Islam - whose misconception?

[ghosty]

Everyday or so we hear one Islamic leader or another say that they want to help non-believers understand that Islam is not what Osama Bin-Laden and the other crackpots out there are preaching.

I'm wondering, if what Osama and co. preaching is wrong, why do they have so many followers and why are Islamic leaders not trying to educate their own people about their misconceptions...

[LizardQueen]

I'm guessing that part of the problem is that some of the leaders are the ones with the misconceptions, and spread them to their followers.

I'm ALSO guessing that it's the small minority of crackpots who are yelling the loudest, so they are the ones who are heard.

[Calcoran]

That ... and maybe the fact that it so much easier to have faith in a religion that tells you "if you eat halal (sp?) meat, you'll go to paradise" than in one that asks love of the other and forgiveness and all.
All right, maybe I am oversimplifying. The fact is that some religions ask for things that are much easier for humans to do than others. Another example may be "kill/punish the unbelievers" thing. It's already all too easy for humans to distrust those who are different. Some religions tell you it's all right to do it, some tell you you've got to go against your nature and accept diversity. Guess which is easier to follow.

Anyhow, I think that this is one of the reasons why loud yelling crackpots have so/too many followers. I could be wrong ...

[Imagus]

I always got the impression that at it's core, Islam is a very forgiving religion.

The problem seems to be that as far as I can make out there is no real hierarchy amongst the preachers. Most Islamic mullahs seem to be self-appointed, being either followers of other established clerics, or self-taught. They preach and the congregations listen to whoever appeals to them at the time.

Unfortunately, those who preach differences and hatred are always going to be more popular where there is some kind of envy, poverty, hatred or other problems in the first place. Especially if the congregation is not directly familiar with the religious texts (for whatever reason) in the first place. We have that problem with a certain Rev Paisley over here, and I see similar things happening with certain extremist televangelists in the US.

The vast majority are decent, peace-loving people - but it's the extremists that get the airtime.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Calcoran
That ... and maybe the fact that it so much easier to have faith in a religion that tells you "if you eat halal (sp?) meat, you'll go to paradise" than in one that asks love of the other and forgiveness and all.
All right, maybe I am oversimplifying. The fact is that some religions ask for things that are much easier for humans to do than others

Yes, you are oversimplifying, indeed. One of the important things about Islam for example is charity, which is in fact one of the so-called 'pillars' of Islam (if I am not totaly misinformed).

And the "kill/punish the unbelievers" part, i.e. Jihad, is an interpretation of the meaning of Jihad that came up quite some time after Mohammed's time.
In the original sense or 'spirit' of the word it simply describes a "struggle" (one of the possible translations) to spread the faith of Islam among the unbelievers. The Koran doesn't call for fire and sword to be used in this effort. This is simply not in the book, AFAICT.

Plus, the Koran diferentiates between several kinds of 'unbelievers'. Christs and Jews are closer to the islamic people in faith, since they received their religion from the same god. They just didn't receive the last revelations God gave to Mohammed, but still belive in the same god. (The term used to describe this is 'al-Kitab' (sp?) IIRC, meaning 'people of the book, i.e. people whose holy scriptures contain the word of god.)

So, while I don't claim to be any expert on Islam I think it's safe to say that what we perceive as Islam is in many ways a 'modern interpretation' of the original religion, sometimes an interpretation or misconception that has been started quite on purpose by leaders who want to use it for their own gain. In addition there may be a lot of different ways of practicing the islamic faith, just as there are a lot of christian ways and religions.


And to answer ghosty's original question:

I don't think that Osama & Co. have so many followers. These are just a few hundred or maybe a few thousand people of what, a billion? who don't crash planes into buildings and still follow Islam.

The problem here is IMHO not one of misconceptions about Islam among the followers of that religion, but that we are looking at a small, but very vocal minority, who just claim that religion as a 'cloak' under which to hide their own designs.
Let us never forget that there are people of the islamic faith living in almost every country of the world - peaceful, quiet, following their religion and not under the influence of any politicaly used misconceptions about their own faith.

So in the end I am not sure if the question about misconceptions is as valid as it might seem at a first glance.

Anyway, just my 0.02c worth.

[Calcoran]

Lancer: I was not speaking of Islam as a whole, but rather of Islam as it is preached by some of it's current leaders. I could have said the same about Christianity a few centuries ago (fortunately less so nowadays ).

[ghosty]

Originally posted by Calcoran
Lancer: I was not speaking of Islam as a whole, but rather of Islam as it is preached by some of it's current leaders. I could have said the same about Christianity a few centuries ago (fortunately less so nowadays ).

The truth is Islam is I approximately 1200+ years old.

Christianity in the 13th century was equally brutual and unforgiving of unbelievers. Even after the renissance Christians looted and pillaged in the name of God and Jesus Christ. So is Islam going through a similar phase? What would Islam be like in about 400 years.

The truth is, if you read history, you'll find that the Muslim Empires of the 12th and 13th centuries were much more enlightened than the Christian ones of the same period. They were better educated and knew more about science and mathematics than the West. How did that change?

Its extremely perplexing.

In the end Christianity was tempered by the Greco-Roman philosophy that it assimilated and adpoted during the Middle Ages and Renissance, principals of democracy and freedom of thought and expression were slowly but surely incorporated into Christian life.

But as someone pointed out the Christian Church is more hiericichal (sp?) and when you think about it how is the average Islamic crackpot educated. He is educated from an early age in a religious school, he is not exposed to the real world and immured in religious ideaology thought but teachers who may or may not be qualified. In contrast the average Christian cleric is educated in a secular school (even if he attended a Catholic School he is still thought mathematics,science and the fundamental principals of democracy etc)...so what you have in an Islamic teacher is someone who's worldview is severly restricted with no exposure to free thought and discourse hence the trouble.

Why I posted this question is because in the last few days Singapore security forces cracked down on Islamic militants and 15 activists were detained under our Internal Security Act. Instantly loud protests were issued by militant Islamic groups in neighbouring countries and all the local Islamic leaders can say is that they want to cure non-Muslims about their misconceptions of Islam. While they condem Osama and their ilk, they have not condemend the numerous voices of Islamic militancy even within their own leadership...that is frightening.

[Lancer]

Calcoran: Sorry, you are right. I should have paid more attention to the post you were replying to.

[First of Two]

Because it's a lot easier to, to steal a phrase, point at the mote in your neighbor's eye than it is to deal with the log in your own.

Both Christianity and Islam have their nutballs. We certainly have folks in the US who would be just like the Taliban if they could. Many of them are televangelists.

Both refuse to weed out their nutballs.

We're simply lucky that we live in a state of being (rich resources, little comparative want, fast-flying information) in the West that generally keeps OUR nutballs from gaining as much of the upper hand as the Islamic nutballs have.

[Homer]

I don't know if it is refusuing to weed out the nutballs. I think many christians believe that intelligent people won't buy the bull crap put otu by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, for example.

They think that will be seen a INDIVIDUALS with small but loyal followings of messed up individuals that DO NOT speak for all of us.

This is the same with Islam, they think that the world is smart enough to see that Osama et al are not the voice of true Islam.

Both faiths seem to be of the type that feel live and let live so long as it does not affect me.

This would be fine if mainstrem moderates were the spokesmen for these faiths with tons of airtime.

Here is the sticky part, the nutballs get all the TV airtime. CONTROVERSY sells. If moderte Islam was the louder voice on American TV, na dnutjob Christanity was the loudest voice we'd have groups following Falwell out intothe streets to roundup and kill Gays, strong professional women, and equal rights proponents as being responsible for 9/11/01.

So, until controversy is no longer a ratigs grabber, and trust me it is, I have watched entire programs apalled by the garbage being spouted as 'the way things ought to be", just be be educated about what is out there. Burying my head won't help, one has to be ready to speak up.

MOst people are in the middle of the road, not hardcore left or right politically or spiritually, but moderates are seen as boing. maybe we ought to speak up, nad the impression that we don't want to deal with our Nutballs wil diminish, and same would be true for Islam, Bhuddism, Shinto, Taoism and others, the best practioners are hardly ever heard from.

[Lancer]

Yep, Homer is right. The most sad part about this whole business is that good news just doesn't sell as well as bad news - or at least that what TV producers and newspaper publishers seem to believe. And if that perception doesn't change we will never have a chance to find out if good news would really sell well.


ghosty:
I didn't hear about that crackdown in Singapore before. If I had, I might have understood your question a little better.
I guess your politicians are in the end only making a gesture to show the rest of the world that they are willing to play an active part in the big anti-terror movement. And besides, if some of Osama's followers staged a big act of terrorism out of Singapore, your leaders would be hard pressed to explain why they didn't do more to prevent it.
I guess to them it's just an act of necessity and not a real political statement, which could explain what you perceive as a somewhat "inconsistent" behaviour.

[First of Two]

Well, when I finally get around to forming the First Church of Hugo the Eternal Wombat, I'm going to write in an internal "Church Police" Intolerance Clause that demands that anyone who uses the Book of Hugo to promote violence towards others must be hunted down and eliminated.

Because I believe that the various religions can and should police themselves, and if I catch anybody whacking people in the name of MY god of love, I'm gonna deal with the problem myself.

[calguard66]

Originally posted by ghosty
Everyday or so we hear one Islamic leader or another say that they want to help non-believers understand that Islam is not what Osama Bin-Laden and the other crackpots out there are preaching.

I'm wondering, if what Osama and co. preaching is wrong, why do they have so many followers and why are Islamic leaders not trying to educate their own people about their misconceptions...

For the same reason the Popes had so many volunteers for the Crusades.

For the same reasons that Jehovas' Whitness can read the Bible and get the idea they aren't allowed to have blood transfusions.

For the same reason the Amish drive buggies, or Menenite women only wear dresses and wear little caps on their heads.

All religion is open to interpretation... just as there are more strict and less strict versions of Christianity, there are different interpretations of Islam.

Much was made of women in Afghanistan having to wear the long abyas... usually they are only worn for solumn religious ceremonies. However, in a large segment of the Afghan population, the Pashtun, women have worn them every day for recorded history. They are the Amish of Islam.

Likewise, many white supremicist groups use Christianity as a basis for their beliefs. Usama and his crew are the Neo-Nazis of Islam.

However, Usama & Co preach their brand of Islam NOT because they believe it themselves, but because it gives them power over others who do.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

I wish I could remember exactly which interview I saw, but it had a fellow of Arabic descent who organized a group for Modern Muslims. He along with seven other people denounced all fundamentalism, they had a Fatwah declared upon them and now only 2/7 are alive. Osama and Co. are part of a fundamentalist sect in Islam according to the speaker.

On another note, I remember their being a book written by Dr.Rushdi(sp?), "The 13 Satanic Rites", supposedly corrupt portions of the Koran outlawed by the Elder coucil of Islam. He also had death threats placed upon him.

The main problem with Islam is not the average muslim worshipper who goes about his business normally its that select group of crack pots who promote religious violence against others to obtain power.

These acts are in no way different from the excommunications and threats of by the Christian Church against scientists like Galileo and Kopernicus.

[Imagus]

Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
On another note, I remember their being a book written by Dr.Rushdi(sp?), "The 13 Satanic Rites", supposedly corrupt portions of the Koran outlawed by the Elder coucil of Islam. He also had death threats placed upon him.

Salman Rushdie is (to my knowledge) still in hiding, although he makes occasional public appearances and is still writing. I haven't read it, but I know "The Satanic Verses" was actually a work of fiction. It was declared blasphemy by one cleric because it took an alternate (and somewhat secular) view of several events depicted in the Koran (rather like "The Last Temptation of Christ"). Unfortunately, the cleric was Khomeini and therefore a lot of people took notice.

I believe the fatwa was considered appropriate because Rushdie was a Muslim, and therefore subject to Sharia law. The current price on his head is around 3 million dollars.