Soldier Uses Quran for Target Practice

[Corinthian]

I reject Pacifism in any case, because I feel it's better to actively fight evil instead of sitting on your bums just to hold your perspective of the moral high ground.

[Totenkopf]

Yeash, kinda hard to prattle on about your virtues when you're rotting under ground (or above it for that matter).

[Salzella]

Soooo the guy's job is to kill people. Yet you are somehow more upset about him shooting a book?

Don't put words in my mouth please...

 

I meant in fact, that taking into account the religious extremism involved with this war, then shooting up a religious icon is incredibly stupid, when it is obvious and inevitable that the aforementioned extremists will seize upon it and use it as a symbol.

 

Is that OK?

[*Don*]

They call themselves a religion of peace while members are blowing up the sides of streets doing their best to kill American soldiers. Let's not mention such gems of lines as "Kill the enemy where you find him" where, regardless of context, is obviously not exactly advocating turning the other cheek.

 

Ok, be real for a second.

The Quran is just a convenient excuse for radicals to carry out their missions.

They take its words out of context and use it to justify their actions.

The reason why they blow up the sides of the streets is because their country is being occupied. Hell, if America was taken over by a foreign country, I guarantee you that its citizens would act similarly.

I hate it when people ignorantly claim that the Islam isn't peaceful. The deluded radicals that you see on TV aren't real muslims. If you want to see real muslims who abide by the Quran's laws, take a look at Sufis. They're the one group that basically follow the Quran down to the letter.

 

I meant in fact, that taking into account the religious extremism involved with this war, then shooting up a religious icon is incredibly stupid, when it is obvious and inevitable that the aforementioned extremists will seize upon it and use it as a symbol.

 

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Achilles]

The Quran is just a convenient excuse for radicals to carry out their missions.

In your opinion.

They take its words out of context and use it to justify their actions.

What context should they be taking the words in? One of your choosing?

The reason why they blow up the sides of the streets is because their country is being occupied. Hell, if America was taken over by a foreign country, I guarantee you that its citizens would act similarly.

Indeed, but you cannot blame the occupation alone. The causal relationship is with the culture (as evidenced by the fact that we do not have buddhist suicide bombers in Tibet blowing up Chinese occupiers in marketplaces, etc).

I hate it when people ignorantly claim that the Islam isn't peaceful.

How about when people ignorantly claim that it is?

The deluded radicals that you see on TV aren't real muslims.

Says you.

If you want to see real muslims who abide by the Quran's laws, take a look at Sufis.

I'm sure the other interpretations of islam would not appreciate you arbitrarily dismissing their traditions.

They're the one group that basically follow the Quran down to the letter.

Including the parts about killing?

[Corinthian]

Aren't deluded radicals usually in the minority anyway?

[*Don*]

What context should they be taking the words in? One of your choosing?

 

Not necessarily. Many of the passages that talk about violence talk about it in metaphorical senses. At the same time, there are some passages that promote outright violence (self defense, etc).

 

Indeed, but you cannot blame the occupation alone. The causal relationship is with the culture (as evidenced by the fact that we do not have buddhist suicide bombers in Tibet blowing up Chinese occupiers in marketplaces, etc).

 

I agree with you to a certain degree. Islam it self started out as a peaceful religion that had to resort to violence to survive (as seen when the Muhammed and his followers were kicked out of Mecca by the Idolators). Hence, when you say that the culture is partly responsible, I would have to agree. The part about buddhists suicide bombers is different because Buddhism never had to resort to violence when the Buddha was alive so there was no precedent for them to follow.

 

How about when people ignorantly claim that it is?

 

That annoys me too. Don't get me wrong, I never said that Islam is 100% the religion of peace that it claims to be, but at the same time, it isn't 100% violence as it is made out to be. You probably think that I'm being hypocritical, but in reality, I'm just in the middle.

 

Says you.

 

Well, when you look at it from a technical viewpoint, the radicals who kill innocent women and children and neglect to follwo the basics of Islam can't really be called real muslims. Just because they chant "Allah Akbar" doesn't make them real muslims.

 

I'm sure the other interpretations of islam would not appreciate you arbitrarily dismissing their traditions.

 

They probably wouldn't. The only reason why I mentioned Sufis was because they're the only group that doesn't have a track record of suicide bombers to their name.

 

Including the parts about killing?

 

From my recollection, Sufis have never been threatened to the point where they would resort to killing. There is a great concentration of Sufis in Pakistan where I know that they are considered a peaceful community.

 

PS - Did I cherry pick any question this time?

[Corinthian]

So what's the dividing line between being a Real Muslim and a Wannabe Muslim?

[*Don*]

So what's the dividing line between being a Real Muslim and a Wannabe Muslim?

 

Well put it this way.

Suicide bombers are "wannabe muslims"

 

The topic of Suicide itself is considered a taboo in Islam (an act that will not get you into heaven). Osama and other radicals try to justify their actions by saying that when you commit suicide for the sake of Allah, you will be taken into heaven and given your 72 virgins.

 

Other than that, I really can't draw a line between real muslims and fake radicals. Historical events and politics have muddled that line so much that its barely recognizable these days.

[Achilles]

Not necessarily. Many of the passages that talk about violence talk about it in metaphorical senses. At the same time, there are some passages that promote outright violence (self defense, etc).

This doesn't answer the question. What context should they be using? What objective arguments can you present that show that the context they are using is incorrect?

 

The downside to having something that is open to interpretation is that you can have lots of very different interpretations and it's very difficult to argue that some are more correct than others.

 

I agree with you to a certain degree. Islam it self started out as a peaceful religion that had to resort to violence to survive (as seen when the Muhammed and his followers were kicked out of Mecca by the Idolators). Hence, when you say that the culture is partly responsible, I would have to agree. The part about buddhists suicide bombers is different because Buddhism never had to resort to violence when the Buddha was alive so there was no precedent for them to follow.

Technically, buddha is always alive, right? I mean the dalai lama is the reincarnation of buddha, therefore buddha is always among us.

 

But let's put that aside and simply look at the history. When the Chinese moved into Tibet causing the eventual exodus, the buddhists didn't resort to violence. (The original) buddha did not need to be alive in order for them to make this decision; their culture was one of non-violence, therefore no violence took place.

 

Now if you're arguing that muhammed started out wanting things to be non-violent, but then was forced by circumstance to change his story, I think you could look to what happened in Tibet and see that if he was truly committed to non-violence, he could have made better choices.

 

That annoys me too. Don't get me wrong, I never said that Islam is 100% the religion of peace that it claims to be, but at the same time, it isn't 100% violence as it is made out to be. You probably think that I'm being hypocritical, but in reality, I'm just in the middle.

No, I don't think you're being hypocritical

 

I think the problem is that we have a system of belief that says many things. The difficulty comes when someone or some group wants to argue that it only says one thing or favors one view over another. In my mind the best course of action is to call it for what it is (i.e. "a mess") and look for a better way. Otherwise you might find yourself defending a position that is undefendable.

 

Well, when you look at it from a technical viewpoint, the radicals who kill innocent women and children and neglect to follwo the basics of Islam can't really be called real muslims. Just because they chant "Allah Akbar" doesn't make them real muslims.

Again this what happens when you have "rules" that contradict or can be interpreted to contradict each other.

 

The other thing to remember is that it's not your interpretation of islam that will provide context for their actions, but theirs.

 

They probably wouldn't. The only reason why I mentioned Sufis was because they're the only group that doesn't have a track record of suicide bombers to their name.

 

From my recollection, Sufis have never been threatened to the point where they would resort to killing. There is a great concentration of Sufis in Pakistan where I know that they are considered a peaceful community.

That's good, but some might argue that by not heeding the call to jihad, they aren't fulfilling their duty to allah and therefore not "real muslims".

 

PS - Did I cherry pick any question this time?

Nope, not at all! Thanks for your reply.

[Corinthian]

Don, why is your interpretation of the Qur'an more valid than, say, Bin Laden's interpretation of the Qur'an?

[nine.roses]

Whether Islam is or is not a wholesome religion of love and tolerance is not the point.

 

Imposing our supposedly rational views from the safety of our offices and laptops on an alien culture and saying "like it or lump it" because Americans have a constitutional right to blow elements of culture to pieces really does not solve any problems. What kind of image would America broadcast to the world if they openly allowed such activities in the country of their Muslim hosts because American ideals of freedom are apparently logically superior?

 

Quite frankly America has a lot to do to improve their global reputation before they can feel able to dictate Muslims their values. Whether or not Islam is a "religion of peace", America first has to demonstrate that it is a "nation of peace". Promoting good over evil is not smacking a nation around the head with a big stick and yelling "Democracy!! Secularisation!!" until it stops being evil.

 

Corinthian, true pacifism isn't sitting on your arse twiddling your thumbs and going "oh go on, hit me if you fancy because I've got the moral high ground" to the aggressive bunch. Peace can only truly be promoted if you're able to sympathise with the aggressors rather than condemn, sincerely praise their good qualities and every positive advance they make, and listen attentively until your former opponent realises that you're not trying to knock him down. Actively fighting for peace will only create resentment amongst people, who will only come back and show you their own brand of "peace".

[Achilles]

Whether Islam is or is not a wholesome religion of love and tolerance is not the point.

Sure it is. If islam is a religion of peace, then there would be no reason to fear repercussions for the sniper's actions, therefore he would not have endangered his fellow american's lives, and therefore would not have needed to have been punished (assuming that was the rational for his punishment).

 

Imposing our supposedly rational views from the safety of our offices and laptops on an alien culture...

Assumption 1: there is no objective basis for rational behavior.

 

...and saying "like it or lump it" because Americans have a constitutional right to blow elements of culture to pieces really does not solve any problems.

Assumption 2: the arguments presented here are predicated entirely upon an American set of laws and ideals (nevermind that the concept of personal property was introduced by Adam Smith, a Scottish economist).

 

Quite frankly America has a lot to do to improve their global reputation before they can feel able to dictate Muslims their values.

I don't agree that we should be dictating values to anyone regardless of the state of our reputation (not the same as calling people on their BS though).

 

Whether or not Islam is a "religion of peace", America first has to demonstrate that it is a "nation of peace".

Why?

 

Promoting good over evil is not smacking a nation around the head with a big stick and yelling "Democracy!! Secularisation!!" until it stops being evil.

Assumption 3: we are actually there to fight against "evil" and promote democracy.

 

Also, if islam was already good, why would we need to go there to promote it?

[*Don*]

Don, why is your interpretation of the Qur'an more valid than, say, Bin Laden's interpretation of the Qur'an?

 

Ok, after reading this whole thread twice, here's the conclusion that I came up with in my mind.

 

There are different interpretations of the Quran. In the beginning, the interpretation that was most generally accepted was deemed as the "valid interpretation". Thats why, for many years, Islam was considered as the religion of peace because the "peaceful interpretation" was generally accepted.

 

Now what has happened is that radicals and peaceful Islamist are pretty much equally numbered. The "violent interpretation" has nearly enough followers as the "peaceful interpretation". This stalemate is why Islam's peacefullness has come into question.

 

Therefore, when you ask why my interpretation is more valid than Bin Laden's interpretation, I can't really give a concrete reason since both interpretations have nearly equal followers.

 

Hence, to sum it up I can only use what Achilles said:

 

In my mind the best course of action is to call it for what it is (i.e. "a mess") and look for a better way.

[nine.roses]

Sure it is. If islam is a religion of peace, then there would be no reason to fear repercussions for the sniper's actions, therefore he would not have endangered his fellow american's lives, and therefore would not have needed to have been punished (assuming that was the rational for his punishment).

 

And I suppose judging them and condemning them will help us at all?

 

Assumption 1: there is no objective basis for rational behavior.

 

I have no quarrel with your point. Nevertheless, however true our claims may be, from the Muslim point of view "apparently" and "says you" will always feature.

 

Assumption 2: the arguments presented here are predicated entirely upon an American set of laws and ideals (nevermind that the concept of personal property was introduced by Adam Smith, a Scottish economist).

 

I don't understand - the soldier did it because he thought he had a right to (never mind whether it was an American right) and people are saying "if they don't like it they can go hang". Where's my assumption and error, or am I lacking lucidity in my tone (I assume this is so, and that you are as confused as I am!)? Personal property or not, he's destroying an element of local culture.

 

I don't agree that we should be dictating values to anyone regardless of the state of our reputation (not the same as calling people on their BS though).

 

Well, it's good we agree, and it's good that the US military took steps to apologise.

 

Why?

 

Because right now Iraqis are becoming ever more disillusioned with the occupying forces. It's time to set an example.

 

Assumption 3: we are actually there to fight against "evil" and promote democracy. Also, if islam was already good, why would we need to go there to promote it?

 

Wasn't that the mission statement? Anyway, that was in semi-response to Corinthian and should really be connected to my pacifism statement. In any case, my post should've been better phrased and put into the context of this argument. I suppose it's not really clear what I'm arguing about, is it?

 

Heh. I'll try again tomorrow when I'm awake.

[Achilles]

And I suppose judging them and condemning them will help us at all?

Not sure where "judging" and "condemning" come in.

 

I have no quarrel with your point. Nevertheless, however true our claims may be, from the Muslim point of view "apparently" and "says you" will always feature.

And they would be entitled to those views. It wouldn't make them "correct" or rational though. Hence the whole sticking point of validating these ideas by playing into their drama.

 

I don't understand - the soldier did it because he thought he had a right to (never mind whether it was an American right) and people are saying "if they don't like it they can go hang". Where's my assumption and error, or am I lacking lucidity in my tone (I assume this is so, and that you are as confused as I am!)? Personal property or not, he's destroying an element of local culture.

Your earlier comments seemed to suggest that you thought this was a matter of American ideology vs. islamic ideology. My point was that the concept of private property is not uniquely American.

 

As far as the destruction of local culture, I am literally outraged by the looting of museums, destruction of historic sites, etc that has taken place there. I will not however care one iota that a copy of a common book was shot with a bullet. There is a supportable argument for the value of the former that does not exist for the latter.

 

(Caveat: if we found out that the qu'ran that he shot was a historic artifact, I would actually change my position and call for harsher punishment).

 

Well, it's good we agree, and it's good that the US military took steps to apologise.

We may agree that the U.S. should not be dictating values, however I do not agree that we should have apologized. With my typical lack of reverence, I think our response should have been something along the lines of "And?".

 

Because right now Iraqis are becoming ever more disillusioned with the occupying forces. It's time to set an example.

Yeah, the "hearts and minds" thing didn't work so well, huh? "Shock and awe" did okay.

 

The fact is that we aren't a nation of peace (we've been involved in how many conflicts in our 232 year history?). Even if we were to make a claim to that effect (a claim that I don't imagine anyone would take seriously), our hypocrisy is completely separate from theirs. Therefore, I don't agree that we need to become an example of a peaceful nation in order to acknowledge/call out their violent ideology.

 

Wasn't that the mission statement?

I'm sure it may have been one of them. Between the WMD's, the links to al-Qaeda, punishing Saddam for using chemical weapons on his own people more than a decade earlier, etc, I kinda gave up on keeping track of "our reason for being there du jour".

 

Heh. I'll try again tomorrow when I'm awake.

Rest well. Thank for your response.

[mimartin]

I'm sure it may have been one of them. Between the WMD's, the links to al-Qaeda, punishing Saddam for using chemical weapons on his own people more than a decade earlier, etc, I kinda gave up on keeping track of "our reason for being there du jour".

Wait, I thought the mission was to make Halliburton loads of money. Mission successful, we can bring all the troops home.

[Achilles]

Not so fast. They don't have all of it yet.

[Totenkopf]

Not to worry, that's what Iran is for, right?

[Darth InSidious]

"We'll meet again..."