suicide bombers

[_dartagnan]

These Muslims said they believe the Quran can be changed and that it is not literally God’s word?!?!?!?!? They would be lynched in Pakistan and chastised by most Muslim socities.

I suggest you probe deeper with them because I see this too often; people make assumptions about what some of their Muslim acquaintances believe based on what they don’t say. I have never once come across a Muslim who would suggest the Quran can be changed. In fact, most Muslim converts I know change their name to something in Arabic because it is viewed as the divine language. Since the Quran was originally written in Arabic, it is beyond translating perfectly so Muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic in order to understand the book’s true meaning.

There was an interesting event that took place a month ago whereby a Muslim (in Texas I believe) was thrown out of his mosque because he spoke up against Islamic terrorism. Now what does that tell you about what is the norm and what is fringe?

In any event, it is fallacious to keep insisting the Christian view on the Old Testament is equal to the Muslim view of the Quran.

[_truth dancer]

These Muslims said they believe the Quran can be changed and that it is not literally God’s word?!?!?!?!?

They say the Imam interprets the Quran. Those I know do not embrace the teachings you suggest they must.

They would be lynched in Pakistan and chastised by most Muslim socities.

I understand things are quite different in Pakistan.

I suggest you probe deeper with them because I see this too often; people make assumptions about what some of their Muslim acquaintances believe based on what they don’t say.

No... I have questioned and probed. I disagree with you based on the information I have received from those who have shared with me their beliefs. I have no reason to suspect they are lying.

I have never once come across a Muslim who would suggest the Quran can be changed.

Changed? Can the Bible be changed? Most believers would say no.

Can people interpret both texts differently? Of course. They can and do.

In fact, most Muslim converts I know change their name to something in Arabic because it is viewed as the divine language. Since the Quran was originally written in Arabic, it is beyond translating perfectly so Muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic in order to understand the book’s true meaning.

All Muslims I know are from the East and speak Arabic, with one exception... who is a second generation American (she does speak Arabic).

In any event, it is fallacious to keep insisting the Christian view on the Old Testament is equal to the Muslim view of the Quran.

I disagree... (surprise). I think the situation is quite similar for educated Muslims in America. I do not see one bit of difference.

How many American Muslims have you really discussed this issue with? Have you ever spoken with an Imam? Visited a Mosque? I'm interested in how you got your opinion. :-)

~dancer~

[_dartagnan]

They say the Imam interprets the Quran.

The Imam becomes an Imam based on his knowledge of Islamic texts, particularly the ahadith, which serves as the official interpretation of the Quran for all of Sunni Islam. The Imam is not granted the privilege to interpret the Quran of his own volition - he is only permitted to share his knowledge of the ahadith when asked. The biggest hurdle is Arabic, however, and an Imam must know the language well.

Those I know do not embrace the teachings you suggest they must.

Did I say anyone “must” embrace any “teachings”? I am telling you how the Quran is generally understood in Islam, as a religious text. I don’t think we have broached the subject of its “teachings.” As a religious text it is granted a higher sense of inerrancy than anything presented by Christians or Jews. That some estranged Muslims might worship peanut butter because they think the Quran tells them too, is not beyond the realm of possibility. Nor is it beyond the realm that some Muslms actually think they can interpret the Quran themselves and be considered orthodox.

I understand things are quite different in Pakistan.

Most Muslim majority societies are. But we’re supposed to assume the “moderate” minority living in the West, speaking carefully to a sensitive western audience, is supposed to tell us something? Could you imagine some fringe Mormon group in Norway getting the authoritative upperhand over Utah when declaring what Mormonism really is?

No... I have questioned and probed.

Then where do they disagree with what I have said? You haven’t really provided any examples.

Provide me one Muslim online who would say the Quran can be changed and that it is not timeless and uncreated. This is what I have maintained, and it is true. That is the whole point to the Quran for Muslims. It is its greatest sales pitch. For them it is everything the Bible turned out not to be; something that couldn’t be changed because it was protected by God; something free of any and all error, no matter how trivial.

I disagree with you based on the information I have received from those who have shared with me their beliefs. I have no reason to suspect they are lying.

About what? What have I said that you disagree with? I am dead on correct about how the Quran is understood as an inerrant text in Islam. If you disagree with that, you’ve provided no evidence to the contrary.

Changed? Can the Bible be changed? Most believers would say no.

The Bible has been through dozens upon dozens of translations which occasionally delete entire phrases, even verses. This is forbidden with the Quran. There is an entire science dedicated to criticism of the Bible, embraced by its own followers. Again, it is generally understood that the Quran can’t really be translated at all because of the risk of taking something out inadvertently.

I disagree... (surprise). I think the situation is quite similar for educated Muslims in America. I do not see one bit of difference.

Not one bit of difference, even though I just provided several?

Well, if you’re dead set on the reductionist approach, and refuse to acknowledge any details of difference that might disrupt that approach, then there really isn’t much I can do about that. It remains fallacious to refer to the Old Testament as a means to mitigate Islamic terrorism/radicalism. It is no better than the LDS apologetic maneuver which diverts attention to the Old Testament as a means to take focus off Book of Mormon problems.

How many American Muslims have you really discussed this issue with?

Geez… since 9-11? If I had to guess…about 60. But then, that doesn’t include Brazilian Muslims.

Have you ever spoken with an Imam? Visited a Mosque? I'm interested in how you got your opinion.

Education. I have buried myself in this subject for years now. Imams are a dime a dozen, even those who are frequently deported for terror ties.

Can you imagine people speaking on Mormonism based solely on their conversations with other Mormons? You’d get about as much of an education as you would from the missionaries.

[_truth dancer]

Kevin, you are asking me to believe that all the Muslims I know are liars. No I'm not going there.

I'm not set on anything... if it turned out that all the Muslims I know are liars, well I would change my mind.

I just do not see what you see. I know you are well studied but you seem not to be in touch with modern Islam in our communities.

Can the Quran be changed? No... nor can the Bible. I do not see the difference here. Even LDS folks who do not believe in the Bible do not suggest it should be changed. It is what it is.

We are not talking about changing a text, we are talking about how a text impacts one's life and how it is interpreted by those who hold it to be holy.

Let me give you another example, since you brought up Mormonism...

I've had many people suggest that Mormons still embrace polygamy. They believe this based on church history, LDS scripture, journals, teachings, documents suggesting polygamy will never go away. But if people know mainstream LDSs today, they would see a different picture. Are there still those who practice polygamy? Are there still those who believe in polygamy? Are there still those who embrace it to some degree (men sealed to more than one women at a time). Yes, but most members would not claim to be polygamists.

I just do not believe most educated Muslims in our communities believe as you suggest they do.

~dancer~

[_ajax18]

dart -

I do agree that there is a fanatical sect of Islam that could fit your description.

But I also do think that if there were not such serious political and economic problems in the mid-east right now that this sort of radical Islam wouldn't appeal to so many. Do you agree?

Perhaps not Beastie, but I'm not sure what you exactly mean by political problems. If you're talking about poverty, you could say that Latin Americans are very poor (bad government as well) and have reason to be jealous of the U.S. and other developed nations but they don't come here to blow stuff up out of hate. They kill but only insomuch as it makes them money (Colombian drug lords) and I think it's easier for us to understand those motives. Russia has political problems but they're not into this kind of martyrdom much either. They don't like the U.S.A. much as most of the world, but they aren't blowing stuff up either. China, the Phillipines, and the list goes on and on. Some of these countries are also very different from Western culture, so you really can't just say cultural differences are the biggest part of what leads to suicide bombing. I think the overwhelming factor seems to be religion, and in this case, a religion that seems stuck in the dark ages. I agree that lousy political/economic situations can lead to hopelessness, but I think we'd be fooling ourselves if we said that was the majority of the problem and not religion.

[_dartagnan]

Kevin, you are asking me to believe that all the Muslims I know are liars. No I'm not going there.

Where have I asked you that? You haven’t even provided any evidence that they disagree with me on anything. Yes, they go to their Imam, but that doesn’t contradict what I said. The Imam simply reads to them the Arabic hadith which has existed for centuries. There is no “developing” of doctrine going on. It is already there, the people just go to the Imam to find out what it is. This is why so many Imams have been deported for terror ties. They are the ones truly educated in Islam.

I just do not see what you see. I know you are well studied but you seem not to be in touch with modern Islam in our communities.

TD, you haven’t even demonstrated that you understand what I have said. I spoke of the concept of the Quran that exists in Islam and you start going off about teachings and start talking about these mystery Muslims you know.

Can the Quran be changed? No... nor can the Bible.

Then how do you reconcile this statement with the fact that the Bible has been changed? Statements like these seem to be geared towards a blind allegiance to reductionism and/or multicultural relativism: all things must be equal. Even when I demonstrate otherwise, you keep maintaining the same premise.

I do not see the difference here.

You don’t see the difference between a text that is understood to be the literal word of God, understood to be timeless, understood to be uncreated, understood to be unchanged and unchangeable…and another text that has been changed ad nauseum, is not understood to be timeless, not uncreated, has been abrogated by another book entirely (New Testament) according to two billion adherents…?

Even LDS folks who do not believe in the Bible do not suggest it should be changed. It is what it is.

Changed from what? From the KJV? Too late. Joseph Smith did that already, as did dozens of other non-LDS translators. What LDS folks don’t believe in the Bible, and why would their opinions matter anyway?

We are not talking about changing a text we are talking about how a text impacts one's life and how it is interpreted by those who hold it to be holy.

We are talking about – or at least I am - how the Quran is understood in Islam as opposed to the Old Testament understanding in Christianity. The immunity of the Quran as opposed to the often changed Old Testament is pertinent here. It says plenty about how adherents perceive them.

I've had many people suggest that Mormons still embrace polygamy. They believe this based on church history, LDS scripture, journals, teachings, documents suggesting polygamy will never go away. But if people know mainstream LDSs today, they would see a different picture.

Ah, but you are again assuming all things are equal when in fact the opposite is true. If you think you know “mainstream Islam” because of the Muslims you know living in western society, then you’re just kidding yourself. Again, try reading some Muslim websites based in the Mid-East. To make your analogy more complete, we would naturally have to understand that Mormonism does not condone polygamy, not because people simply assert it, but because the religious figures in Mormonism declare it as such. Likewise, in Islam all four schools of Sunni thought agree that apostates should be killed. These are the religious authorities who get to declare what Islam is. Does it really matter that a tiny minority of Muslims who are trying to adapt to the west while retaining their faith, dare to vocally disagree with it? It happens, not often but it happens. Just look at how silent the American Muslim community was after 9-11, and how they find their voices whenever they feel the need to protest America or Israel or some company over stupid issues, like whether or not a proposed Burger King logo looks like “Allah” in Arabic.

Yes, but most members would not claim to be polygamists.

But most members reject it because the religious authorities reject it. Likewise, most Muslims are not “moderate” because the religious authorities are not “moderate.” People who choose to be moderate Muslims do so in spite of Islam, not because of it.

I just do not believe most educated Muslims in our communities believe as you suggest they do.

The facts show that educated Muslims are more likely to become radical Muslims. The typical Muslim who doesn’t engage in radical Islam is generally the illiterate living in some African desert. What country do you live in anyway?

[_truth dancer]

Kevin,

I could be wrong but I do not know of anyone who has purposely changed the Bible... not to be confused with translating the Bible. (Besides Joseph Smith... but still the LDS do not claim his interpretation is the one to embrace).

From my understanding scribes and translators over the years have done their best to retain its teachings. Am I wrong on this?

I understand the basic teachings of Islam. I understand there are many believers in the world who embrace a very strict interpretation. I also know many who do not.

I also know of many believers in Christianity who believe the Bible to be the word of God. Many still today hold the Bible as truth. Do you agree with this? I understand you do not personally hold this belief, but you must admit there are certainly those who do.

While I believe those who hold the Bible to be literally the word of God are fewer in number than those who believe the Quran to be such, I know believers of both religions who believe their text is open for interpretation.

Let me give you a clear example which has nothing to do with terrorism..... the Quran states a man can have four wives if he treats them all equally and identically. The men and women I know believe this is impossible (which of course it is) so hold to the idea they can have only one wife. This in my opinion, is an interpretation of the text. It is not "changing" the text but understanding it in a way that may not be clear to some.

I'm not arguing that Muslims think they can change the Quran. I'm suggesting the text is more open to interpretation than you seem to suggest.

~dancer~

Did you read the links I provided in the new thread on Muslims and peace?

[_Pahoran]

Please don't anyone tell Beastie this: she won't believe you if you tell her, and if she does believe it, she'll be heartbroken; but the thread in question was not all about her.

For those who were following the suicide bombers thread on MAD,

Which would be just about anybody here who actually wants a substantive discussion about something.

here is the post i was going to make before it was suddenly locked:

You're right it was a distortion. I should have stated again our fundamental difference of opinion. I believe your opinion is that without religion than the suicide bombing would not be carried out. I believe that without the political environment the religious zeal to kill oneself would not be necessary. I don't think they're perfectly entertwined. You remove the political and the entire motivation crumbles. You remove the religion and it does not.

Without the sanction of religion the suicide bombing would not be carried out. I am not saying that other forms of opposition and even terrorism would not be carried out. I am saying that without Islamic leaders sanctioning suicide terrorism as an acceptable method of martyrdom, the suicide terrorism would have not been popularized within this particular conflict.

Exactly--"in this particular conflict." That's the rub.

Because in other conflicts, suicide bombing is being carried out entirely "without the sanction of religion."

As Beastie herself wrote, the only reason that "the sanction of religion" is required in this conflict in particular is because the combatants are largely religious people, and their religions (including Islam) are opposed to suicide. In other words, she admitted that normative Islam would actually tend to deter such actions, but a minority of religions leaders have found a way to justify them for political reasons. What her new revised position now amounts to is that, at worst, religion can be modified to permit actions it ordinarily condemns, if there is sufficient political motivation to do so.

If there was a large pool of angry secularists from which to draw potential suicide bombers, the suicide bombings would indeed be going ahead "without the sanction of religion," as it does elsewhere. The thoroughly secular--marxist-leninist, in fact--Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eeylam are able to find a continuing supply of suicide bombers, and not a Muslm among them.

It is probably apropos at this point to review what the thread was originally about. The OP was this drive-by:

From the perspective of a suicide bomber, he's doing God's will. From a religious perspective, that's how one should act. So my question is: how can a religious person condemn the act of suicide bombing?

This is a clearly bigoted argument. It can be paraphrased in several ways, including all religion is culpable for the actions of the extemist few, or religious thinking is the sole cause for suicide bombing, but the logic (if we can call it that) of the argument seems to come down to:

1) Religious people believe that it is right for a believer to try to do God's will.
2) Suicide bombers believe they are doing God's will.
3) Therefore, religious people cannot consistently condemn the act of suicide bombing.

What really gives the game away, of course, is that if the same argument was used of the non-religious--i.e. political--motivation, it would immediately collapse. "From the perspective of a suicide bomber, he's serving a valid political end. From a political perspective, that's how one should act. So my question is: how can a politically aware person condemn the act of suicide bombing?"

Beastie supports the argument in the OP, but she has tried to shore it up to make it stronger. Here is Beastie's new revised argument:

The people who cannot condemn it without engaging in hypocrisy are those who do believe God tells people to kill other people. If you do not believe that, you can condemn it without hypocrisy. For those who actually believe that God tells people to kill other people, to condemn the Muslim terrorists requires the believer to insist that, despite the overwhelming evidence of the unreliability of man’s ability to ascertain God’s will, HE knows it well enough to know that even though God told followers of HIS religion to kill other people and they did so righteously, the Islamic terrorists were NOT obeying God because God would never tell them to do such a thing.

That was a very convoluted sentence, so I will try to restate in a list:

1. Believer A: God has, in the past, told followers to kill other people, and they did so out of obedience and love for God. The examples of this can be found either in my own religion’s scripture or sacred history.
2. Believer B, Islamic terrorist: God told me to kill other people and myself in order to die as a martyr, to help free my people.
3. Believer A: OH NO HE DIDN’T. God would never, never tell you to do such a thing.
4. Observer: Didn’t Got tell people of your own faith to kill other people? How can you know that God didn’t tell Believer B to do it too?

5. Believer A: You are just trying to paint all religion as evil.

Which of course is exactly what she is trying to do, but notice that she has introduced quite a different argument. The original was "you cannot condemn suicide bombing if you use the same decision-making criterion, i.e. the will of God." Beastie's is "you cannot condemn suicide bombing if you believe God has ever told anyone to do anything similar, i.e. killing people."

Which explains why the original thread went so political (which in turn explains why it was locked) because the immediate response to that is to point out what happens to this argument once we take religion out of the equation.

Let us make the argument religion-neutral: "you cannot condemn suicide bombing if you believe for any reason that it has ever been right to do anything similar, i.e. killing people." Is it the universal ethos of all atheists everywhere that it has never been right to kill anyone?

Consider this: if a home invader is standing over your baby's cradle with a knife, is it morally wrong to kill him?

Most people would say no. I believe most reasonable people would consider killing a criminal to save the life of a child from imminent danger would be morally justifiable. Certainly if I was a juror in such a case, if the facts were shown as above, I would be voting to acquit. (Even if the killer was an atheist.)

So, let us consider a lesser case: if an enemy soldier is charging at you, bayonet fixed, is it morally wrong to kill him?

Again, most would agree that it is acceptable to kill to save one's own life, whether in time of war or not. Some might argue the morality of going to war in the first place, and that is a valid point to argue, but once we find ourselves in the combat situation, most would agree that killing in self-defense is acceptable or justifiable.

Let us then consider a third case: if someone throws a hand grenade into a crowded room, and there's no chance of getting everyone out, is it morally wrong to throw oneself onto the hand grenade, thus assuring one's own death, to save the lives of others?

Again, most people would say no. Most--including those opposed to suicide--would take the view that this form is justifiable because of the intention, which is to save the lives of others. Killing oneself is not the primary intention, but merely the accepted cost.

So, when we consider these three cases, we ask: how does this differ from what the suicide bombers do?

Those who are on the same side as the suicide bombers would argue that they are sacrificing their lives, just like the fellow who throws himself on the grenade, to save others. They would say that he is fighting in a combat situation, so he is justified in killing; in fact, they may regard his targets as somehow equivalent to the home invader with the knife, threatening the innocents whose safety depends upon him. So, how do we tell them that they are wrong? If we justify killing and/or self-sacrifice on those arguments, how do we respond when the suicide bombers use them?

Of course it can be done, although I will leave that to others. The point, though, is that religious people have no more difficulty condemning suicide bombing than secular people do. Just as there are religious and secular suicide bombers, so there are religious and secular critics of their actions.

In fact, it's easier for us than it is for the secularists.

You see, the Lord commanded Samuel to send Saul to obliterate the Amalekites, and Nephi to kill Laban, by direct revelation. However, Muslims believe that Muhammad was "the seal of the prophets," i.e. the last one. Therefore, there can be no direct revelation coming from anywhere directing anyone to kill anyone.

Thus, they cannot be justified on the basis that Nephi and the Old Testament prophets were justified.

It's just that simple, really.

And this discussion turns out to be what I always knew that it was: nothing more or less than a typically bigoted bit of atheist anti-religious rhetoric. Beastie's attempt to turn it into a respectable argument has failed.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_beastie]

My 'attempt to turn this into a respectable argument' is simply the natural course the argument takes when there isn't some lame Karnak the Great attempting to divert the thread into his own strawman creation. In my experience, the appearance of Karnak the Great tends to doom any conversation to inanity.

Whether or not I will return to deal with the rest of Pahoran's statements depends entirely upon whether or not I get in the mood to bang my head against a wall some more so I can bathe in the light of Pahoran's loathing.

[_dartagnan]

Anyone can safely conclude suicide is forbidden in Islam. In the disturbing reality of Islamic suicide bombing, we hear this assertion over and over again by journalists and academians. But is it really that simple?

...death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. However, such cases are not suicides in the proper sense of the term. (Franz Rosenthal. “On Suicide in Islam.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 66, pp. 243, 256.)

Dr. Mohammad Rafat Othman, a member of the Jurisprudence Research Committee of the Islamic Research Academy, Al-Azhar, asserted that suicide bombing was a sin if it was done for political, and not religious purposes. This implies that religiously driven suicides are within the boundaries of Islamic law:

There is a difference between jihad and terror, between sacrificing yourself and suicide...The second crime that a man who commits suicide carries out is the killings of others, while his motives are political and not religious. There is this suicide bomber who kills himself against his ruler and at the same time kills many innocent people -- that is a sin.

Suicide is then justified if it is within the context of "war":

The martyr, according to Islamic rule, is a man who fights the enemy and sacrifice his life while defending his religion, his homeland, his wives' respect, and protecting his land. This is set in Islamic laws, and only if he dies this way, he is a martyr...Those using suicide bombing against the enemy, the land robbers, and the occupier of nations, are martyrs.

The last statement clearly refers to the Palestinians. You don’t hear Islamic authorities condemning Palestinian suicide bombers because it is overwhelming consensus in Islam that Palestinians are at war with Israel.

Some say classical Islamic jurists would not have condoned the killing of innocents. Dan Peterson, in an article written for Meridian Magazine, said Al Ghazali would not have approved the killing of innocent women and children. He was dead wrong. We know Ghazali had no problems suggesting the use of catapults knowing perfectly well innocent women and children were likely to be killed, and we know Muhammed sent thousands of warriors on the front lines into certain death the same as suicides, so I can see how an argument can be made that given the same goal, and the giving one’s life to Allah’s greater cause, suicide bombings appear completely justified in an Islamic context. Since suicide bombing was not a technique needed or available in ancient times, it is impossible to say for certain, one way or another, whether it is actually “forbidden” according to Islam.