Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
you post a Video with this commentary "enlightening perspective from an ex-Muslim" and ask if I want to Actually discuss what he had to say???
In the first instance, I did not ask you to respond at all. I even considered including another little note of introduction saying that wdmso should probably not look at the video. But you did respond. And did so with the boilerplate response that I would have expected. But since you did bother to respond, I asked if you would discuss what he said. As expected, you did not.
What he said is how he see's it.. no different then catholic renouncing their faith.. there is no hidden message or silver bullet in what he said
As expected, you won't, or can't, discuss what he said.
He certainly didn't try to present a silver bullet. And he did say that his conversion was a personal journey which might not apply to anyone else.
And it is not his conversion that was informative, rather, he said some important things which apply specifically to Islam and not to any other major religion. Things which I thought would shed some light on the difficulty Islam would have in trying to reform. He agrees with most that Islam desperately needs to reform. And it is important to know fundamental things about Islam which those who claim that Islam is going under transformation or that it can be reformed fail, or prefer not to note. He said why he thinks that it can't. And he said that it is not Muslims, the people of the religion, that are the problem, but it is the foundation of the religion that is the problem. And that it is important to consider that when deciding to bring in tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslims. There is a persistent problem of assimilation due to the fundamental nature of the religion. And there is the pattern of non-assimilation accompanied by violence to the host culture that is happening now in Europe. And there is the problem of cognitive dissonance between warm friendly Muslims, and the fundamentalist teaching of Islam, which leads in non-Islamic countries to so-called radicalization of a significant minority and the inability of many or most to assimilate into a non-Islamic culture. He speaks of things which do not apply to other religions. It isn't like a Catholic renouncing his religion. It is about a religion which renounces and is incompatible with all other cultures.
The fundamental texts, the actual scriptures, of which the religion consists, and which prescribe its practice, are what drives it to create Islamic States, not secular democratic ones.
Is That your point ? what one man had to say about Islam?
Or Are you saying he is showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook. Or that he shares the Same outlook you and others Have about Islam?...
So lets make things simple you support his version
Farraj supported what he had to say. That's why I presented the video.
Former Muslim (Convert)says Islam is Bad = enlightening perspective from an ex-Muslim
Current Muslim says Islam is Good = not an enlightening perspective from a Muslim
Your version is not only simplistic, it is wrong. He did not say that Islam is either bad or good. He said that he could not find in actual Islam, as it was actually practiced in its heartland and holiest of temples, the peace he was seeking. He said it was a personal thing, not an attempt to proselytize or dissuade others.
Again, what I thought would be the enlightening perspective was not his conversion, but his pointing out the, probably unfixable, problem with reforming Islam and making it compatible with Western culture (and with our system of law).
it isn't that easy to define a religion by some of its followers actions ..here are some more obscure facts .but have fun making the association
1. Christianity 2.1 billion
2. Islam 1.3 billion
3. Hinduism 851 million
4. Buddhism 375 million
C&P
Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks, those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.
|
He didn't define Islam by the actions of some of its current terrorist followers. He pointed out its definition in its own words, in its basic, foundational, texts. He pointed out that, just as Christianity, in its various forms, is ultimately defined by the textual teachings of its Founder, Jesus, Islam is defined by its Founder, Mohammad.
Christianity was reformed. When it strayed from its Founder's original teachings into secular authoritarianism and things like the Inquisition, it experienced various reformations which again made it more Christ-like.
Farraj points out that Islam IS actually undergoing reformation. Groups like Isis are trying to reform Islam from its present balkanized State limitations back into the borderless, boundless caliphate as created by its Founder. And by using the same brutal methods that Mohammad prescribed.
If you were to reform Christ out of Christianity, it would no longer be Christian. It would be something totally different. The same goes for Islam. If you remove Mohammad from Islam, it would be something totally different.
Farraj does provide the slimmest possibility to reform Islam so that it can be compatible with the modern world, especially with the West. For that to happen, Mohammad would have to be "interpreted" into something he wasn't. Or somehow interpreted as being insignificant in the greater definition of Islam. He doesn't see even a sliver of a chance of that happening.
It would be easier just to convert to another established religion. Like Christianity.
As far as the list of numbers you provided, it was too incoherent to elicit a response from me. And as for the being struck by lightening perspective goes, there are way, way, way more lightening strikes worldwide every year than the number of terrorist attacks since 1970--there's almost as many lightening strikes in the U.S. alone every year. It's just that lightening strikes are random, not calculated or aimed at humans. So the number of human casualties per lightening strikes pales in effectiveness compared with the lethal capabilities of planned and human targeted terrorist attacks. Most terrorist attacks actually inflict human casualties. The percentage of human casualties per terrorist attacks is much, much, higher than it is for random lightening strikes the vast majority of which don't even hit humans.
Some things can be done to reduce the chances of terrorist attacks. Not a whole lot can be done to prevent lightening. And one of the most important things that can be done to prevent Islamic terrorist attacks is to understand the true nature and cause of them--which can be found in an honest understanding of the true nature of Islam