egafd.com

Read a great article about ISIS and how Islam and the Quran are a major part to play in recruiting Jihadists, written by ex Muslim, Fathima Imra Nazeer. That the religion itself, viewing the Quran as infallible, gives weight to ISIS-style literal interpretations. A good read.

From the article: [quote]If we want to really solve the problem and maybe even regain some credibility, we need leaders who are willing to put forth the idea that we have to change the way we regard the Quran. Treating the Quran as God's perfect and literal word to man is creating too much havoc.

Only when the notions of Quranic infallibility and inerrancy are challenged, will it be possible for believing Muslims to openly admit that according to literalist interpretations at least, violent and hateful passages exist in the Quran: passages that call for fighting those who don't believe in Allah, that support ISIS's ideology and help them recruit young Muslims like Aqsa Mahmood.[/quote]

Link to full article>


Here's a good read too on the situation in the Arab world from US-based, Lebanese journalist Hisham Melhem. A lot more introspective and about the Arab mindset rather than just blaming outsiders.

From article: [quote]Arab civilization, such as we knew it, is all but gone. The Arab world today is more violent, unstable, fragmented and driven by extremism?the extremism of the rulers and those in opposition?than at any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a century ago.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3EbsdEFa6[/quote]
Link>

The article by Fathima Imra Nazeer is extremely lightweight.

Getting an ex-Muslim to give an appraisal of the Koran is a bit like asking Mark Reckless who has just left the Tories to join UKIP to give a fair, unbiased appraisal of the Tory party. You kinda know before they open their mouths as to which way the conversation is going to go.

Imra Nazeer is going to lambast the Koran and Reckless is going to lambast the Tory party.

I note you have always copied Nazeer's line re. the literal interpretation of the Koran so if there are violent acts described in the Koran, this is used to justify the violent acts carried out by ISIL. Therefore according to Slater, this is the fault of the Koran and evil Islam.

As I have pointed out to you elsewhere and you have been totally unable to respond, many Muslim scholars take a completely, different view. I am surprised that you haven't chosen to link to the following article in the Huffington Post instead of Nazeer's.



!wink!

Anyway, perhaps you and Nazeer can put your views to the Muslim scholars referenced above. Let us know how you get on.

As for me personally, I will continue to ignore Numbers 31:7-18 of the Old Testament

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

It seems David Johnson is annoyed that anyone should view a 7th century book as infallible. I guess he thinks that Muslims should not be questioning, skeptical people with their own minds but merely sheep that view their holy book as undistorted, uncorrupted and perfect.

I see that as the best way to keep Muslims in servitude.

Hey, what's with the use of the third person that has been going on for months in which you reply to my post by addressing the forum instead of me?

If I didn't know better, I would think you are trying to isolate and ostracise me!!

!grin! !grin!

What is also unfair is David's uncalled for attack on Fathima Imra Nazeer. The implication that being an ex-Muslim means she cannot speak objectively and fairly about her old religion. Does he know if Mrs. Nazeer's character at all?

It shows David's mentality in all of this when he likens someone losing their religion to being a 'defector' like Mark Reckless. It is the same mindset as a so called 'extremist Muslim' would view apostates as traitorous and contemptible. That there's some sort of 'side' they've abandoned and deserted. I find this stance utterly unfair and cruel. Mark Reckless chose to join the Conservative party and chose to leave it. Mrs. Nazeer was born into a religion unknowingly as a baby and would now be killed for leaving the faith in many countries. Totally different.

David Johnson didn't like her article, which is his prerogative, but to imply she's dishonest and liken her to a traitor or defector is a harsh and unjust judgement. Again, he plays the man, not the ball.

Nothing wrong with the Quaran or any other holy book as long as you are intelligent enough to realise they are hundreds of years out of date and so far removed from their original texts from multiple "translations" that they have little or no bearing on modern society. How any intelligent person can be controlled by a book written in bits centuries ago and place its "teachings" over common sense is beyond me. Long live Atheism.

Do you not think at any time whatsoever, that you might be getting the eensiest, teensiest bit overwrought and stressed out about all of this?

Maybe a couple of days away from the forum? Spot of fresh air? Walk in the countryside? Listen to the birds twittering and a tweeting?

Might give you a slightly, more "balanced" perspective, perhaps?

!shitstorm! !shitstorm!

Notice he didn't defend his unfair likening of losing one's religion to being a defector of a political party. Mind you, he hasn't admitted that might have been a little foolish either.

And he calls for me to get a bit of perspective!

I will take that as a "no" then.

!wink!

Fair point. In the article I provided a link to in this thread, one of the points in summary, made by the Islamic scholars is

"It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings."

which seems an eminently sensible approach to me.