KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Speaks volumes that people are approving and applauding an obvious message against something that is obviously against the main teachings of Islam.
Not necessarily... Like Christianity, there are varying interpretations of Islam. Some support terrorism, some don't.
No, not really. For an interpretation to be valid it has to pass a great amount of scrutiny. Any practitioner of Islam will tell you that terror is never sactioned - just because we see varying degrees of 'Islam' practiced by different groups doesn't necessarily mean that Muslims themselves or the Muslim community at large (especially certain religious councils that are charged with interpreting the laws and core values of Islam) see these people as true practitioners. To many Muslims, how they see themselves and other practitioners of Islam is much more important than what outsiders think.
I'd argue the opposite, actually. How outsiders view Islam is a big factor for whether or not we decide to invade a majority-Muslim country. If the majority of the outside world gets the impression that an Islamic state and culture is supportive of terror, then there's a much greater likelihood that a Western power will invade or otherwise meddle with them.
Beyond that, however, your last sentence above kind of confirms what I was saying. How imams or other religious officials respond to terrorism affects perceptions within the Muslim community.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
In general, Islam has a more militant streak than Christianity, which is part of why the fanatics of Islam tend to be more violent nowadays.
So, more clerics making these decrees is a good thing, because sadly, there are a lot of other imams making decrees in support of terror.
In addition, because Muslims tend to be more religious than Christians on average, they tend to be more influenced by their clergy.
Those decrees in support of terror hold no weight in Muslim communities. They hold weight to fanatics that aren't true Muslims. There is no evidence anywhere by any legitimate Muslim scholar that provides justification for terrorism or any offensive (as opposed to defensive) military act.
And since a lot of fanatics rationalize their position as defending their cultures from Western influence, they can easily use the Quran to support their cause. This is how they also manage to trick naive, young Muslims into joining their cause. Mohammed himself wasn't exactly a pacifist. He and his successors engaged in a lot of conquests to spread their faith.
So whether or not someone is a "true Muslim" is a matter of perception. The fanatics often regard themselves as the only true Muslims because they are the only ones defending against "Western aggressors." From their perspective, this is a holy war.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Muslims are on average more devout perhaps, but they don't (and can't) take whatever their clergy says as a true tenant of Islam. There is a vetting process for any information - and true Muslims will tell you that if it does not hold up to multiple tests of scrutiny on multiple levels then it is supposed to be cast out. There is a sort of great scholarly history within Islam of spirited debate and constantly testing a particular testament of faith.
But they do sometimes take the words of an imam or other religious official as true tenants. They do this the same way that some Christians take what the Pope says as being "gospel" so to speak. This particular vetting you speak of is no different from any other major religion. It doesn't change the fact that clergy often wield a lot of power among the religious -- whether it's Christians, Muslims, or other followers of a faith.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It is sort of like Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps - true Christians largely don't waste their breath railing against those types (except maybe to other Christians) because they don't view them as proper. And we as a society don't sit with bated breath amid calls for Christian leaders to come out and denounce the platforms of Westboro. Of course people will argue that is because the Phelps' don't blow people up in the name of their God, but then Muslims will tell you that anyone that does that isn't a true Muslim. That's usually when a non-Muslim tries to teach a Muslim what the Muslim person's religious beliefs are.
Robertson and Phelps are clearly fanatics as well, but they're still Christian, because that's what they identify themselves as. They still believe in Christ, so therefore, they are Christian. It's just the same with terrorists who claim Islam as their faith. They are Muslims, regardless of how they interpret the Quran.
Now, I'm not saying that Phelps or Robertson represent the average Christian anymore than Osama Bin Laden represents the average Muslim. However, having high profile Muslims speak out against terror is just as important as when Christians speak out against things like abortion clinic bombings. Yes, anyone with common sense and without fanaticism should know that terrorism is bad; however, in the current geopolitical climate, it's important for Muslims to remind each other and the outside world that terrorism is not what reasonable Muslims engage in.
The reasons why this is important relate back to the perceptions argument I mentioned at the beginning of this post and to the fact that some Muslim populations are more radical in their leanings. Because of the suffering they experience, Palestinians tend to be more vulnerable to being taken in by extremism. Those who sympathize with Palestinians also are vulnerable. It doesn't mean that what Israel is doing is right, but it also doesn't justify becoming an extremist. That's where guidance needs to come in from people like the one mentioned in the OP.
There are other vulnerable Muslim groups as well, like certain Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani groups. Because they have had to deal with the suffering of war with the West, they are more likely to fall prey to extremism as well.
