Invitation to TAICS

[sum]

Hello CuteCoot

I live by the Golden Rule.

In the civil war that I envisage, the fighting would be muslims versus all other groups.

Islam can not compromise. If there are “muslims” who want to integrate and avoid the mosque etc they are nolonger muslims but hypocrites and destined for hell.

I view Christianity as the Golden Rule with a god as a figurehead.

Your quote –
If civil war broke out, would you treat all Muslims alike? I think, for a start, you would join forces with cultural Muslims who have abandoned their faith (such as Ali Sina).

These people would have to join the non-muslims and fight, and perhaps kill, alongside the non-muslims to show that they were genuine ex-muslims (Ali Sina excepted of course!!!).

Your quote –
Similarly, in a civil war situation, how would you view the appeasers of Islam? Would they be on "your side" or "the other side"?

This is a difficult question to answer as it depends on their degree of involvement.

Your quote –
Your experience in debating Muslims seems to suggest that an FFI or merely conversational approach won't work.

It will work to a degree but not enough muslims will be reached. In fact the Koran tells muslims not to discuss matters like this or ask questions.

Your quote –
I'm guessing you don't have much faith in "interfaith dialogue" approaches.

None at all. Who will be in the discussions and which muslim will say that they will disregard parts of the Koran and ahadith? A complete non-starter. How would these views filter down to the mosques? The Imams will continues as they always have.

Your quote –
How about if Muslims and non-Muslims just mixed more: played more sport together, found things to celebrate together, collaborated more on artistic and cultural projects, etc? Do you think that would help?

Another non-starter. Muslims have had all the chances in the world to mix but they do not. Why – because of the Koran and ahadith. Islam forbids integration and friendship with non-muslims.

Your quote –
It would be good to find something constructive that lies between the apparently futile debating and the inevitable bloodshed.

I agree, but to me, it is only a dream. Islam prevents it. Do not forget that you are a kafir – najis – unclean, impure and best avoided.

sum

[Humanist]

Koran 3:118 "O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand."

Koran 5:51 "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Koran 5:80 "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide."

If you are a Muslim who believes then how can we have meaningful discussions when the Muslim’s prophet made these statements? These passages teach Muslims to not trust non-Muslims. Basically they are instructed to hate non-Muslims and for sure never to trust them because the non-Muslims are out to ruin the Muslims. It is the old “WE” versus “THEM” mentality.

Using these quotes from the Koran, please explain how a good Muslim could ever enter into discussions with Non-Muslims to find common ground?

Sum, summed it up properly. There is no way to negotiate with Islams followers because the negotiating well was poisoned by those three statements from Mohammad.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

[The Cat]

I personally came to think that religious freedom should be limited to whatever is religious in any field. Then again, wherever a religion, a cult or a sect has -any- political subversive views and incentives, then they should be heavily fine or not permitted to teach, or forced to form a real political party, needed to be elected, so not to hide it behind the mask of religions. Unfortunately though this last option brought Hamas to govern in Palestine... so it's not a panacea.

If ever a world-like civil war happens against Islam, such a secular approach will be needed in order to prevent it from happening again. Such forced regulations did occur through the surrendering conditions imposed by the USA over Japan. Around 1880, in Japan, the authorities fabricated a brand new religion, called Mikado-Bushido. They needed an aggressive creed uniting the Japanese, in the otherwise peaceful Buddhist community. How fast this was done is what happened in Islam, after its first wave of astonishing conquests (640-750).

Inventing a religion: The Mikado Worship (1912). Excerpts.
http://hoary.org/scand/invent.html

[charleslemartel]

Hello CuteCoot,

Your conditions had discouraged me to participate in this thread; I do not wish to reveal my background for certain reasons. However, I cannot resist taking part in this discussion as the topic is too relevant and important to pass up. Since this is your thread, you can simply ask me to desist or not respond to my post and this will be my last post.

[CuteCoot]

to sum, Humanist, The Cat, and charleslemartel:

It's early morning here and I've just checked this thread, finding here so much "meat" to consider and respond to. It may take me a while to do justice to your posts but I will work my way through them during the day.

I just want here to make two general points:

1. Charleslemartel referred to my "conditions" for participating in this discussion. I'm only a forum participant and I cannot dictate "conditions". I'm not going to refuse to discuss these issues because, for one reason or another, a participant doesn't want to provide background information. I simply asked for that because I consider it helpful to the discussion.

2. Because I started this topic in a relatively formal way with a structured outline it can have the feel of teacher out in front as against students in the classroom. I used the word "invitation" in the hope of avoiding that feel. I would hope that this would be a conversation among equals, like the round table discussion referred to above. Which is to say that, now that some introductory replies have been provided, please feel free to address each other and comment on other visions besides my own.

[charleslemartel]

[CuteCoot]

Hello sum,

You wrote: I live by the Golden Rule.
My reply: And a very fine rule it is.

You wrote: In the civil war that I envisage, the fighting would be muslims versus all other groups.
My reply: So the categories would be those set by the Islamists, that is, Muslims vs non-Muslims.

You wrote: Islam can not compromise. If there are “muslims” who want to integrate and avoid the mosque etc they are nolonger muslims but hypocrites and destined for hell.
My reply: All of this is in agreement with the Islamist worldview and in accord with what they want to see happen. Your vision seems to be identical with theirs.

You wrote: I view Christianity as the Golden Rule with a god as a figurehead.
My reply: A very apt and neat summing up.

My quote: If civil war broke out, would you treat all Muslims alike? I think, for a start, you would join forces with cultural Muslims who have abandoned their faith (such as Ali Sina).
You wrote: These people would have to join the non-muslims and fight, and perhaps kill, alongside the non-muslims to show that they were genuine ex-muslims (Ali Sina excepted of course!!!).
My reply: If Ali Sina is anything to go by, I think you might find that ex-Muslims would be reluctant to fight and kill Muslims just because they're Muslims.

My quote: Similarly, in a civil war situation, how would you view the appeasers of Islam? Would they be on "your side" or "the other side"?
You wrote: This is a difficult question to answer as it depends on their degree of involvement.
My reply: What if they refused to fight and kill Muslims just because they're Muslims? What if, in the name of Christianity and/or the Golden Rule, they stood shoulder to shoulder with integrating Muslims, fully prepared to defend to the death the right of every Muslim to follow their own faith tradition? Given the 80% support of Obama in the non-US West and the majority support for him in the US, I'd say you might be looking at a Western anti-anti-Muslim block here of about 70% of the non-Muslim population of the West. Your vision seems to me to be a suicidal one.

My quote: Your experience in debating Muslims seems to suggest that an FFI or merely conversational approach won't work.
You wrote: It will work to a degree but not enough muslims will be reached. In fact the Koran tells muslims not to discuss matters like this or ask questions.
My reply: In that case, a hell of a lot of Muslims are disobeying the Koran.

My quote: I'm guessing you don't have much faith in "interfaith dialogue" approaches.
You wrote: None at all. Who will be in the discussions and which muslim will say that they will disregard parts of the Koran and ahadith? A complete non-starter. How would these views filter down to the mosques? The Imams will continues as they always have.
My reply: Have you ever taken serious part in an interfaith dialogue? I have attended a few. A lot of the time nothing much seemed to be happening but after a while I could see that barriers were breaking down, one tiny brick at a time. Trust takes a long time to build up, on both sides.

My quote: How about if Muslims and non-Muslims just mixed more: played more sport together, found things to celebrate together, collaborated more on artistic and cultural projects, etc? Do you think that would help?
You wrote: Another non-starter. Muslims have had all the chances in the world to mix but they do not. Why – because of the Koran and ahadith. Islam forbids integration and friendship with non-muslims.
My reply: I've noticed a hell of a lot of integrating Muslims who seem to be disobeying that Koranic instruction.

My quote: It would be good to find something constructive that lies between the apparently futile debating and the inevitable bloodshed.
You wrote: I agree, but to me, it is only a dream. Islam prevents it. Do not forget that you are a kafir – najis – unclean, impure and best avoided.
My reply: I hope I'm not a kafir or najis to you! It is not a widespread or mainstream Muslim legal view to include kafirs in the list of najis. Certainly, among integrating Muslims, any such view is repugnant since they want to get along with their neighbours and do fruitful business with non-Muslims in general.

Some concluding thoughts from me:

When I asked for people to provide their own "vision" I meant that not as their prediction of what would happen but more as a goal that they felt worthy of striving for. I detect a bloodlust in your own vision, the responsibility for which you are thrusting again and again onto Muslims. You suggest that it is Islam and the Koran that oblige Muslims to behave in certain stereotyped ways. I have found that, just as Christians can behave in bloodthirsty ways uncharacteristic of Jesus, just so Muslims can behave quite spontaneously in very "Christian" ways.

Your own vision - what amounts to your own dream for the future - is a bloodbath followed by the complete dominance of non-Islam over Islam. This is a mirror image of the Islamists' dream for the future. At least you both agree on the bloodbath!

I believe this dream is impractical and unachievable. The bloodbath bit can continue to happen in bits and pieces here and there. However the complete subjugation of one side by the other is, to me, an implausible outcome. And to me, it is also distasteful.

Still, as they say in the corridors where world politics are negotiated, your own vision has its supporters and all options should be on the table.

[CuteCoot]

[CuteCoot]

Hello The Cat,

Thank you for your more extended comment on this thread.

[CuteCoot]

[The Cat]

Dear CuteCoot, Sufism is -not- Islam. Its founder, Ahmad al-Qadiana, claimed to be an incarnation of Allah, but there's not possible partnership with Allah in Islam. More so, a lot of Sufi poetry deals with the joy of intoxicants like wine, which is explicitly condemned in mainstream Islam three basic laws: bow, pay the Jizhya or die. It may be tolerated a while, when useful for the spreading of Islam, charming you in, but sufists are to be exterminated for the final glory of Allah. That's how mystic Islam really is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

[Val Era]

[CuteCoot]

Dear The Cat,

I realize that Sufism and Islam are not identical and that many mainstream Muslims discount or reject it. Indeed, I understand it to be outlawed in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't alter the fact that many Muslims do identify with it and appreciate it as the mystical heart of Islam. Moreover, Rumi's masterpiece is widely known as "the Koran in Persian" so it clearly has great popular approval.

From the wikipedia article that you quoted:

[CuteCoot]

[The Cat]