Prominent Islamic scholars distance themselves from 14th century fatwa

[Hax]

Translated by myself from Dutch:


Prominent Islamic scholars distance themselves from fatwa

PARIS - Several important Islamic scholars have stated that a famous medieval fatwa that propogates holy war, can no longer be used in the modern world to justify the killing of opponents.

According to the scholars, who met at an international conference in Turkey, the 14th century religious creed by the scholar Ibn Taymiyya excludes the use of militant violence. They also stated that the medieval, Islamic division of the world into a world of Islam and a house of non-believers is no longer valid.
'Everyone that seeks support in this fatwa to kill muslim or non-muslims is wrong in his interpretation of this fatwa', said the scholars in a declaration concerning Taymiyya's fatwa.
Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, has frequently cited Taymiyya's text to justify the global, holy battle against the United States.

By themselves
'It is not a decision of individual muslims or islamic organisations to declare or join a holy war by themselves,' stated the scholars, meaning that the fatwa they refered to is not fit in a modern world where human rights and freedom of religion is respected.
This statement is one of the many attempts by moderate Islamic scholars to use century-old Islamic texts to battle the arguments of fundamentalist organisations. Last month, a prominent Pakistani scholar presented a 600-page fatwa that was directed against terrorism. Apart from that, recently, there was a fatwa that called for peace in the civil war-ridden Somalia. According to the Islamic scholars, these kinds of statements should stop Muslims from supporting fundamentalists.

Historical context
More than 15 prominent scholars from Kuwait, Iran, Morocco, Indonesia, Saudi-Arabia and other countries were present during the conference. Amongst them were the Bosnian grand mufti Mustafa Ceric and the Yemenite Sheikh Habib Aki [sic, should be Ali] Al-Jifri. Taymiyya's fatwa is often cited by fundamentalists to justify the war against 'non-believers'. According to the 15 scholars, however, his words should be seen in a historical context, when the Mongols invaded islamic lands. They also stated that Islam should be continually re-interpreted because of the continuously changing political circumstances.

Original article in Dutch: here (http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/article1365179.ece/Prominente_moslim-geleerden_nemen_afstand_van_fatwa).

==================================================================================================== ============================================================

I think that this is exactly what the world needs. I think they've done a great job in trying to undermine the basis that the fundamentalist Islamic organisations use. This is excellent news.

[Strike For The South]

Wow, taking a stand against murder and terrorism.

Color me impressed.

[Furunculus]

april fools!

[Fragony]

No april fool's this is real. I will accept any anyone's effort to make something out of this mess from whatever angle, and this appears to be genuine.

[Mooks]

Isnt the religion opposed to stay the same and politics be changing? If your religion is true how can you change it? Changing the truth just doesnt make sense.

[Hax]

Not change religion, but the perception of religion. I think that's what they mean.

[Fragony]

Not change religion, but the perception of religion. I think that's what they mean.

Too late I think, we will never be able to treat the Islamic world equally because it isn't equal by our own standards and never will be, that's the sad truth. Why are you defending them they would cut of your mom's head without feeling anything at all.

[Strike For The South]

Too late I think, we will never be able to treat the Islamic world equally because it isn't equal by our own standards and never will be, that's the sad truth. Why are you defending them they would cut of your mom's head without feeling anything at all.

You assume it has always and will always be this way. History and people are cyclical

[Fragony]

You assume it has always and will always be this way. History and people are cyclical

It is already too late, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AimT4g1_yk&feature=player_embedded <- that, is hostile.

[Strike For The South]

It is already too late, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AimT4g1_yk&feature=player_embedded <- that, is hostile.

Well yes, but how do his kids think?

[al Roumi]

Isnt the religion opposed to stay the same and politics be changing? If your religion is true how can you change it? Changing the truth just doesnt make sense.


Not change religion, but the perception of religion. I think that's what they mean.

Apparently, the Qu'ran says that Islam will be (and should be) re-interpreted and reformed successively throughout the ages.

Frag's, do you really think it's already too late? I mean, I guess you must to say the things you do but if you really believe that you'd be better off living in a cave...

[Lemur]

Fragony, some days you sound like you would really, truly prefer another world war to any sort of rapproachment or understanding between the Muslim world and everybody else. I would argue that co-opting is both less expensive and more efficient than death camps and genocide. Which are the natural extension of your position, if you are truly asserting that Islam is both incompatible with modernity and incapable of change and/or moderation.

Remember your Sun Tzu, O Dutch saber-rattler: "Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fragony, some days you sound like you would really, truly prefer another world war to any sort of rapproachment or understanding between the Muslim world and everybody else. I would argue that co-opting is both less expensive and more efficient than death camps and genocide. Which are the natural extension of your position, if you are truly asserting that Islam is both incompatible with modernity and incapable of change and/or moderation.

Remember your Sun Tzu, O Dutch saber-rattler: "Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

He's seeking clarity in an unclear world, Lemur. The beauty of armed struggle is not its violence, but its lack of ambiguity. "Us or them" ties everything up in a nice neat little package.

[Hax]

Why are you defending them they would cut of your mom's head without feeling anything at all.

Ugh. I wish you'd stop saying such idiotic things. Among "them"(I assume you mean the entire world population of Muslims) there are very, very few people that have an intention of cutting anyone's head off. And don't bloody try and make it personal, whether it's my neighbour, my cat, my mother, or George W. Bush, every kind of killing is horrible and is to be avoided.

[Fragony]

He's seeking clarity in an unclear world, Lemur. The beauty of armed struggle is not its violence, but its lack of ambiguity. "Us or them" ties everything up in a nice neat little package.

I am not that simple. I am not an idiot.

@Hax it is the moderates who have a real problem

[Hax]

@Hax it is the moderates who have a real problem

Okay, now you've just gone inane.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Too late I think, we will never be able to treat the Islamic world equally because it isn't equal by our own standards and never will be,Move over Tel Aviv, the hippest place in the Middle East will always be Beyrouth:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFtNf90xWEo&feature=related


Dubai. The Gulf build more skyscrapers this decade than Western Europe.

https://img62.imageshack.us/img62/3280/dubaij.jpg




The world is changing. It is changing faster than at any time before.

[PanzerJaeger]

Where did Frag say anything about armed conflict or genocide? :dizzy2:

It is quite valid to believe that until Muslim society aligns itself with modern norms, such efforts, while valiant, are ineffectual. Even this feel good story speaks to the problem. In 2010, some Muslim clerics have declared that, yes, in fact, conducting Holy War based on a 14th century fatwa is not appropriate. The fact that they even feel the need to make such a statement highlights the backwards nature of the Islamic world.

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.

[Hax]

The fact that they even feel the need to make such a statement highlights the backwards nature of the Islamic world.

For the love of God, if they hadn't said it, you would be all "Look at those horrible Muslims! They won't even stand up against other Muslims killing people. They are evil barbarians!". I don't think they can ever do anything right, eh?


I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.

Yes, enjoy your talks with Muslims. Wait no, talking is inconvenient, we'd better shoot them all. Y'know, just to be safe.

[PanzerJaeger]

For the love of God, if they hadn't said it, you would be all "Look at those horrible Muslims! They won't even stand up against other Muslims killing people. They are evil barbarians!". I don't think they can ever do anything right, eh?

Calm down. I said that their effort was valiant but ineffectual.



Yes, enjoy your talks with Muslims. Wait no, talking is inconvenient, we'd better shoot them all. Y'know, just to be safe.

I don't quite understand the rush to hyperbole and genocidal imagery in this thread. I simply made the point that, instead of trying to change Islam, it may be beneficial to change people's perceptions about the role Islam should play in their lives. When people stop caring so much, they quickly lose the will to become militant. Secular society has had a moderating effect on Christianity and Islam in the Western World, and the more inroads it makes into the Middle East, the better.

[Megas Methuselah]

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.

Hahaha, you crack me up, man.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am not that simple. I am not an idiot.

Never meant to suggest that you were. Trying to minimize ambiguity so as to ease cognitive dissonance is a very rational strategy. I am certain that you are well aware that ambiguity can never be eliminated and that human interaction can not be reduced to a series of chess moves. Trying to impose a mental frame on any situation so as to render it "soluable" is a good response. If nothing is preferenced and relitavism becomes the only benchmark then you're likely to be paralyzed by your own indecision. It's a balancing act.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.


I simply made the point that, instead of trying to change Islam, it may be beneficial to change people's perceptions about the role Islam should play in their lives. When people stop caring so much, they quickly lose the will to become militant. Secular society has had a moderating effect on Christianity and Islam in the Western World, and the more inroads it makes into the Middle East, the better.

I entirely agree with PJ's argument here.

It also applies to religions as a whole (the recent trends towards fundamentalist re-Christianisation of the United States are not entirely unconnected with that country's increasing rejection of its commitments to human rights and liberal (in the correct sense) foundations).

It appears to apply particularly to religions with a strong adherence to an after-life, as well as proselytising impulses. This belief system allows people to do remarkably bestial things in the real world because they fancy their reward is to come, rather than having to live only in the cesspool they have created for others. It also promotes the idea of the entitled and the non-entitled (also rapidly characterised as "other" and then "not our kind of human").

A personal faith, lived humbly as an example to others without the demand they take notice, is a noble thing. Religious faith that seeks to influence or convert or marginalise is not conducive to modern societies of pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought.

[Fragony]

I don't think they can ever do anything right, eh?

Sure they can, and they do. But people are a little bit too happy with it when they do, see? see? Power to the guy, but it doesn't impress me all that much.

[al Roumi]

It is quite valid to believe that until Muslim society aligns itself with modern norms, such efforts, while valiant, are ineffectual. Even this feel good story speaks to the problem. In 2010, some Muslim clerics have declared that, yes, in fact, conducting Holy War based on a 14th century fatwa is not appropriate. The fact that they even feel the need to make such a statement highlights the backwards nature of the Islamic world.

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.


I don't quite understand the rush to hyperbole and genocidal imagery in this thread. I simply made the point that, instead of trying to change Islam, it may be beneficial to change people's perceptions about the role Islam should play in their lives. When people stop caring so much, they quickly lose the will to become militant. Secular society has had a moderating effect on Christianity and Islam in the Western World, and the more inroads it makes into the Middle East, the better.


I entirely agree with PJ's argument here.

It also applies to religions as a whole (the recent trends towards fundamentalist re-Christianisation of the United States are not entirely unconnected with that country's increasing rejection of its commitments to human rights and liberal (in the correct sense) foundations).

It appears to apply particularly to religions with a strong adherence to an after-life, as well as proselytising impulses. This belief system allows people to do remarkably bestial things in the real world because they fancy their reward is to come, rather than having to live only in the cesspool they have created for others. It also promotes the idea of the entitled and the non-entitled (also rapidly characterised as "other" and then "not our kind of human").

Are we forgetting the horific excesses which secular and "scientific" maxims have permitted in the last couple of centuries? To name but the most vicious and bleak: Social Darwinism, and the political movements it engendered (I hate to constantly evidence Godwin's law so I'll leave it at that).

Religions are not the core of the problem, but they can be used as an excuse - as any ideology can. It is extremism which causes problems to only ever be resolved through bloodshed.


A personal faith, lived humbly as an example to others without the demand they take notice -or follow the example, is a noble thing..

Even here though, the concept of faith as a private understanding between the individual and their "god"/religion requires a degree of individualist/humanist thought...

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is quite valid to believe that until Muslim society aligns itself with modern norms, such efforts, while valiant, are ineffectual. Even this feel good story speaks to the problem. In 2010, some Muslim clerics have declared that, yes, in fact, conducting Holy War based on a 14th century fatwa is not appropriate. The fact that they even feel the need to make such a statement highlights the backwards nature of the Islamic world.

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.I couldn't agree more. :balloon2:

[PanzerJaeger]

Hahaha, you crack me up, man.

The obvious question that arises from such a statement is: Are you laughing with me or at me? :grin:


I couldn't agree more.

I'm so confused as to who you are... :laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

It is quite valid to believe that until Muslim society aligns itself with modern norms, such efforts, while valiant, are ineffectual. Even this feel good story speaks to the problem. In 2010, some Muslim clerics have declared that, yes, in fact, conducting Holy War based on a 14th century fatwa is not appropriate. The fact that they even feel the need to make such a statement highlights the backwards nature of the Islamic world.

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.

I couldn't agree more. :balloon2:

[Ser Clegane]

I couldn't agree more. :balloon2:


I'm so confused as to who you are...


I couldn't agree more. :balloon2:

OK, I think the best way to maintain everybody's sanity is to ban both Louis and SFTS .... Yay or Nay?

[Strike For The South]

OK, I think the best way to maintain everybody's sanity is to ban both Louis and SFTS .... Yay or Nay?

We will become more powerful than you could ever imagine

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We would all be better served if "conversion by the sword" was acknowledged as the useless and self-defeating tactic that it is.

I suspect that I am more religious than either PJ or BG, but there is a thread of real truth to what they say. The person who has been "saved" should seek to guide others to that salvation by reasoned discussion and the goodly example of their own life. To establish an implicit human, not-quite-as-good-as-a-human dichotomy should be anathema -- but sadly it has happened in the past, and all too often.

[Meneldil]

Complete agreement with PJ... All his post(s), from the first letter to the last. Never thought it would happen.

I feel empty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I entirely agree with PJ's argument here.

It also applies to religions as a whole (the recent trends towards fundamentalist re-Christianisation of the United States are not entirely unconnected with that country's increasing rejection of its commitments to human rights and liberal (in the correct sense) foundations).

It appears to apply particularly to religions with a strong adherence to an after-life, as well as proselytising impulses. This belief system allows people to do remarkably bestial things in the real world because they fancy their reward is to come, rather than having to live only in the cesspool they have created for others. It also promotes the idea of the entitled and the non-entitled (also rapidly characterised as "other" and then "not our kind of human").

A personal faith, lived humbly as an example to others without the demand they take notice, is a noble thing.

Interestingly, up to here, your post is completely in line with educated Christian thought. Until....


Religious faith that seeks to influence or convert or marginalise is not conducive to modern societies of pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought.

Of it's nature a religious Faith should seek to convert, that way it is inclusive. To see what happens in closed religions you need look only at Fundamentalist Judaism, where the "Chosen" aspect of many religions is distilled into a racist, xenophobic, entitlement complex that admits no one outside an historically constructed ethnos.

I maintain that the problem in Islam is not its missionary impluse, but its Scriptual narrative of violent expansion and forced conversion with a sword quite litterally at your throat and fetters on your legs. In this I can see Fragony's point about "liberal" Muslims, they seem to be fighting the latent current of their religion; it's very foundation and its "historical" narrative.

An interesting, and related, point is whether pushing for "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought" merely creates a vacume into which fundamentalism is automatically drawn.

[Furunculus]

It is quite valid to believe that until Muslim society aligns itself with modern norms, such efforts, while valiant, are ineffectual. Even this feel good story speaks to the problem. In 2010, some Muslim clerics have declared that, yes, in fact, conducting Holy War based on a 14th century fatwa is not appropriate. The fact that they even feel the need to make such a statement highlights the backwards nature of the Islamic world.

Many have postulated that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I say forget Islam completely, the answer is secularization. When people stop caring about Islam so much, progress ensues.

I couldn't agree more. :balloon2:

[Louis VI the Fat]

We will become more powerful than you could ever imagineLittle did they realise this was not an empthy threat...


Since we changed names, we have received a grand slam of HoF awards. Me, powerful and green as Yoda I am. You, my padawan, destined to one day restore balance on the .org you are.


Foreseen, it is. :stare:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Of it's nature a religious Faith should seek to convert, that way it is inclusive. To see what happens in closed religions you need look only at Fundamentalist Judaism, where the "Chosen" aspect of many religions is distilled into a racist, xenophobic, entitlement complex that admits no one outside an historically constructed ethnos.

By definition, a proselytising religion cannot be inclusive. It starts from the point that I am wrong, and unless I change my thinking, I am excluded. Whether this means they get a little disappointed and sad that I won't be given a place in some Elysium, or that I ought to be barbecued immediately for my own good, is only a matter of degree. You choose a fundamentalist sect as your argument, but I think I'm correct to assert that all Judaism is non-proselytising and since most Jews don't fit your characterisation, it falls.


I maintain that the problem in Islam is not its missionary impluse, but its Scriptual narrative of violent expansion and forced conversion with a sword quite litterally at your throat and fetters on your legs. In this I can see Fragony's point about "liberal" Muslims, they seem to be fighting the latent current of their religion; it's very foundation and its "historical" narrative.

This position often leads to a pointless argument. My understanding is that while fundamentalists in Islam (just as in Christianity) take the harsher parts of their holy book seriously, the vast majority of Muslims take the good and wise advice and interpret the "warrior" part as being an advocation for striving mightily to do good in life. The historical narrative of most of the Bible is also rather red in tooth and claw. The real problem with both religions (and explicit in their Scripture) is that they consider outsiders to be somehow deficient and themselves, "Chosen".


An interesting, and related, point is whether pushing for "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought" merely creates a vacume into which fundamentalism is automatically drawn.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that one. :beam:

[Pannonian]

Little did they realise this was not an empthy threat...


Since we changed names, we have received a grand slam of HoF awards. Me, powerful and green as Yoda I am. You, my padawan, destined to one day restore balance on the .org you are.


Foreseen, it is. :stare:

I'm confused. You're titled as a moderator, but I can't find you in the list of forum leaders. Which forum are you assigned to?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm confused. You're titled as a moderator, but I can't find you in the list of forum leaders. Which forum are you assigned to?

Like all new moderators, he's on latrine duty. Once we've stapled a tea towel to his handsome but secular features, he'll be allowed out. :evil:

[Furunculus]

rofl! :D

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

By definition, a proselytising religion cannot be inclusive. It starts from the point that I am wrong, and unless I change my thinking, I am excluded. Whether this means they get a little disappointed and sad that I won't be given a place in some Elysium, or that I ought to be barbecued immediately for my own good, is only a matter of degree.

This is a fair point in some instances, but there are different types of exclusion. You are, for example, excluded from the medical proffession due to a tack of knowledge and training, but you wouldn't complain that such an exclusion was unfair. In "Mystery Cults" such as Christianity exclusion is based on the same lack of knowledge, and refusal to enter into a fellowship with the rest of the group.

So while I accept that all religions have a membership and "exclude" outsiders I don't believe this is merely degree, I think it is also a matter of perspective and that is almost more important.


You choose a fundamentalist sect as your argument, but I think I'm correct to assert that all Judaism is non-proselytising and since most Jews don't fit your characterisation, it falls.

With regard to Judaism, my knowledge not being total, I was referring to the difference between those sects that admit members from outside; and those that don't. The latter construct their religion as a solely ethnic identity.


This position often leads to a pointless argument. My understanding is that while fundamentalists in Islam (just as in Christianity) take the harsher parts of their holy book seriously, the vast majority of Muslims take the good and wise advice and interpret the "warrior" part as being an advocation for striving mightily to do good in life. The historical narrative of most of the Bible is also rather red in tooth and claw. The real problem with both religions (and explicit in their Scripture) is that they consider outsiders to be somehow deficient and themselves, "Chosen".

Regardless, I reamin convinced. The central figure of the Koran is, most generously, a Warrior King. The central figure of the Bible, an iternant preacher and healer. The situation in Judaism is more complex, but there the central "figure" is really a people elect to God, who go through pretty much every hardship and misfortune at His hands. I think Islam has a problem with being in a subserviant cultural position because there is little to nothing about how to live that way in the Koran.


I'd like to see you demonstrate that one. :beam:

Well, I can't prove it, but consider this:

An "equality" law is passed which requires every member of Parliament to sign a sworn statement that they will not allow their private religious beliefs to influence the way they vote in the House. That law bans me and anyone else of religious conviction from honestly taking office. My strong sense of morality and my sense of the common good for all humanity are informed by my religion, so unless I lie and compromise my principles, I cannot sit as an MP.

In fact, the only people who can honestly sit are those without any strong "moral" convictions that could be construed as religious, and this might include Humanism. So in passing a secularisation law you exclude from the political process the greatest number of people who are likely to have strong convictions not directly informed by their political affiliation.

Another point; when you force religion under ground, the more relaxed and flexable people are more likely to be persuaded to give it up or confine it to their exclusively private lives. at that point the only people left shouting in the public sphere are the hardliners, and they will begin to attract and radicalise those among the moderates who feel hard done by, as well as those who have not recieved strong guidence from their elders.

We are seeing this in Britain right now, the marginalisation of the traditional Churches has led to a large number of young people flocking to the Evangelical banner.

[Banquo's Ghost]

This is a fair point in some instances, but there are different types of exclusion. You are, for example, excluded from the medical proffession due to a tack of knowledge and training, but you wouldn't complain that such an exclusion was unfair. In "Mystery Cults" such as Christianity exclusion is based on the same lack of knowledge, and refusal to enter into a fellowship with the rest of the group.

So while I accept that all religions have a membership and "exclude" outsiders I don't believe this is merely degree, I think it is also a matter of perspective and that is almost more important.

Not being a member of the medical profession does not consign me to an afterlife of suffering. The view of most proselytising religions is that their evangelism is saving people who would otherwise "suffer". A professional qualification is not remotely the same issue.


Regardless, I reamin convinced. The central figure of the Koran is, most generously, a Warrior King. The central figure of the Bible, an iternant preacher and healer. The situation in Judaism is more complex, but there the central "figure" is really a people elect to God, who go through pretty much every hardship and misfortune at His hands. I think Islam has a problem with being in a subserviant cultural position because there is little to nothing about how to live that way in the Koran.

Entirely your perspective. I would argue the central figure of both books is a vicious, vengeful and arbitrary overlord who manipulates his creations to his own whim. Choosing the New Testament to bolster a view that the Bible is not as bloodthirsty a book as the Q'uran is selective reasoning. It doesn't matter - most intelligent Muslims, like most intelligent Christians, accept the nastier bits as historical anecdote or metaphor. This is what happens when religions come into contact with other world views, ie pluralism. Because many Islamic countries are not pluralistic but theocracies, they keep power and control over thought - and thereby stay mediaevalist and fundamentalist.


Well, I can't prove it, but consider this:

An "equality" law is passed which requires every member of Parliament to sign a sworn statement that they will not allow their private religious beliefs to influence the way they vote in the House. That law bans me and anyone else of religious conviction from honestly taking office. My strong sense of morality and my sense of the common good for all humanity are informed by my religion, so unless I lie and compromise my principles, I cannot sit as an MP.

In fact, the only people who can honestly sit are those without any strong "moral" convictions that could be construed as religious, and this might include Humanism. So in passing a secularisation law you exclude from the political process the greatest number of people who are likely to have strong convictions not directly informed by their political affiliation.

Another point; when you force religion under ground, the more relaxed and flexible people are more likely to be persuaded to give it up or confine it to their exclusively private lives. at that point the only people left shouting in the public sphere are the hardliners, and they will begin to attract and radicalise those among the moderates who feel hard done by, as well as those who have not received strong guidance from their elders.

We are seeing this in Britain right now, the marginalisation of the traditional Churches has led to a large number of young people flocking to the Evangelical banner.

I fail to see how your exemplar law shows any commitment to "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought", so the rest of the argument is a bit of a straw man. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that I am arguing for religious thought to be banned - which would hardly be "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought" would it? :beam: What I am really arguing is that religious thought is a matter of private principle, and should be accorded no more formal power than any other school of philosophy. It might even be argued that the first order of business for religions might be to get the story straight and agree amongst believers what the heck is going on. If the religious want to convince me that there's a God, which one(s) do they want to convince me of?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not being a member of the medical profession does not consign me to an afterlife of suffering. The view of most proselytising religions is that their evangelism is saving people who would otherwise "suffer". A professional qualification is not remotely the same issue.

A fair point, but my point was more simple; No one is stopping you from joining a religion, except yourself. In any case, if you are looking for a religious person to condemn you to Hell, you will need to look elsewhere. :tongue3:


Entirely your perspective. I would argue the central figure of both books is a vicious, vengeful and arbitrary overlord who manipulates his creations to his own whim.

It is not entirely my perspective, of course you can see God as the central "figure" in all three theologies, but I was reffering to the historical narrative. It is to this all three religions look when trying to interpret how to act today. All three narratives show different values and different perspectives on God's plan for his creation.


Choosing the New Testament to bolster a view that the Bible is not as bloodthirsty a book as the Q'uran is selective reasoning.

I dissagree, in Christian Theology the Old Testement is interpreted in light of the New Testement. Further, both are interpreted contextually within their time, and the New Tesement specifically invalidates parts of the Old.


It doesn't matter - most intelligent Muslims, like most intelligent Christians, accept the nastier bits as historical anecdote or metaphor. This is what happens when religions come into contact with other world views, ie pluralism. Because many Islamic countries are not pluralistic but theocracies, they keep power and control over thought - and thereby stay mediaevalist and fundamentalist.

Most intelligent Muslims? What does that actually mean though? I suspect it means, "most educated Muslims who have been exposed to a Liberal Westernised Education", which would probably include most of the moderate Imans in Pakistan. I also object to the idea these Islamic societies resemble anything Mediaeval. Neither Mediaeval Islam nor Christianity were as oppressive, closed minded, confrontational, or literal, as modern fundamentalist movements. While both modern Christian and Islamic fundamentalist movements may be intellectually primative, they are not historically regressive.

The great age of religious intollerance was actually the Renaissance, and that was also the era (in the West) of rapid intellectual expansion. The Islamic societies today are, I'm afraid, a relatively modern invention.


I fail to see how your exemplar law shows any commitment to "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought", so the rest of the argument is a bit of a straw man. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that I am arguing for religious thought to be banned - which would hardly be "pluralism, exchange of ideas and freedom of thought" would it? :beam: What I am really arguing is that religious thought is a matter of private principle, and should be accorded no more formal power than any other school of philosophy. It might even be argued that the first order of business for religions might be to get the story straight and agree amongst believers what the heck is going on. If the religious want to convince me that there's a God, which one(s) do they want to convince me of?

It is an extreme example of the restriction of Freedom of Concience increasingly being pushed by my government, and it references a Christian Labour Minister who claimed her religion did not inform her politics or decisions.

What I am aguing in counter to you is that religious conviction (sanitised religious "thought" is a purely university activity, which is why I have private notebooks) can never be private if it is genuine. You may have noticed that my Christian principles tend to surface, and be referenced, (at least I hope they do) in most of the deabtes we have here. That's because I live my Faith at all times. I may not apply it perfectly evenly to every situation, but I try to. So if you want my religion to be a wholly private affair, then I have to be a wholly private individual.