Saudi Arabia Counters Muslim Extremism

[Paradox]

Yes, to be a true Muslim, you need to believe in god and his prophet Muhammad. The point I was trying to make is that the Quran does not mention that you need to take out a sword, start a needless war, and fight those that already believe in god. Also, did you know that Jews are referred to as "cousins" in the Quran?

You mean do we believe a Messiah will come? I don't exactly know the definition of Messiah but we do believe that Jesus will come and guide us, and before that, Muhammad's grandson.

I hope this was the info you were looking for, it's kind of hard explaining all this.






The Dutch respect extremists? ......Where have I been?

Edit: Nvm, I never knew what stockholm syndrome was until you mentioned it, forgive my ignorance.

[Don Corleone]

Yes, to be a true Muslim, you need to believe in god and his prophet Muhammad. The point I was trying to make is that the Quran does not mention that you need to take out a sword, start a needless war, and fight those that already believe in god. Also, did you know that Jews are referred to as "cousins" in the Quran?

You mean do we believe a Messiah will come? I don't exactly know the definition of Messiah but we do believe that Jesus will come and guide us, and before that, Muhammad's grandson.

I hope this was the info you were looking for, it's kind of hard explaining all this.






The Dutch respect extremists? ......Where have I been?

Edit: Nvm, I never knew what stockholm syndrome was until you mentioned it, forgive my ignorance.

If you go back and read many of the propechies from the time of the Captivity, there is the call for a "Messiah", a deliverer of mankind who will mend the breach and make it possible for man to be reconciled with God. I think Jews believe this entity has yet to appear. I'm curious as to the Muslim view of a redeemer and savior. The Old Testament prophesies do not explicitly claim the redeemer to be divine, nor do they preclude it. Some could argue (and have) that the 'redeemer' was always intended to be a very human figure, a Jewish King Arthur if you will. In fact, some people have even claimed that the prophesised messiah, as well as the Arthur of legends, never referred to a specific person, so much as 'he who takes up the mantle of saving his people', and that there may be in fact several Messiahs or Arthurs.

My statements about a belief in Mohammed's special role weren't meant to be derogatory or touch a nerve. I'm trying to assess objectively. I can objectively state that my own religion, Christianity, is probably the most exclusionary of the three monotheistic religions, as it requires the greatest departure from commonly accepted belief of the other two. The followers of all three appear to suffer from a holier than thou attitude which belies the message to which said followers claim to adhere.

As for the Dutch, I'll leave that to one of the numerous Dutch members that would be able to offer a more informed view of Dutch views on extremism than I could possibly hope to offer. Fragony's viewpoint has been expressed before, and usually there are one or two of his countrymen that take issue with his assessment. I know enough to know that I do not know enough to weigh in on the issue.

[Geoffrey S]

Geoffrey's asking a question I've had for some time as well. Isn't a belief that Mohammed was God's prophet, in fact God's greatest prophet, necessary for being a good muslim? Doesn't Islam call for the conversion of people not just to a belief in God, but to a belief in Mohammed?

Yes, that's pretty much it.

Yes, to be a true Muslim, you need to believe in god and his prophet Muhammad. The point I was trying to make is that the Quran does not mention that you need to take out a sword, start a needless war, and fight those that already believe in god. Also, did you know that Jews are referred to as "cousins" in the Quran?

Thanks, just wanted to make sure I got that right. That seems to be the main sticking point between the religions of the book. Christians need to believe in Christ, Son of God, and there's little to no room for another prophet after Him (though sometimes, I wonder). For Muslims, it is heresy to believe in Christ being divine, on equal footing to God - there, it is essential to view Mohammed as a prophet of God.

Several reasons I'm curious about this matter. For starters, the weight attached to the hadith is directly linked to the importance of Mohammed, as arguably the majority of the bits interpreted as 'you need to take out a sword, start a needless war, and fight those that already believe in god' stem from those writings. And in my opinion, the majority of reform which can legitimately take place inside Islam will probably have to be in the form of permitting up-to-date interpretations of hadith.

However, the main reason is that I have heard it said among a fair number of Muslims that they find it worrying, the importance placed on hadith and the person of Mohammed and how literally some take his doings as an unchangeable manual over hundreds of years. To them, it seems certain Muslims practically make themselves guilty of idolizing Mohammed. That is my reason for being interested exactly what his role is in being Muslim.

How is that? I'm curious.

Because if that is the case, it leaves room for those who still wish to follow the book but no longer Mohammed - hence, conversion to Judaism and Christianity.

As for the Dutch, I'll leave that to one of the numerous Dutch members that would be able to offer a more informed view of Dutch views on extremism than I could possibly hope to offer. Fragony's viewpoint has been expressed before, and usually there are one or two of his countrymen that take issue with his assessment. I know enough to know that I do not know enough to weigh in on the issue.

I think most Dutch are pretty bewildered, too. Most of the time, it seems that there is precious little middle ground between what is deemed politically correct multiculturalism and what could be termed 'mass-correct' anti-immigration tendencies, particularly aimed at Muslims. As usual I'd say it's more a matter of politicians taking what is a relatively minor but because of the media highly visible issue, blowing it out of all proportion, and scoring cheap points while actually doing precious little real work on the matter.

[Fragony]

I think most Dutch are pretty bewildered, too. Most of the time, it seems that there is precious little middle ground between what is deemed politically correct multiculturalism and what could be termed 'mass-correct' anti-immigration tendencies, particularly aimed at Muslims. As usual I'd say it's more a matter of politicians taking what is a relatively minor but because of the media highly visible issue, blowing it out of all proportion, and scoring cheap points while actually doing precious little real work on the matter.

That sums it up alright. Muslims are a bit caught between blind multiculturalism, or the old left as we call it, and the at times rather hysterical right. But as I said in an earlier thread we are comming to our senses.

forgive my ignorance.

That's ok I invented it

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, to be a true Muslim, you need to believe in god and his prophet Muhammad. The point I was trying to make is that the Quran does not mention that you need to take out a sword, start a needless war, and fight those that already believe in god. Also, did you know that Jews are referred to as "cousins" in the Quran?

You mean do we believe a Messiah will come? I don't exactly know the definition of Messiah but we do believe that Jesus will come and guide us, and before that, Muhammad's grandson.

I hope this was the info you were looking for, it's kind of hard explaining all this.






The Dutch respect extremists? ......Where have I been?

Edit: Nvm, I never knew what stockholm syndrome was until you mentioned it, forgive my ignorance.

Ok, now I'm confused, you believe Jesus will come after Mohammed's Grandson?

Leaving aside the Holy Trinity for a moment Christians believe Jesus the Christ was the last prophet, God's final messenger. That's the crux of the belief. Additionally it was decided by 318 Bishops around 1,650 years ago that he was also not only the Son of God but also God himself. That is to say the corporeal manifestation of God on Earth.

Essential to Christian belief is the death and ressurection of Christ, because when he died he is supposed to have decended into Hell, returned to Earth and then returned to Heaven. Jesus is therefore the sacrifice for our sins which allows us a chance at redemption, because he was the only perfect sinless man, and he takes on the weight of our sins.

Does that make sense? My point is that there is no room in Christianity for Prophets after Jesus. I thought that in Islam Mohammed was Allah's final Prophet, but you seem to be saying that that is not so.

So I'm really confused now.

[Viking]

If that is the case, slightly - it opens the door for conversion to Christianity and the Judaism.

The extreme and anti-human ideology remains, regardless.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The extreme and anti-human ideology remains, regardless.

Why are you posting in this thread, just to insult people's beliefs?

Aristotle had something to say about Atheists. They're boring.

[Tristuskhan]

Why are you posting in this thread, just to insult people's beliefs?

Aristotle had something to say about Atheists. They're boring.

Aristotle was himself (and still remains, just read it) something of a bore...

Anyway do you mean that since some Corrupt Mollah stated that conversion to Christianity or Judaïsm was MAYBE possible, we should not keep on opening our eyes on what the same wise men support, that is: you can become Christian, even Jew? Very nice. Just try to call yourself Atheist. Killing you would still not be a crime to their eyes.

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, do you think keeping the door open for the legal murder of Atheists is not "extreme and anti-human ideology"? Until they change their minds on THAT issue, I won't believe Saudis "counter muslim extremism".

And mind you, Saudi SUPPORTS Muslim extremisms. Any sign of the contrary is likely to be a lie in order to please their allies.

[Geoffrey S]

The extreme and anti-human ideology remains, regardless.

I'll bite. You mean the Saudis, extremist Muslims, or Muslims in general? Because as it stands, your comment isn't very helpful.

[Tristuskhan]

I suppose Viking was talking about the official Saudi position. Obviously.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not obvious, he could even be talking about Christians, Muslims and Jews. "Anti-human" idiology is something regularly leveled at Protestant Christians especially.

He's trolling, if he wanted to add to the arguement he's post more than a half sentence.

[Tristuskhan]

Not obvious, he could even be talking about Christians, Muslims and Jews. "Anti-human" idiology is something regularly leveled at Protestant Christians especially.

He's trolling, if he wanted to add to the arguement he's post more than a half sentence.

Paranoïd, Philipvs?

Sorry, I see your point.

Viking has, as I can have, an Atheist reaction: aggressive. We have been hunted for 3500 years and we're liable to bite back easily now we can (where we can, obviouly in few countries). Maybe too easily, I admit. But your reaction, as quoted above, can be seen as a bit hysterical (sorry again, small agression in memoriam of our fellow atheists who died on the pyres)

About the "trolling", maybe you're right, I don't know what was Viking's point exactly.
If I try to guess, I'd say he thinks that an "opening", coming from such an awful government's officials, does not deserve more than a half sentence. (and that's my opinion too, there are too many bright INDEPENDANT muslim thinkers who think inside Islam to waste our time listening to those official Saudi Ulemas)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Viking has, as I can have, an Atheist reaction: aggressive. We have been hunted for 3500 years now and we're liable to bite back easily now we can

That's a bad excuse. What happened thousands of years ago shouldn't matter, or I'd be aggressive to Jews and Italians because of the crucifixion, or towards Russians because of what they did to my family after WWII.

That's no reason to troll or be aggressive at all.

(where we can, obviouly in few countries).

By "few" countries, I can only presume you mean the entire Western world?

[Tristuskhan]

By "few" countries, I can only presume you mean the entire Western world?

Total population count?

I was trying to apologize for a common attitude among Atheists like me. We seldom see it coming from the other "side". But it's all offtopic, I stop "trolling".

Back on Saudi's race towards modern religious standards: what a good move, everything is gonna change now, maybe I should date those scholars, we could have a good civilised argument, there is often a fascinating poetry and a fair amount of wiseness in Islam, maybe we could share knowledges. I know quite a bit on Epicurian, Stoic and Cynic philosophy. Early Soviet poetry. Ecology and forestry.

Just a dream, someone like me does not deserve life for a corporate Saudi Ulema.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just stop it, okay?

You just keep picking, you make a good point and then you go back to being aggressive. Atheists persecuted? Protestants, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and many other groups have been persecuted at one time or another and that's just within Christianity, I'm sure Muslim, Jews and even Budists could give you examples of sectarian conflicts within their religion.

It is your chouce to be an Atheist, that's your right, but if you start attacking people with theistic beliefs than you are worse than the historical groups you bemoan.

[Tristuskhan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal...s_within_Islam

The article in english is ridiculously short but nevermind, if you want a fertile exchange of thoughts with Islam, you'd better try to talk to people like Malek Chebel, Abdelwahab Meddeb or Muhammad Arkoun, but if you prefer the mellow words of Saudi liars, it's up to you. I just bet it's gonna be fruitless.

And my vicious verbal attacks on Saudi Ulemas make me worse than those supporters of death penalty, lovers of women inferiority, ennemies of arts, freedom of speach and thoughts? I bend to the sheer weight of your judgement...

Back on topic, please: those Saudi Ulemas are paid by the royal familly, any word they say has a political purpose. Most of time their "modernism" is just a cheap way to please their (US, and especially fundamentalist protestants, as a matter of fact) allies, and keep in mind they are too tighly linked with a dictatorial regime to be trusted.

[Paradox]

When you say that Saudis are funding these extremists, do you mean the extremists who are inside the country or the others around it?

[Viking]

Now this has blown way out of proportions and it seems that people ignore the context as they self see fit.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A lot of people say that they're taking it out of context, the whole execution to those that change their religion. I agree, the Quran refers to those that turn their back on the belief in god, not Islam.

Like that is any better.

If that is the case, slightly - it opens the door for conversion to Christianity and the Judaism.

The extreme and anti-human ideology remains, regardless.

It should be pretty obvious that the ideology that I was referring to was:

A lot of people say that they're taking it out of context, the whole execution to those that change their religion. I agree, the Quran refers to those that turn their back on the belief in god, not Islam.

Aristotle had something to say about Atheists. They're boring.

It is pretty silly of you to bring in ad hominem in the discussion.

I'll bite. You mean the Saudis, extremist Muslims, or Muslims in general? Because as it stands, your comment isn't very helpful.

Again, it is written clear enough in the context which it stands.

Viking has, as I can have, an Atheist reaction: aggressive. We have been hunted for 3500 years and we're liable to bite back easily now we can (where we can, obviouly in few countries). Maybe too easily, I admit. But your reaction, as quoted above, can be seen as a bit hysterical (sorry again, small agression in memoriam of our fellow atheists who died on the pyres)

I merely stated my disgust over the idea that people should be killed because of their beliefs and thoughts, and did so in a most civil manner.

[Tristuskhan]

I'll try to be more accurate. Saudi Arabia funds mosques all around the world to spread the official Saudi version of Islam, which is not just slighly conservative.
Saudi Arabia also trains a good share of clone Wahabbi preachers (normal, they are the only ones who have money to do so), whose speeches are fearsome.

Many of the Mullahs in Europe were trained in Saudi Arabia and they efficiently kill any kind of alternate vision and practice of Islam. My mother's husband is a devout muslim (egyptian) and has changed mosque twice in the last three years, beeing fed up with Saudi-inclined "scholars" who try to force fear and hate in the hearts of men. He found a mosque where the majority is Turkish, so is the Mollah and the man speaks of faith and personnal Jihad, not politics and aggressive Jihad.
Religion was a political tool in the hands of Ibn Sa'ud to come in power, and is still used as a political tool by Saudi monarchs today, that's the reason why I can't trust an official Saudi religious authority.

So to answer your question Farhad, what I see is Saudi Arabia funding a very conservative stance at home (calling them "extremists" is a question of viewpoint, I would call them so) and encouraging a notoriously perverted form of Islam abroad.

[Fragony]

Don't want to derail the thread but one question for you Tristan, are there any consequences for switching mosks? Heard story's about the so-called 'nephews' that *ahum* encourage people to keep it real.

[Paradox]

What do you mean exactly by 'switching mosques'? I've never heard anyone say this before.

[Fragony]

What do you mean exactly by 'switching mosques'? I've never heard anyone say this before.

I mean going to another one because you don't like the violent message of some imams, there are a few mosks here where the jihad is preached, I heard they can be a real pest if you decide to go to a more moderate mosk. Creepy phonecalls at night, that sort of thing.

[Paradox]

I mean going to another one because you don't like the violent message of some imams, there are a few mosks here where the jihad is preached, I heard they can be a real pest if you decide to go to a more moderate mosk. Creepy phonecalls at night, that sort of thing.

Uhh.... I switch mosques all the time, I don't get creepy phone calls. And besides, all mosques have the same topics on Fridays, so if one was preaching violence, than all of them would, but they don't. Maybe it's different in Europe?

[Fragony]

Uhh.... I switch mosques all the time, I don't get creepy phone calls. And besides, all mosques have the same topics on Fridays, so if one was preaching violence, than all of them would, but they don't. Maybe it's different in Europe?

When I talk about islam I talk about islam in europe, it's the only one I know. As I said earlier, nothing is being done about imam's that preach violence, politicians are too scared to be labeled as a islamophobic. What is said here would probably be enough to be jailed in a muslim country.

This should give you bit of a hint of the situation,

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...snum=0&spell=1

This is in England, the political correctness capital of the world, I say they are complete idiots. What you see there is above al critisism.

[Paradox]

When I talk about islam I talk about islam in europe, it's the only one I know. As I said earlier, nothing is being done about imam's that preach violence, politicians are too scared to be labeled as a islamophobic. What is said here would probably be enough to be jailed in a muslim country.

This should give you bit of a hint of the situation,

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...snum=0&spell=1

This is in England, the political correctness capital of the world, I say they are complete idiots. What you see there is above al critisism.

I'm a Muslim myself and I'm saying that's ridiculous. What is said here would probably be enough to be jailed in a Muslim country??? No not really, here in the UAE, an imam was arrested because he went completely off-topic and against the board by preaching violence, he was expecting popularity, he was wrong. Saudi Arabia is probably the only Gulf country that executes people for such things, there are more liberal (and religious at the same time) Muslim countries than you think.
Also, Christians and Jews aren't referred to as 'kuffaar'.

We don't hit a woman for not wearing a hijjab, that's just stupid.

[Geoffrey S]

So to answer your question Farhad, what I see is Saudi Arabia funding a very conservative stance at home (calling them "extremists" is a question of viewpoint, I would call them so) and encouraging a notoriously perverted form of Islam abroad.

I can agree with that. Personally, I don't give a damn what they do inside 'their' country, reprehensible though it is, but I am constantly amazed that other nations don't take a zero-tolerance policy against their funding of foreign mosques and preachers.

When I talk about islam I talk about islam in europe, it's the only one I know. As I said earlier, nothing is being done about imam's that preach violence, politicians are too scared to be labeled as a islamophobic. What is said here would probably be enough to be jailed in a muslim country.

You know, I'm tempted to take a very cheap shot at Obama and Wright here.

[Fragony]

I'm a Muslim myself and I'm saying that's ridiculous. What is said here would probably be enough to be jailed in a Muslim country??? No not really, here in the UAE, an imam was arrested because he went completely off-topic and against the board by preaching violence, he was expecting popularity, he was wrong. Saudi Arabia is probably the only Gulf country that executes people for such things, there are more liberal (and religious at the same time) Muslim countries than you think.
Also, Christians and Jews aren't referred to as 'kuffaar'.

We don't hit a woman for not wearing a hijjab, that's just stupid.

I meant what the imams say would be enough to be jailed, sorry for the confusion. I believe you that these things aren't said where you live, but they are being said here in europe, if you want to understand why some of us aren't very fond of the islam, well now you know.

[Paradox]

Yeah, it's a shame really. But isn't this really the same case as the Nazis of Germany? I mean we don't call Germans Nazis do we? With Iran, Hezbollah, etc. supporting these things, I don't think it'll ever be put to rest.

[Fragony]

Yeah, it's a shame really. But isn't this really the same case as the Nazis of Germany? I mean we don't call Germans Nazis do we? With Iran, Hezbollah, etc. supporting these things, I don't think it'll ever be put to rest.

Muslims aren't really the problem, there are problems but that's mostly criminal youths. They just don't know how far they can go because they are actually encouraged to keep stretching the borders of what is acceptable to us, and they can't know when they are tresspassing. Once the idiotic political correctness and islamfetisjm is gone it's going to be just fine, all it takes is a bit of a respectable distance from both sides.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tristuskhan, Vicious is never good, but I was reffering to your pyres and "3,500 years of persecution post.

Viking, it's not obvious, becuase this is an internet forum. If you had written "Just because Islam allows you to convert to teo other religions doesn't make it any better." That would have been clear, and I didn't produce an ad hominem for any reason than to demonstatrate that that was all you seemed to be producing.

Now, on topic.

Fahad, I think that in general Iraq, Iran and Saudi are considered very extreme these days, Syria as well probably but it doesn't get a lot of news time these days. Lebenon and Palastine obviosly have powerful extremists elements as well.

The Hijab is a particular sticking point for Western men because many find it offensive, in so far as woman only feels safe with a man if she's covered, or worse that she does not feel safe with them at all.