Another terrorist attack by so called peacefulls

[Mariyam]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

its not about who knows more, its about representation. Those who are more active, will always be more representational than those who are inactive - not just for religion but in ANY ideology.Its a pretty simple concept, really.

I do not follow. Those who go about their life, doing their daily chores and leading their daily lives coexisting  thriving in a multicultural multi-ethnic multilingual society are also representing their belief system and way of life. That doesn't make them inactive.

Yet these people aren't representatives of their way of life, but the nutters are?

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

I do not follow. Those who go about their life, doing their daily chores and leading their daily lives coexisting  thriving in a multicultural multi-ethnic multilingual society are also representing their belief system and way of life. That doesn't make them inactive.

Yet these people aren't representatives of their way of life, but the nutters are?

In this case (with Islam), yes. But its not about nutters per-se. 

The simple reality of life, is that reputations and general idea of anything, is formed via visible advertisement. Hinduism's image is not formed by hundreds of millions of irreverant hindus (outside of religious days or television entertainment fixations) doing their day to day lives. 
Its formed by what is visible of it - which is nuclear families++ going to temples, puja days + babajis in Gangotri or babajis in front of mics after getting off of a mercedes or nowadays, crazy ultra-cow-worshipping ministers. 

 

Similarly, that of Islam, is 'alalalalal BOOM'. 

 

The world of impression & reptuation are always driven by those visibly engaging in their declared practices.Aka attention-hogs. This is why the vast majority of religious people think atheists are evil baby-eating blood-ritualistic depraves. Because the visible ones amongst us, are the Marilyn Manson type attention-hogs. 

The attention-hogs of Jews are either openly Jewish billionaires or dudes with beards in all blacks counting beads and telling women what to do and being snooty towards all non-jews. Hence that is the image of Judaism.

For X-tians, its the crazy loud-mouth church going white people/sombre padres and mothers/sisters who are anti-fun and no sense of humor towards anything in life. Hence that is their reputation.

 

With Islam, the simple reality is, Islam is in the news 90% of the time because of something do with either oppressing women, oppressing minorities, putting people in jail for silly belief in sky-Gods or straight up,  continuous streams of blowing people up/committing attrocities in name of Islam. 

Its not an 'evil media conspiraaacy', its what Islam puts out, because THESE ARE THE MUSLIMS who are going ' HEY WORLD, THIS IS ISLAM/THAT IS ISLAM/I AM ISLAMIC'. while people like you are simply flying under the radar and playing no part in shaping the narrative of islam.

 

[Muloghonto]

25 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

I have a genuine question here.

What exactly do you wish the 'moderates' to do? Its not like the likes of ISIS will pay any heed.

Most ISIS victims are Shiite Muslims. You (ie not you per se, but the West) don't buy oil from ISIS. You don't arm them through your proxies in Saudi and UAE. You arm these maniacs (I mean literally, not the global with the dot baba variety) to their teeth, finance them through black market oil and want moderates to chai pe charcha with them?

 

 

 

Reformation of Islam. 

 

Follow history.

 

800 years ago, the overwhelming majority of Christian preachers & clergy were directly asking for genocide in the name of Christ. And they were quite good at it too. 

 

Then protestant reformation happened. Which specifically follow the pathway of ' we do not believe in X practice of the Catholic church, because we do not support Y part of the bible's interpretation/reject the supplementary texts of that topic, hence we are the new Lutheran/Anglican/etc. church'.

 

Islam is screwed, because Islam cannot entertain the idea that it is flawed or there can be room for change. Fostering that attitude is specifically seen as un-islamic. If Muslims care about avoiding a clash with Islam in the long run, the simple reality is, Islam *HAS* to change and Muslims need to investigate the mechanisms of fostering such change. 

 

One thing that Muslims may want to consider, is that the claim 'Koran is unchanged', may not be true according to Islamic history itself : every single school of Islam (hanafi, ibaadi, etc) or sect of it ( even Ahmadiyyas) believe the part of the Sunnah hadiths relating to the fitna wars. Long story short, every muslim accepts the idea that right after Mohammed died, several arab tries broke fealty, then started modifying the Koran according to their whims - which the Caliph Abu Bakr put to a swift end - he re-conquered arabian peninsula (at that time, its the extent of all muslim lands), got every single copy of the Koran collected, met with the Saheba, they all agreed on the original version of Mohammed and then they boiled the rest of the books ( Koran is too highly regard to be burnt, even flawed ones according to those guy apparently, so boiling books seemed legit). 

This narrative, DECISIVELY has room for the idea that 'this is the point where the Koran was changed, to reflect the whims of the Sahiba and enrich themselves in power' and this is how you begin to forment change in Islam. 

 

The contrast with Christianity is, Christianity has always been up-front about power of the clergies and heretical ideologies were NOT heretical because they re-invented/re-interpreted something but because the said re-interpretation fell afoul with the clergy heirarchies. 

[cricketrulez]

On 11/9/2018 at 8:14 AM, cric_fan said:

 

‘My’ homeland is also a victim of terrorism actually. I could be also mistaken for a terrorist & be victim of a hate crime. Or are you ok with that?

 

your "homeland" is not a victim of terrorism. It is the occupational hazard for you country, terrorism being the main export of pakistan

Edited November 11, 2018 by cricketrulez

[bhakum20]

Well it all starts with an abrahamic god who hates unbelievers, so how can you expect this god’s followers to be peaceful. There’s no such thing as ‘moderate muslim’. Either you submit to the will of that god or you don’t.

[cricketrulez]

1 hour ago, bhakum20 said:

Well it all starts with an abrahamic god who hates unbelievers, so how can you expect this god’s followers to be peaceful. There’s no such thing as ‘moderate muslim’. Either you submit to the will of that god or you don’t.

Bingo bingo bingo we have bingo.

[sandeep]

On 11/9/2018 at 1:17 PM, Mariyam said:

I have a genuine question here.

What exactly do you wish the 'moderates' to do? Its not like the likes of ISIS will pay any heed.

Most ISIS victims are Shiite Muslims. You (ie not you per se, but the West) don't buy oil from ISIS. You don't arm them through your proxies in Saudi and UAE. You arm these maniacs (I mean literally, not the global with the dot baba variety) to their teeth, finance them through black market oil and want moderates to chai pe charcha with them?

 

 

 

Its not the job of the muslim "average Joe" (or mariam) - but mainstream muslim organizations need to be a lot more vocal, public and visible in their unambiguous condemnation of the vile acts carried out in the name of their faith.  I'm referring to perception management. Its less of a problem in India, more so in the west.

 

Its a bit anecdotal, but I get the impression that muslim organizations are more active and focused on speaking out against discrimination, and not as vocal about confronting and condemning prejudiced views within their community and at large.  

 

Edit:  I'm not so sure why you are dragging the shiite vs sunni stuff in here.  Or making the strawman argument of doing "chai pe charcha" with ISIS.  I mean come on.  

Edited November 12, 2018 by sandeep

[Mariyam]

@sandeep I had no intention of acting smug. Sorry if I came across that way. Not on such a sensitive topic at least. My post was in the context of this specific incident, wherein the perpetrator was an individual inspired by the ISIS and on the ISIS in general. You mentioned them in your post. My post wasn't in the context of India necessarily.

 

India, has a fair share of Muslim organizations, who have are out spoken about the dangers of Muslim radicalization and taken protest marches against terrorism and religious bigotry. But what exactly is a mainstream Muslim organization? 

 

@Muloghonto As informative as your comparative posts of Christian reformation and Muslim theology is, you haven't quite mentioned how exactly Muslims should reform Islam.

 

And what does this even mean:

Quote

while people like you are simply flying under the radar and playing no part in shaping the narrative of islam.

?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Mariyam

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

 

@Muloghonto As informative as your comparative posts of Christian reformation and Muslim theology is, you haven't quite mentioned how exactly Muslims should reform Islam.

I gave an example - start editing the Koran to modernize it and if someone says Koran is infallible word of God, say ' sure it is, but the Saheba took all the Korans after Mohammed's death and certified this one as the original, destroying all other. So its already tampered with'. 

3 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

And what does this even mean:

?

It means those who shape the narrative, are the ones who are visible/displaying their belief systems. Just like how we dont think about a normal guy, dressed in normal pants and shirts, going to work, watching netflix and cuddling his boyfriend as a 'gay dude' but a dude wearing pink, waving a flag = gay dude. Because the latter dude is being visible, displaying his lifestyle, the former is indistinguishable from the rest. Same with Islam.

[Mariyam]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

I gave an example - start editing the Koran to modernize it and if someone says Koran is infallible word of God, say ' sure it is, but the Saheba took all the Korans after Mohammed's death and certified this one as the original, destroying all other. So its already tampered with'. 

 

As an aside; The guy who tried it was a person called Juhayman Al Otaibi, who even put the Wahabis (he was against the Wahabi ulema) to shame with his radicalism.  So much so that the House of Saud had him executed. Al Otaibi also made the same claims that I've quoted from your post and stormed the Masjid al Haram in Mecca citing that the holy Quran had been tampered with and that he himself was the mahdi. 

 

I guess you already knew about this.

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

As an aside; The guy who tried it was a person called Juhayman Al Otaibi, who even put the Wahabis (he was against the Wahabi ulema) to shame with his radicalism.  So much so that the House of Saud had him executed. Al Otaibi also made the same claims that I've quoted from your post and stormed the Masjid al Haram in Mecca citing that the holy Quran had been tampered with and that he himself was the mahdi. 

 

I guess you already knew about this.

yes. You can try to alter the Koran to make it more modern and serve muslims better in the modern world. Or you can try to alter the Koran for self-aggrandizement and start your own spin-off cult. Given its humans we are talking about, its not surprising that option b) has more takers than option a).

[coffee_rules]

On 11/9/2018 at 1:17 PM, Mariyam said:

I have a genuine question here.

What exactly do you wish the 'moderates' to do? Its not like the likes of ISIS will pay any heed.

Most ISIS victims are Shiite Muslims. You (ie not you per se, but the West) don't buy oil from ISIS. You don't arm them through your proxies in Saudi and UAE. You arm these maniacs (I mean literally, not the global with the dot baba variety) to their teeth, finance them through black market oil and want moderates to chai pe charcha with them?

 

 

 

Are you blaming the west for arming ISIS?