my intention to provide an answer your question. I apologise for the answer being too subtle.

You asked how can one have a dialogue with Islam. History of the time of Mohamed shows that his neighbours had dialogs with him and occasionally survived the experience, well for a time.

So my first post was simply a pointer to how Mohamed and his neighbours got on.

My second was to point out that your dismissive post ignoring history was likely somewhat misplaced.

I hope that helps.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

...You didn't answer my question...

Actually I did... you just have to sit and think about it for a bit. Reading about the life and times of Mohamed might be a good place to start. If you do then you should find that your question is answered.

Whilst you are doing that keep the Shahada in mind (short form)

There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah

Frank Grimes wrote: »

You haven't answered it.

I have, and nowhere in there will it tell you how to have a dialogue with 'Islam'.

If you did then you clearly did not understand what you read. Ask yourself how Mohamed dealt with his neighbours. What treaties and undertakings he gave to them and those he conquered. What he subsequently did. How he behaved towards them. Then ask yourself what sort of dialogue his neighbours managed to have.

And remember always that

There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah

The answer has always been there in front of you if you care to look. I have neither the time nor the inclination to spoon feed you further as I suspect your apparent lack of understanding is simply a deliberate attempt to be provocative.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

None of which answers the question how do you have a dialogue with 'Islam'.

I cannot believe you are that stupid so I have to accept that you are just being bloody minded for the sake of it at which point further discourse is pointless.

Bellatori wrote: »

I note you ignored the point about jihad and those who were blind, lame or sick being exempted from jihad. Why are they not allowed spiritual struggle? Unless, of course, it does not mean spiritual but physical then the matter becomes clear.

I adequately addressed it, but I'll elaborate some more. Given that the verse in question relates to a period in the Prophet's (peace be upon him) life when fighting was imminent, the verse clarifies that the blind, lame and sick are exempt from fighting. The word "Jihad" itself does not appear in that passage at all, so I'm not sure why you are using that verse to define it. "Tuqatilunahum" appears in the verse before it (48:16), and that translates as "you will fight them". Even if "Jihad" did appear in that passage, it would still not preclude other meanings for the same word to be used in different contexts, because again, the context of this verse is specifically during a time of fighting. Being exempt from a fighting variety of Jihad does not mean people are exempt from the spiritual variety of Jihad. We don't reserve usage of the english equivalent "struggle" for only when it relates to fighting, and the same goes for Jihad.

Bellatori wrote: »

I could pick apart your Quran quotes like and old cardigan but rather than that I would point you to the first two lines that Bassam Zawadi writes in his justification for murdering apostates.

"There seems to be a problem with many "modernist and liberal" Muslims out there who would like to "sugarcoat" the religion of Islam by distorting what it really teaches."

The OP asks a valid question. The answers try and pass it off as a one off but the fact is that, in spite of protestations to the contrary, there is good evidence that mainstream Islamic thinking concurs with draconian punishments. In how many Islamic countries (there are about 57 I believe) would the thought crime of apostasy NOT be punished?

What Islam "really teaches" comes from the Quran. There is no verse in the Quran that specifically teaches that the punishment for apostasy is death. Mainstream Islamic thinking today could well be wrong in their interpretations of Islamic texts, and a substantial proportion of modern scholars certainly think so. The relevant Hadiths that are used to support capital punishment go back to the early days of Islam, when early Muslims were in battle with neighbouring tribes. Back in those times, apostasy was often associated with treason - people changing their allegiances and turning on their community, and capital punishment was applicable in those cases. The problem lies in differentiating simple apostasy from apostasy associated with treason.

The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state. This distinction was not made by early scholars, and once it became the status quo, there has been resistance to even consider an alternative - with some modern day scholars dismissing such suggestions as "The West telling us what to do", but that's no excuse to not even look at the issue. Hopefully the tide will turn in time.

Bellatori wrote: »

Those in western society have a real issue because the society in which they live is essentially tolerant and most Muslims want to live in harmony with their neighbours. Certainly mine do. But it leaves them conflicted in three areas
Women's Rights
Gay Rights
Human Rights.

I'm not in any conflict regarding women's or human rights, and living in harmony with your neighbour is a concept which is strongly encouraged in Islam. Gay rights also isn't an issue which leaves me in "any conflict". The Islamic stance (in keeping with the Christian and Jewish positions) is clear that homosexual relationships are forbidden. But that relationship is only one part of who a person is, and in the same way I don't have any problems getting along with people who do other things Islam forbids, e.g. people who eat bacon, or drink alcohol or have pre-marital relationships, I'm not in any conflict when I interact with people who are gay, and nor are many Irish Christians living in western society.

Bellatori wrote: »

It does strike me that there is one unifying argument that seems to arise when there is some criticism of Islam. It doesn't matter whether it is terrorism, this type of brutality, the abuse of girls in Bradford and Oxford, Malalah being shot - the response that comes back is always of the 'No True Scotsman' type

Talk about going to town on all the stereotypes. Terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians has no place in Islam - I've said it time and time again on this forum that Muslims who commit these atrocities do so as part of various ongoing political conflicts. I can't believe you're bringing up the abuse of girls in Bradford and Oxford as an example of what Islam teaches - There are 1 billion+ Muslims in the world, who, like any other religion/population/race on the planet (as I keep repeating) have a lot of very good people, a lot of very bad people and many many in between. There is no crime in the world that a Muslim person has not committed - but it doesn't for a second reflect on Islam if what they are doing goes against what Islam itself teaches. Same goes for Malala - she herself spends her time talking about what the Quran actually teaches, as opposed to what the likes of Boko Haram are doing.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Please keep it civil. Calling somebody stupid is not civil. You have been warned before, you won't be warned again.

I apologise. You are quite correct. Even if I did not actually call him stupid it was, as you point out, uncivil.

I am very busy for the next few days but I will reply to the points made by confused and Frank, hopefully at the weekend.

However, Frank, please accept my sincere apologies. It was, as Tom pointed out, rude and incivility is no substitute for argument.

PART 2
Which brings me to the second list which is where the other <20% of the muslim population live.
India 177,286,000
China 23,308,000
Russia 16,379,000
Tanzania 13,450,000
Ivory Coast 7,960,000
Philippines 4,737,000
France 4,704,000
Uganda 4,060,000
Thailand 3,952,000
Ghana 3,906,000
Cameroon 3,598,000
Germany 4,119,000
United Kingdom 2,869,000
Kenya 2,868,000
Italy 1,583,000
United States 2,595,000
Spain 1,021,000
Bulgaria 1,002,000
Argentina 1,000,000
Congo 969,000
Canada 940,000
Netherlands 914,000
Mozambique 5,340,000
Bosnia-Herzegovina 1,564,000
Israel 1,287,000
Nepal 1,253,000
Ireland 43,000


I suppose one might say that as a minority population they have to toe the line. At least you might think so. However even in the UK there is now an issue with sharia courts. Whilst they have no legal standing it would be worth reading this article PARTICULARLY the commentary at the bottom and it is quite clear to some that the Law Society has gone well beyond its remit.

Why should a Muslim man get married in the UK? The BBC documentary shows why he should not. He is much better of just having a nikah contract.

Muslim women are having their protections in UK law eroded. The first list is not a good place for women but you would have thought that here muslim women would be safer.

Moving on, I noted the comment

The main problem here is with the cowboys who currently are for the most part in charge of Islamic countries. Most Islamic countries are fascist dictatorships and that's the problem. We often perceive it as being Islam's fault whereas the problem lies with fascism and Islamic Fascism is the same as any other form: brutal, intolerant, racist and superior in attitude.

If this is true one would have to ask why the apparent correlation between 'fascism' and Islam. Do authoritarian religions encourage authoritarian rulers? One might say that the history of christianity suggests that might be true...

This brings me to a bit of history. The Roman Empire grew by a repeated cycle. Fight and conquer your neighbours, make treaties with the new ones, regroup and rearm... repeat as necessary. It is a great plan and has worked for most empire builders from historical times through to more recent ones. It is how the white settlers became the USA, how the British got there empire and most kings in the middle ages did exactly the same. Make peace until the time for betrayal arises. You don't build an empire if you sit at home. In that respect, Mohamed was no different. It is like using a mangle... wring, rinse, repeat (the three Rs!). That way you grind up your enemies. Any attempt (Quran or otherwise) to pretend that he was an eternal victim of the attacks of others is simply an airbrushing of history. http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm is quite an admiring portrait of a skilled self taught military leader but he started out as a bandit raiding caravans.

So what happened to his neighbours? They were one by one conquered by a very able general. They became dar-Islam and once that happens they can never be anything else. Were you to try then every muslim is obliged to rise up and attack you. Every bit they nibble is dar-Islam. No going back. You could, of course, make a treaty - have a dialogue - with Islam and Islamic neighbours but then remember Mohamed and his neighbours. the Meccans. WRING, RINSE, REPEAT...

Bellatori wrote: »

Bassam Zawadi, whom I quoted, is a 'scholar' who frequently publishes on Islamic matters and would not, within the Islamic world be considered an extremist and clearly takes a contrary view to confused.

To which I'll repeat - Mainstream Islamic thinking today could well be wrong in their interpretations of Islamic texts, and a substantial proportion of modern scholars certainly think so.

Bellatori wrote: »

Perhaps a slightly different look at the issue might help. Ignore the argument as to whether confused is right or wrong. In fact let us take it as a given that confused is right. How does that help?

It helps to gradually turn the tide if more and more people adopt that opinion.

Bellatori wrote: »

Consider the following list. It contains nearly all the countries where Islam predominates. (Taken from Pew Research). I raised the point about apostasy to which I would also add gay rights. In which of the countries listed would you expect to be treated with 'dignity' if you were openly gay or renounced Islam (please note that for Nigeria I am assuming that you live in one of the Islamic controlled states).

"Expect to be treated with dignity" is not an easy thing to measure or obtain information on. Regarding apostasy, the following countries from your list don't have any laws against apostasy at government level, also from Pews Research.

Country 2,010
Bangladesh 148,607,000
Turkey 74660000
Algeria 34780000
Morocco 32381000
Ethiopia 28721000
Uzbekistan 26833000
Niger 15627000
Senegal 12333000
Mali 12316000
Tunisia 10349000
Burkina Faso 9600000
Kazakhstan 8887000
Azerbaijan 8795000
Guinea 8693000
Tajikistan 7006000
Libya 6325000
Kyrgyzstan 4927000
Turkmenistan 4830000
Palestinian territories 4298000
Sierra Leone 4171000
Albania 2601000
Lebanon 2542000
Kosovo 2104000
Eritrea 1909000
Gambia 1669000
Djibouti 853000
Western Sahara 528000
Brunei 211000
Mayotte 197000
Chad 6,404,000

Bellatori wrote: »

My point is simple. Quixotically, it doesn't matter whether confused is right or wrong about his interpretation of the Quran (I personally think he is wrong but this article would support him) or, for that matter how he gets along with gays or treats women, the 80% rest of the Islamic world acts as though he is wrong.

Of course it matters if an interpretation of the Quran is right or wrong. If a country punishes an apostate based on a wrong interpretation of the Quran, then it's not Islam that's at fault for it - the fault is with the followers and not the religion itself.

The interpretations I mentioned are specifically regarding the issue of apostasy, which has been the main topic of this thread. You initially brought up women's rights and gay rights as real issues for Muslims specifically living in the west. I'm still not sure how I'm supposed to be conflicted regarding these in my everyday life?