Can Islam be Reformed ? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

An atheist-free area for those of religious belief to discuss religious topics.

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be discussed here or in The Agora. However, this forum is intended specifically as an area for those with religious belief to discuss religion without threads being derailed by atheist arguments. Please respect that. Political topics regarding religion belong in the Religion forum in the Political Issues section.
#14855873
@SolarCross

You prioritize shoving a validating video everywhere in which it could seem potentially relevant and could spread your dogma (that aspect of your beliefs is a dogma, it fits the definition to a tee). You present yourself as some sort of sensationalist Twitter user, praising himself for his own faux-intelligence and surrounding himself with such like-minded people. In other words you have made yourself into a consumer. A person who cannot create meaningful original content by himself and must rely on others who create to explain his thoughts and ideas for him. It is one thing to build off the ideas of others, it is another to paste it in it's entirety onto a post and let it assume the role of your representative, the work that will represent your entire ideology as a whole.
#14855875
Oxymandias wrote:@SolarCross

You prioritize shoving a validating video everywhere in which it could seem potentially relevant and could spread your dogma (that aspect of your beliefs is a dogma, it fits the definition to a tee). You present yourself as some sort of sensationalist Twitter user, praising himself for his own faux-intelligence and surrounding himself with such like-minded people. In other words you have made yourself into a consumer. A person who cannot create meaningful original content by himself and must rely on others who create to explain his thoughts and ideas for him. It is one thing to build off the ideas of others, it is another to paste it in it's entirety onto a post and let it assume the role of your representative, the work that will represent your entire ideology as a whole.


Since you chose ignorance by not even watching the video your opinions are basically as worthless as can be. I actually don't agree with that Imam on a crucial point, he thinks Islam can be reformed by divorcing muslims from the hadith, whereas I don't see any point in reforming it at all, it should be entirely discarded. I disagree with him, but he makes some interesting points so I offered up his point of view to the debate. Others can make of it what they will without your purposely ignorant filtering.
#14855878
The video is one man's interpretation of what he thinks the only interpretation of the Quran is. It's flawed from the onset.
#14855882
My understanding of Islam is that it's more overtly political than other major religions. Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism all acknowledge and accept the monastic qualities of religious people and express some form of passivity or subservience towards the state. Islam may be unique in that it seems to explicitly condemn monasticism in favor of political activism and this is surely a reason why it has not become more "moderate" as other religions have. This is to say that other religions have not necessarily become more moderate among loyal adherents, rather the leadership of developed countries has become more secular and the religious bodies in those countries allowed this to happen. This largely wasn't permitted in Islamic countries.

I think people misunderstand the importance of this distinction. Christianity says "there is no authority but that which God has established" and Buddhism is pessimistic regarding temporal authority and even the prospect of its own longevity in a sense, Islam takes explicit opposition to those kinds of ideas.

I might also add that religious passivity towards politics is not strictly passivity and subservience so much as a desire to transcend politics but as actions that most people can understand, it typically takes the form of passivity. This may be most explicit in the Christian sense wherein a Christian is expected to accept the temporal authority but to also endure and overcome it, the latter having clearly not happened in a widespread way in the west at this point in time.
Last edited by Hong Wu on 25 Oct 2017 01:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14855889
@SolarCross

I didn't watch the video because I didn't have the time furthermore my thoughts are complete independent of the video you posted. I am not discussing the video but your own actions. If you want my entire previous post in a nutshell, I am saying that posting the same video on several threads with no input what-so-ever diminishes your intellectual integrity. Nothing to do with Islam or the video.

You never seemed to argue with me that Quranism may be wrong. If you want to debate, why not start now?

P.S. Godstud isn't talking about the video's point. He already knows what the man is talking about, he simply disagrees with it because the man expresses what he thinks is "true" Islam which is of course a No True Scotsman Fallacy something you agree with. There is no true interpretation of the Quran, even allegedly Mohammed's interpretation isn't true from a theological perspective since he's human. Only God's interpretation is the correct one which cannot be known because he doesn't really exist but also because God doesn't really say much.

@Hong Wu

Hold it Hong Wu. Don't let my praise get to you head. Please read the Quran and all other Islamic texts and make your own unique thoughts on it. Do not assume based on example, create based on ideology. Also you forgot the secular dictatorships of the Middle East and the fact that Europe had 2 World Wars trying to fight against secular progressiveness.
#14855891
Oxymandias wrote:@SolarCross

I didn't watch the video because I didn't have the time furthermore my thoughts are complete independent of the video you posted. I am not discussing the video but your own actions. If you want my entire previous post in a nutshell, I am saying that posting the same video on several threads with no input what-so-ever diminishes your intellectual integrity. Nothing to do with Islam or the video.

You never seemed to argue with me that Quranism may be wrong. If you want to debate, why not start now?

P.S. Godstud isn't talking about the video's point. He already knows what the man is talking about, he simply disagrees with it because the man expresses what he thinks is "true" Islam which is of course a No True Scotsman Fallacy something you agree with. There is no true interpretation of the Quran, even allegedly Mohammed's interpretation isn't true from a theological perspective since he's human. Only God's interpretation is the correct one which cannot be known because he doesn't really exist but also because God doesn't really say much.

@Hong Wu

Hold it Hong Wu. Don't let my praise get to you head. Please read the Quran and all other Islamic texts and make your own unique thoughts on it. Do not assume based on example, create based on ideology. Also you forgot the secular dictatorships of the Middle East and the fact that Europe had 2 World Wars trying to fight against secular progressiveness.

I hate using Wikipedia but I'm not using a keyboard ATM so I'll just leave this here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monasticism#Islam

I think the lack of monasticism in Islam is the difference that makes it more political since the concept of jihad is not actually unique to Islam, rather the situations in which it is applied are broader because withdrawing from the world to further your own spiritual development is viewed as hypocritical in Islam.
#14855894
Oxymandias wrote:Godstud isn't talking about the video's point. He already knows what the man is talking about, he simply disagrees with it because the man expresses what he thinks is "true" Islam which is of course a No True Scotsman Fallacy something you agree with. There is no true interpretation of the Quran, even allegedly Mohammed's interpretation isn't true from a theological perspective since he's human. Only God's interpretation is the correct one which cannot be known because he doesn't really exist but also because God doesn't really say much.
That's exactly my point. I don't need to watch a whole 49 minute video to know this is only one man's opinion on the interpretation of the Quran.
#14855896
Godstud wrote:That's exactly my point. I don't need to watch a whole 49 minute video to know this is only one man's opinion on the interpretation of the Quran.

He wasn't interpreting the Quran though! He was talking about the hadith. fucksake. Oxymandias didn't watch the fucking video either, so he knows no more than you!
#14855897
@Hong Wu

Alright, let's get some Socratic teaching in here.

Why is it that you think lack of monasticism makes Islam more political? What would be your thoughts on Sufi theology which advocates for filling yourself completely with love and becoming one with God while being an integral (but ignored) part of Islam for all sects (you can be a Sufi Sunni or a Sufi Shia as Sufism isn't a sect but an "Islamic science").
#14855899
@SolarCross

Certain sects such as Sunnis view the hadith as an integral part of the Quran and even Shias view this as well. To these sects, the hadiths describe exactly how to pray and do other essential Islamic tasks. It is still simply one man's interpretation of the Quran and the man in the video himself probably thinks so since he probably came from a Sunni background.
#14855902
Oxymandias wrote:@Hong Wu

Alright, let's get some Socratic teaching in here.

Why is it that you think lack of monasticism makes Islam more political? What would be your thoughts on Sufi theology which advocates for filling yourself completely with love and becoming one with God while being an integral (but ignored) part of Islam for all sects (you can be a Sufi Sunni or a Sufi Shia as Sufism isn't a sect but an "Islamic science").

Regarding Sufism, it is definitely closer to monasticism but Sufism itself is almost non-existent today, to the point where it almost exists intellectually. It is sometimes called a liberal form of Islam although I suspect that's a simplification. Politically, Sufism is irrelevant right now.

The Qur'an never discusses what effects not being monastic would have politically. But if the Christians were ordered to be involved instead of arguably being pacifists, or if Shaolin warrior monks were told to be involved instead of practicing martial arts and sticking to the monastery, I think they would look like Mujahideen. This would have ultimately led to very different political outcomes in Christian and Buddhist countries (with similar results in other countries). We can also observe this from the significant political effects that the Crusaders had on the west when circumstances allowed for widespread Christian militarism that was easily doctrinally justifiable.
#14855906
To put it simply, if you're monastic you aren't fighting which makes it much harder to be involved in politics, which is often decided by force.

And as we are well aware of in the west right now, if people know you won't fight back, sometimes all restraint and civility is abandoned. This would traditionally backfire in the west for various reasons but the atomization of society means this no longer always happens and frustration with this is probably one reason why western Christians support someone with a brutal personality that supports their interests (President Donald Trump).
Last edited by Hong Wu on 25 Oct 2017 01:57, edited 1 time in total.
#14855908
Solarcross wrote:He wasn't interpreting the Quran though! He was talking about the hadith. fucksake. Oxymandias didn't watch the fucking video either, so he knows no more than you!
You know, being a total asshole about it doesn't make you right. Hadiths or Quran, the answer remains the same. He was making his OWN interpretation of it.

Don't be a douche.
#14855910
Godstud wrote:You know, being a total asshole about it doesn't make you right. Hadiths or Quran, the answer remains the same. He was making his OWN interpretation of it.

Don't be a douche.

The elephant in the room as to this argument is that there are authoritative interpretations of things and those interpretations do matter politically. Only severely socially atomized people with no first hand understanding of politics think that isolated individual interpretations matter as much politically as the authoritative interpretations.

This kind of misconception, that individual interpretations should be considered politically relevant, probably also stems from a failure to realize that your individual perception of the world is not an accurate perception of it.

In art you learn that your vision actually has a mild "fish eye lense" effect and that having two eyes results in a reconciled appearance of an object, you're actually seeing it from two different angles and your brain reconciles it into one image but if you try to draw it two dimensionally, you will fail because it doesn't actually exist, you only think it exists...
#14855914
Potemkin wrote:You think the Middle East is a constant thorn in the West's side? No, it's not. In fact, we're a constant thorn in their side. So they kill a few dozen of the West's citizens every so often? Big deal. Sucks to be those victims or their relatives, but even 9/11 was a mere pinprick. We repeatedly invade them, topple their governments, occupy their nations and just generally fuck everything up for them. There's no fucking comparison.

As for why an Islamic 'Enlightenment' is not in the West's interests - it is true that a developed Middle East which has entered modernity would create new markets for Western manufactured goods, it would also created new competitors and new rivals on the world stage. The rise of China, and the West's consequent relative decline, has been tolerated for now. But allowing the entire Middle East to do the same? It's not in our interests. Instead, it suits us better to use the region as a source of cheap oil and cheap human labour power. Given that fact, it makes sense for us to keep the region in a state of roiling internal political conflict; or as Condoleeza Rice put it, in a state of "creative chaos".


Islam is more cave like than life in times of the Roman Empire so this idea Europe and USA is the cause Islam is the way it is smells like agenda excuses. Since Islam dumbs down people I do agree with you, by given them weapons Europe and US really made everything worse, but don't think for a second they wouldn't be killing one another with sticks and invading neighbor countries by foot if USA and Europe never interfered over there.

Islam is barbaric by nature. A political/religious system that doesn't like dogs, art, music, science...a religion/political system that subjugates women and children. Why on earth you think a system like that will ever work?

You sound like those Socialists in my country who keep parroting the problem isn't Socialism is really that single out Government.

If the West didn't arrive in the Middle East the only countries over there would be Iran (not a Muslim country before 1979), Lebanon, Syria and Israel. Guess what all those countries have in common? They aren't Islamic

Now let's look at Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Gulf, ....they can't even form engineers to build a damn building. Who build the land lanes for airplanes in Saudi Arabia? USA. Who build Dubai? Engineers from Brazil, Germany, UK , USA.

You talk as if the Middle East was remotely advanced before European and USA interference. Mind you Israel was created in the 60' and is by far the most advanced in the Sand part of the world.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]