Muslim Groups Cheer Aquittal of Cheerleader of Islamic Terrorism

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. No pun intended, I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm smiling because I missed this! Completely! (Maybe my subconscious kicked in. Not the first time the damned thing's done something to embarrass me.)

[ QUOTE ]
Ooops! Blunder.

[/ QUOTE ]


At the risk of appearing to be seeking your total approval...

I am absolutely against "street justice." But given a choice, I'd go with a cop's experience and knowledge before the average jury panel member. Just my personal experience.

[ACPlayer]

The power of the jury is not in the intelligence or ability of a single member. It is the group dynamic that leads to good decision making. A single person (cop or other wise) brings his prejudices to the decision, the group dynamic attenuates the individual prejudices.

Cyrus was right in his "blunder" assessment -- IMO.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't forget that Muslims aren't the only religious group to commit atrocities in the name of their religion in the past or in the present.

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course, but the point is that the FOUNDER of the religion committed great slaughter in the name of the religion, and on multiple occasions.

[ QUOTE ]
The power of the jury is not in the intelligence or ability of a single member. It is the group dynamic that leads to good decision making. A single person (cop or other wise) brings his prejudices to the decision, the group dynamic attenuates the individual prejudices.

Cyrus was right in his "blunder" assessment -- IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]


Believe me, I understand synergy and group dynamics. And I wasn't trying to get Cyrus's (or yours, now) approval. I stand by my post. We seem to disagree, but that's not a rarity.

Ideally, the group will make the good/right decision. In real life, an extremely powerful personality can sometimes sway the group.

Yes, everyone brings a certain amount of prejudices/life experiences into any group. Given enough time, those will usually come out in some form. And the group will take that into consideration when making their decision. That's the process of juries. That's one of the reasons deliberations can last so long.

In passing... Twelve Angry Men is an outstanding movie about jury deliberations. There's another (I can't remember the title) based on a John Grisham book about someone manipulating a jury.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I will let nickyG -- far more articulate than I -- discuss the Koranic interpretation.

I will say that quoting scripture out of context is foolhardy at best.

[/ QUOTE ] \

Uh-huh. And naturally, you will ignore the point that the actions and words of Mohammed (Peace be upon Him!) provide a better illustration of what the Koran really means, than do the various pronouncements or opinions of imams or mullahs.

The Last Prophet slew many people, led many battles, acquired much plunder through military conquest against unbelievers. Therefore it obviously makes the most sense to take the warlike passages of the Koran literally, as the example of Mohammed shows.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky, I don't have the three-fold translations handy (although I did post a link and examples in another thread perhaps a couple weeks ago or so; those are translations by three Islamic scholars who are also Muslims; I'd recommend that for comparative purposes. And the verse I posted above was from another source; I wish I'd had the three-fold translations available instead when I posted).

What do you think about the general point, though, Nicky: that the warlike verses in the Koran are likely best taken literally as per the example of Mohammed himself? Jihad and fighting the unbelievers for him was a very active thing and he made much war on the unbelievers; led a great many military campaigns against them. Who should know what the Koran means better than Mohammed himself? Should not his example count a great deal?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
His words and opinions are not worth my time, except to defend his right to say what ever he wants. His actions have been scrutinized and pass muster (at least that of the jury).

[/ QUOTE ]

One can condemn his words, yet still respect his right to say them. Just as you probably condemn the words of David Duke and the KKK, yet still respect their right to say them.

That is precisely what the American Muslim community should be doing with al-Arian, given his pro-terror pronouncements.

[nicky g]

But part of the point is that those verses don't make much sense outside of their context. Also that the translators are Muslim does not mean we have to accept their translations; different Muslims make different translations. The Saudis supported the propogation of new translations that took deliberately aggressive and arguably distortive lines for example; I don;t know if the ones you refer to are amongst them. It is ironically notable that extremist Muslims often use the same arguments, translations and interpretations as extremist anti-Muslims. So I don't accept the premise of your question that they are necessarily warlike; at least not ion an expansionist sense. Also there is an argument to be made that it is good that the Quran establishes rules of war, in that it forbids excesses that might otherwise occur.

I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead." Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a bit much to cite Quranic verses demonstrating the irredeemable belligerency of Islam, and then when I go to a lot of effort to show how those verses do not necessarily demonstrate the agrression they appear to out of context in specific translations, turn around and say "well look at Mohammed's life instead."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky, I'm sorry, but I didn't have time to address at length any of the specific points you raised. Also, I think I raised the example of Mohammed's actions in this thread before your response.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we have one argument at a time? Let's say I think your characterisation of him as something worse than a war-crazed pirate is a little exaggerated. And if we re going to simply use him as an "example", what of the examples of the warrior kings and prophets of the Old Testament? If you take its word, they got up to a lot worse than Muhammed ever did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mohammed led over 20 military campaigns and participated in over 60. He promised and allowed his warriors spoils from the conquests.

Also, Mophammed is just not "another king" or "another example." He is the founder of the religion. Now, if Jesus himself had gone on war-party raids and led military campaigns against unbelievers, I'd say you would have a legitimate parallel example.

The point I was trying to make (to ACPlayer) is that Mohammed might be considered the ultimate authority on Islam, seeing as he was the founder of the entire religion and is considered the Final Prophet. Mohammed's real-life example is that of making many wars against unbelievers. This at least should make one think it more likely than not that the belligerent interpretations of the Koranic passages dealing with fighting infidels, are also most likely the correct interpretations.

I'll return to your post and try to address some of the specific points you raised at a later time (when I have the time and energy to do some web-searching for multiple comparative translations--I've found such things to be time-consuming in the past, and I'm afraid I don't save links for this stuff).