Muhammad's ball, or: what Islam has done to the French National Team

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Skybird

many Muslims indeed may reject parts of the Quran, or refuse it alltogether. But then they must ask themselves why they still insist of being labelled "muslim". Muslim is no independent cultural identity, nor is it an ethnicity. They claim to be muslim just because they have been born to a Muslim father? That makes no sense, that is mixing relgious ideology with ethnicity. Their skin colour and ethnciity is completely unaffected from whether they are muslim or christian or atheist or whatever.

It's nothing to do with ethnicity. I am an atheist yet I still recognise in myself the heavy influence of a Christian upbringing, particularly when it comes to ethics but also culturally. If I were in a foreign culture and someone asked me my religion, I would probably answer "Christian" for it defines/identifies me better than any other religious category; indeed in many ways the term suits me better than the term "atheist" since atheists are often assumed by theists to be either amoral or angry/bitter theists.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Many muslims-that-are-no-muslims may indeed support the Western understanding of terms like freedom, human rights, coexistence. But if they do so, they must check themselves for whether they are supporting quranic ideas and a thinking tradition that is opposing the former mentioned Western concepts - or not. If they support the Quranic view of things, then they cannot claim to support the western view of things at the same time, those constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms of ours, because the Western culture and the Quran are incompatible and their concepts are antagonistic to each other, to put it mildly. If these people however indeed support the Western view, and reject the quranic dogma and thinking of things, then they are no longer Muslim. If then they are willing to integrate in our home countries, if they choose to come here, then I have little porblem with them. Actually, some of such people have been friends for me.

Islam is hardly unique in that regard. Why do you focus so much energy into attacking that one religion?

[Foxtrot]

Germans can always reinstate Stasi, and Skybird can lead that good forces against the invading forces of evil

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

Germans can always reinstate Stasi, and Skybird can lead that good forces against the invading forces of evil

Some poltiicians in parliament indeed defend the StaSi, and the SED of the former GDR. different to me, they all are members of the party "Die Linke". and you can't be any more leftist than Die Linke is, for sure.

Over the years I got accused in this forum to be a Nazi, a racist, a socialist and even a communist, a rightwinger, a conservative, a leftist, a pacifist, a warmonger, a reasonable, and an insane. Some even accused me to be a religious believer.

Pick your preferred label. I personally lost track of what many different things I am at the same time. Maybe I am schizophrenic and suffer from multiple personalities. Could be. Maybe at next occasion I should discuss this possibility with my other selves.

[caspofungin]

well, like i said before, we've had these arguments before and nothing has been gained. you refuse to accept that there are several different theological schools in islam -- you have a very black and white view of things which in my opinion are significantly nuanced. no problem, that's your opinion. i would prefer it however, if you would stop saying i'm not muslim. after all, i must be, since i get hassled at airports all the time.

what i'm trying to say is its very simple to lay the blame on islam, when most of the problems in these ME countries have to do with government, tribal, local, and national, which has more to do greed and personal aggrandizement than any religous dogma. the outlook of individuals from saudi, for example, where had work is somewhat frowned upon and they'd much prefer paying someone else to do the work, is totally different from someone from oman where they try to be more self-sufficient. even in saudi that is changing due to economic pressures. but it's simpler to just say, "it's because of their religion."

it's very easy to say, "the failings of these immigrants is due to their religion" -- perhaps it is. but perhaps it also has to do with their starting point in either their home country or wherever they've immigrated to.

as to the fact that offspring of immigrants tend to be more orthodox -- i see you don't mention the interpretation that some sociologists have that this is a response to either perceived or real social injustices.

there are certainly a lot of faults with the interpretation and implementation of islamic theology, most muslims recognize that there are different schools of theology so i'm not sure why other people find it so difficult.

as to how people act, well, the scientific terms confounding factors and multifactorial come into it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

well, like i said before, we've had these arguments before and nothing has been gained. you refuse to accept that there are several different theological schools in islam -- you have a very black and white view of things which in my opinion are significantly nuanced.

I am not unaware of these, I just refuse them the legitimation they often claim, and I do so for hiostoiriuc reasons, reasons that lie in the scritpure, and I also asnwer you that you seem to ignore the many things on which they agree. In the end, muslims have no porblems, whenever it is for their advanatge, to refer to and confess to always just "Islam" itself", and the one Ummah of islam. Not different versions of the one or the other. The perceived diversity of possible interpretation of quran - for kost is a wetsern ionvention of the past 40, 50 years. And even many promionent muslim clerics, pliktici9ans, and spokesmen deny that diversity of Islam, labelling it an insult to think there is diversity possible in the Quranic tradition. Since the 9th or 10th century, there is agreement between the most dominant six major school of law in Islam that the abrogation principle in Quranic suras is existing and is valid. It also is laid out right in words in at least four different passages of the Quran.

no problem, that's your opinion. i would prefer it however, if you would stop saying i'm not muslim. after all, i must be, since i get hassled at airports all the time.

Flawed logic in that argument. On being Muslim, see me earlier answer(s).

what i'm trying to say is its very simple to lay the blame on islam, when most of the problems in these ME countries have to do with government, tribal, local, and national, which has more to do greed and personal aggrandizement than any religous dogma.

So says you, ignroing that the cultural climate of these palces inflkuenced the factors you mentioned to stay what they are. Europe has been in a much poorer intellectual and scierntiifc and cultural state, too, however, europe was able to imporve, to develope, to grow, to blossom, and leave the supression of females and witch hhunts, relgious intolerance and patriarchalism behind to very wide degrees. I wonder if that has somethign to do with the power of the church's dogma getting broken and the role and influence of dogmatic relgion being relativised?

the outlook of individuals from saudi, for example, where had work is somewhat frowned upon and they'd much prefer paying someone else to do the work, is totally different from someone from oman where they try to be more self-sufficient. even in saudi that is changing due to economic pressures. but it's simpler to just say, "it's because of their religion."

The rich nations basing on oil - see that oil being produced with Wetsern technology, that was developed by Wetsern science, the facitlites oftehn get run and maintained by Wetsern experts, and the managing of the trade and fiancial business gets organised by wetsern examples. the only merit these nations have in their welath is - that they have oilö. but that is no merit i itself, nor a cultural acchievement. and the many mega-buildings they have risen in the gulf region recnetly: you see wetsern architects, and constuction being done by workers from foreign countries, with materials and technical solutions develkoped in asian and western places. and whenever ther eis an epidemic spreading, whom, do you call? the Ansar university in Khairo where students spend half of their time learning relgious dogmas - or the disease control centre in Atlanta? when Lybia needs a reorganisation of it'S health system and hospoitals - does it acchieve that all by itself or by blackmailing foriegn nations to bring in the knowhow on how to do it? the satelittes for dubai TV broadcasting - are they the product of science run in the islamic cultural sphere, or the West? The basic fundamental knowlöedge and understanding for modern science and tehcnology - developed in the West and Japan/china, or in the islamci world? modern agricultural standards and multiplication of harvest incomes - by methods of traditional ME habits, or by wetsern knowledge and knowhow? What had the Palestinians made of their living place before the Israelis came? back then, it was a stony desert, today the Israelis run agriculture their that is incredible for such a dry place. and on and on and on the list goes. and this althiough 1400 years ago arabian peninsula was far ahead of Europe in trade, science, medical treatement! and then it stopped to move forward, and stagnated. that was it for them until poil was found. And if westerners wouldn't have found it for them, and wouldn'T have priduced it for them, then they still would not know what to make of it and how to turn it into money.

Now, I save myself from, listing a series of general philosophic and legal accievements of the West, that for most are still maintained and by wide consensus are agree upon in the Western world, from the equality of women to the freedom of speech, from the banning of slavery to the belief that the dignity of man/women (even infidels!) should be untouchable.

The West is not perfect, and for two steps forwqards it seem to make one step back, or takes a sidestep. but all in all we improved ourselves more or less constantly since centuries. the Muslim sphere of influence: stagnates, became fatalistic, uncreative, passive. By mental attitude it still is where it was over a thousand years ago. When Napoleon landed in Egypt and showed the Muslim world that infidels not only could reach them, but had superior means available and that muslims could not even do anything to to deny them entry or keep them away, that was not onlya shock - it was an offence for an ideology that saw and still sees itself as the greatest installement of civilisational superiority on this planet. and due to this "offence" that is defined by others having done better than the so self-glorifying Islamic world itself - you people still feel constantly offended by others - instead of seeing the falure in your own cultural system that is so massively mutilated by islam despite the once sueprior starting conditions that you had.

If I were you or any muslim, I would curse and doom Muhammad for what he has done to my people's future.

it's very easy to say, "the failings of these immigrants is due to their religion" -- perhaps it is. but perhaps it also has to do with their starting point in either their home country or wherever they've immigrated to.

One wonders why other immigrants do so much better, and why Muslim migrants starting point is so much inferior to that of others, then. could it be that it has soemthign to do with their hostory, theirt attitude they had been raised to, the educaiton influencing the way in which they approach - or not approach the challenges of life and migrating to another place...? Admitted, the West is stupid enough to m,ake it easy for them to fail, by feeding them and cuddling them wiothiut daring to raise demands to them. gemany is probaly the kost stupid wetsern country in this regard. Australia, america, Canada, and others do ask their immigranst what they have to offer to contribute to the nation'S improvement. In Germany, asking that is considered to be discrimination. I think that way we deserve to get only those migrants that other nations already have refused. We bancrupt ourselves that way.

as to the fact that offspring of immigrants tend to be more orthodox -- i see you don't mention the interpretation that some sociologists have that this is a response to either perceived or real social injustices.

I know that argument, and it is coming from left socialists, pedagogues, and the what in Germany is called the 68-generation trying to gloss over the situation. as a matter of fact, such effects can be calculated out of statistics, so that you can demonstrate for example that the higher representation in crime statistics is not due to social injustice, but due to inner sociological constellations founded on the cultural background and unhealthy family situations. Lacking perspectives can serve as intermitting variables, as they are called in German statistics, too, of course they can. But then you need to ask why this affects Muslim miograns more than non-Muslim migrants, and again you need to conclude that the muslim background has somethign to do with it due to the influence on mindset, general attitude. It is interesting that those muslim girls/women that suffer more from Islam than men, do much better at school, at the cost of raising more family conflicts and accepting personal risks: female muslim young immigrants outclass their male companions in most educational and acadmeical scores. which again is an offence to Muslim men, and makes them more supressive to their sisters and girlfriends. the number of male-female conflicts in families (especially regarding sisters/daughters), is rising. That is because better education means more success and also more demand to benefit from the superior wetsern freedoms and values.Education is the enemy of every relgion, and islam is no exception. Islamic education wants submission by the girls, and compliance with the dogma. Grils viollating this scheme, live dangerous. but such girls, and women craving for more freedom in muslim ****ries, are another reason why I attack islam so unforgivingly. not attacking it means to betray the hopes for a better life and escape from supression and de facto slavery for hundreds of milions of girls and women - something that many islamophile appeasers just ignore.

there are certainly a lot of faults with the interpretation and implementation of islamic theology, most muslims recognize that there are different schools of theology so i'm not sure why other people find it so difficult.

Maybe becasue that variety of possible interpretations is illusory, or ill-based. To me, the teaching of quran is primitive, inhumane, and evil, and I can fully understand the need in people to try to believe in so,mehtijg better than that. The old god of the Thora is a tyrannic psychopath and sadistic dictator. It took quite some creative, hairsplitting, witty intellectualism to turn that beast of a guy into the forgiving, well-meaning father modern Jews prefer to believe in, and christians as well. the christian god in the OT is basing on the Jewish Jahwe, but the new testament (Jesus reforming of Judaic belief - that si what made him so dangerous to the pharisees) implemented a different con cpet of God, and again some century later came the inner-christian reformation, leading to the splitting of the church into Orthodox Catholicism, and Protestants. there was a desire to leave the old revnging vulcan god of thethora and Ot behind, and the same desire is felt by many Muslims - thus their desire to distort the quranic teaching to degrees that quran simply does not support, and thinking that the resulting "interpretation" of islam nevertheless wopuld be "original". It is a compliment for muslims that they see the need to escape the Quranic origianl conceptions. but they are inconsistent when that does not lead them to question the claimed fame and status of that conception, and want to be seen in conformity with it while already having abandoned it in parts.

when you see the evil in Nazism and refuse Nazism therefore, there is no excuse why you nevertheless want to be seen as a Nazi. eventually you do it if you think you can make claims over it for benefits that otherwise you donot deserve. I think that is wehat many Muslims do on a subconsious level.

I don't buy it, and tell them instead: kick all that dusty nonsense out of the window, don't waste time with demanding undeserved profits for yourself that you did not earn, and finally start moving again, after one millenia you have to move fast in order to ctahc up with therest of the modern world again. That way, and only that way, you will improve your places, will give your children a btter, less intellectually castrated future, that way you will earn the creativioty to forge your own fate instead of depending on the inventions of other cultures. and only that way you will beocme less a paijn in the a$$ for all the other natiosn and cultures on this planet that escaped the fate of having been subjugated by islam so far.

For wanting that, you can get my respect. For dojng so, you can get my support and help.

For staying like you are, you only get my mockery and my determined und non-negotiable resistence.

most muslims recognize that there are different schools of theology so i'm not sure why other people find it so difficult.

Thats easy, once they accept that then their arguement falls apart, you will have to learn to accept that for some people like Skybird and the Taliban there is only one school of thought on scripture and its the one they share.

Flawed logic in that argument. On being Muslim, see me earlier answer(s).

Thats the earlier answers with the circular logic, which by definition is flawed.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I
Maybe becasue that variety of possible interpretations is illusory, or ill-based. To me, the teaching of quran is primitive, inhumane, and evil, and I can fully understand the need in people to try to believe in so,mehtijg better than that. The old god of the Thora is a tyrannic psychopath and sadistic dictator. It took quite some creative, hairsplitting, witty intellectualism to turn that beast of a guy into the forgiving, well-meaning father modern Jews prefer to believe in, and christians as well. the christian god in the OT is basing on the Jewish Jahwe, but the new testament (Jesus reforming of Judaic belief - that si what made him so dangerous to the pharisees) implemented a different con cpet of God, and again some century later came the inner-christian reformation, leading to the splitting of the church into Orthodox Catholicism, and Protestants. there was a desire to leave the old revnging vulcan god of thethora and Ot behind, and the same desire is felt by many Muslims - thus their desire to distort the quranic teaching to degrees that quran simply does not support, and thinking that the resulting "interpretation" of islam nevertheless wopuld be "original". It is a compliment for muslims that they see the need to escape the Quranic origianl conceptions. but they are inconsistent when that does not lead them to question the claimed fame and status of that conception, and want to be seen in conformity with it while already having abandoned it in parts.

when you see the evil in Nazism and refuse Nazism therefore, there is no excuse why you nevertheless want to be seen as a Nazi. eventually you do it if you think you can make claims over it for benefits that otherwise you donot deserve. I think that is wehat many Muslims do on a subconsious level.

.

That is brief but still insightful view on religion.
I as an atheist agree with it 100% i have many religious friends and co workers and sometimes i like to sting them about how God is actually mean and revengeful toward his believers and ruthless toward unbelievers.
Kind of egomaniac?.
I also ask them how they can take seriously this "gods chosen people" thing considering Jewish history.....from my point of view we where chosen by GOD to be kicked around-some kind of dark sense of humor.
Ok... i don't get stoned to death as i would if Israel was like Iran or Saudia.
From my point of view it is impotent to have division between state and religion.
For Europe it took hundreds of years to achieve that-you can go to church every Sunday but its not a big deal if your neighbor doesn't.
For most part your children still will go to same school and learn same values.
Islam for now has a hard time in doing that-in many countries it is achieved by dictatorship and iron feast.
Arab countries are what Europe was 1000 years ago.
I think its quite understandable why Europeans should be at least be watchful toward Islam as it is today.I think that letting emigrants know that certain things are not OK is a good thing.
It may actully help the next genaretion with the intagration.
Some times it can also have opsite effect but nothings pefect

Islam definitely can be threat to Western way of life as it by definition lacks(and is not supposed to have ) any tolerance to non Muslim way of life as should be forced upon people whenever circumstances allow that.
That can be jihad or demographic majority.
This may not be solid view of every religious Muslim but it is a view of most religious leaders.
Of course there are reformist in Islam as there where in Christianity 500 years ago.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sounds like the sort of people with the same circular logic as Sky uses, all muslims are fundamentalist nuts, if they ain't fundamentalist nuts they ain't muslim as all muslims are fundamentalist nuts.
But isn't it the case that the koran says bugger all about that and what sky is talking about there is one theological schools interpretation of a document that was written several centuries later. Not of course suggesting that there are different theological schools as there is only one islam and it is and always has been the fundamentlist nutty kind, even when it didn't exist.

Sects of a religion are "fundamentalist" if they are literalists.

Did the world take 7 days to make? Were Adam and Eve real? Is the book true, 100% (even if you have to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LALALLALA" when someone reads internally inconsistent passages)? Do they believe in "creationism?"

What sects of Islam are NOT fundamentalist, and how many are in that sect out of the 1.2 billion worldwide?

Sects of a religion are "fundamentalist" if they are literalists.

So you just mean those who came from the Salafi school who have gone one step further.
Though even that doesn't work as if they were true literalists they would be getting stuck with the contradictory passages.
So they are not literalists just selective literalists which is why they are fundamentalists as they believe in the fundamentals only as interpreted by themselves.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you just mean those who came from the Salafi school who have gone one step further.
Though even that doesn't work as if they were true literalists they would be getting stuck with the contradictory passages.
So they are not literalists just selective literalists which is why they are fundamentalists as they believe in the fundamentals only as interpreted by themselves.

I mean that if you think the world was created as in genesis, you are a fundy, period. If you think that the koran is accurate? Fundy.

A non-fundy will admit that their book is "just so" stories. Not literally true, but useful for a moral.

What islamic sects specifically state that the koran is not literally true, just useful stories?

What islamic sects specifically state that the koran is not literally true, just useful stories?

I see where your problem is.
What is the koran Tater?

[Skybird]

Good point, Tater, which I also make time and again: Islam is fundamentalist by definition. If it is not fundamentalist - or as you say: not literalist - then it cannot be Islamic in the Quran's meaning. that is no circular logic by me when claiming that - it simply is an adequate description of the nature of this ideology.

I could as well be accused of "circular logic" when saying that Nazism is racist, and when denying their are more liberal, more democratic forms of Nazism. Nazism is by nature and definition racist - always, else it is not Nazism. A Nazi indeed refusing the racist component in it, is no real Nazi.

Muhammad used the hiding of a religion that he invented to make himself unavailable for criticism and quesitoning his leadership - by declaring such criticism a heresy that could cost the heretic his life. Muhammad's sermons are designed to acchieve maximum unit and support by his followers of his time, to make his army strong and not plagued by doubts or hesitations, and to intimidate everybody who could have meant a challenge to Muhammad'S claim for power. And for acchieving this outcome, this social effect, he did not need sensible reasoning and love for human kindness, but he enforced uniformity and totalitarian control. Only from this perspective it can be understood why the Quran is what it is, and is not any different. And only against this background the Quran can be "interpreted" correctly. leave the supoerstition behind, this is no book of metaphysical insight and divine revelation, but it is nothing else put a work of pure fiction of a single man that he opportunistically designed to support his powerpoltiical intentions.

Ron Hubbard, founder of the corporation of Scientology, 1400 years later: "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." And: "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is."

Maybe for Muhammad, wealth and treasury also was a point, and maybe he started as a social reformer before he became known as a kahin, a seer. But in the end - he was about power, and women.

[Konovalov]

Can't we give this Islam that, Islam this stuff a rest once and a while. Life is hard enough at times let alone to have to visit here and come across countless threads by the same old people on this same old subject of Islam is evil, Muslims are taking over the planet, yada yada yada. I mean come on, is there nothing else happening in your lives like sims and most importantly sub sims?

I am not saying no discussion on the subject at all. I am simply asking for a little bit of variety and a little bit of self-moderation. All I see is just the same old tiresome flame war between the same old people. I'm getting on for near a decade of being a member of this forum but quite frankly it is a horrible place to be at times for the small minority of Muslims who are indeed members and do make meaningful contributions here.

And as for this topic it ain't hard to figure out. France were crap and living off past glories with a coach who said prior to the World Cup that he was leaving at the end of the tournament. The French football team was an accident waiting to happen. It has nothing to do with Islam. They were a rubbish team and simply not good enough just like my Australia and England.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I see where your problem is.
What is the koran Tater?

Why do you reflexively defend Islam? It's just as stupid as any other religion.

Qur'an, plus hadith.

The same standard for fundamentalism applies to Islam as Christianity. Biblical literalism in the latter (and the former for the shared bits), and koranis literalism for the latter.

Any belief that the haditha are literally true also plays into this.

What sects openly state that the Koran and hadith are just stories that don't even have to be true, just good moral teachings in fictional form?

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by MH

From my point of view it is impotent to have division between state and religion.

Dr. Freud anyone?
Fact is we don't have a true seperation of state and religion here, religion is mandatory taught in most states. Blasphemy laws are still there...

Originally Posted by tater

What sects of Islam are NOT fundamentalist, and how many are in that sect out of the 1.2 billion worldwide?

The Alevis are pretty laid-back people... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alevi
About 15%-30% of the Turkish population, but granted a minority worldwide.


As much as I dislike (political) Islam, you cannot say it's all the same.
What about Indonesia, where the government is pretty hard engaged into the fight agains fundamentalists, Pakistan also to a level?
What about Iraq, where Sunnis and Shiites kick the S. out of each other (and both fight against the Kurds)
What about Qatar, Bahrein, Kuwait, Dubai who treat their foreign workers from islamic countries like slaves?
What about the great Arabic states who care nothing about the Palestinians? As long as they are in poverty, they have a reason to blame the Jews. There are some of the richest countries in the world in the Middle East, with their money every Palestinian "refugee" could have a big house, huge piece of land and prime infrastructure, but no, they need their scapegoats...

This doesn't look like Islam is a homogeneous mass.