Are you taking about Qardawi?I think the issue is more that clerics have interpreted the texts to allow that sort of thing. Didn't a cleric give a new interpretation that allowed for suicide bombing when Islam is pretty clear that suicide is forbidden? The problem with most of the old religions is that they have to be interpreted for modern life and usually it's done poorly by people with an agenda.
A good example is this doctrine of prosperity being preached in the US that God says it's ok to make money and be wealthy if you do some good stuff.
Don't you think then it's own institutions being critical of JP is a massive thing?Denmark is traditionally far more restrictive on mass immigration compared to our neighbour Sweden for instance.
Which institutions?Don't you think then it's own institutions being critical of JP is a massive thing?
Sure there are clerics who offer a bastardised revision of the texts to achieve their political agendas, I just don't feel it's fair to present that as if it's a universal truth when 99.9% of scholars or anyone of intellectual authority teach and convey different. Why subscribe and legitimise the fringe when the reality is objectively different. It's disingenuous to frame it as if it's a grey area and has a serious real world effect on the perception of Muslims.I think the issue is more that clerics have interpreted the texts to allow that sort of thing. Didn't a cleric give a new interpretation that allowed for suicide bombing when Islam is pretty clear that suicide is forbidden? The problem with most of the old religions is that they have to be interpreted for modern life and usually it's done poorly by people with an agenda.
A good example is this doctrine of prosperity being preached in the US that God says it's ok to make money and be wealthy if you do some good stuff.
In fairness Yusuf al-Qararawi couldn’t really be described as “fringe”, although no doubt he’s controversial.Sure there are clerics who offer a bastardised revision of the texts to achieve their political agendas, I just don't feel it's fair to present that as if it's a universal truth when 99.9% of scholars or anyone of intellectual authority teach and convey different. Why subscribe and legitimise the fringe when the reality is objectively different. It's disingenuous to frame it as if it's a grey area and has a serious real world effect on the perception of Muslims.
I can't say I know much about him. I'm more interested in what scholars Yasir Qadhi say or teach as I'm sure significant proportions of Western Muslims are also.In fairness Yusuf al-Qararawi couldn’t really be described as “fringe”, although no doubt he’s controversial.
What's your evidence for 99.9% of scholars teaching and conveying differently?Sure there are clerics who offer a bastardised revision of the texts to achieve their political agendas, I just don't feel it's fair to present that as if it's a universal truth when 99.9% of scholars or anyone of intellectual authority teach and convey different. Why subscribe and legitimise the fringe when the reality is objectively different. It's disingenuous to frame it as if it's a grey area and has a serious real world effect on the perception of Muslims.
If that's not Islamophobia, it certainly is a precursor.
No. Beliefs are supposed to be challenged in an academic setting.But not in other spheres like their beliefs etc
What, about the Quran telling Muslims to kill random people? Can't say I have the stats at hand tbf, those numbers are probably off but you get the point without being pedantic.What's your evidence for 99.9% of scholars teaching and conveying differently?
I'm not suggesting it's untrue but without evidence you're presenting a universal truth yourself there.
It's fine if you don't have the stats at hand, but you did choose to present some universal truth. I just thought I'd push back a bit on that.What, about the Quran telling Muslims to kill random people? Can't say I have the stats at hand tbf, those numbers are probably off but you get the point without being pedantic.
Fair enough. But like I said, being told to go kill random people being an interpretable message of the Quran is a bit extreme even for the extremists so I didn't think 99.9% was a particularly ridiculous thing to say.It's fine if you don't have the stats at hand, but you did choose to present some universal truth. I just thought I'd push back a bit on that.
I don't have a problem with challenging beliefs in any setting, least of all an academic one.No. Beliefs are supposed to be challenged in an academic setting.
Ex) the day I taught that the KKK is a racist terrorist organization and a kid responded to me that he didn’t think it was, as his grandfather has always seemed to be a good person.
I would argue that Khomeini is as fringe as they come, in the Muslim world as a whole.I don't really think Ayatollah khomeini is fringe either. I remember talking to Farshad Kholgi(A danish-Iranian actor) who were told by mullahs to strap on a suicide belt and go an die as a martyr during the Iran-Iraq war. Which obviously made him run as far away as possible from Iran as possible.
For Shia muslims as well?I would argue that Khomeini is as fringe as they come, in the Muslim world as a whole.
Come on. This is such a ridiculous thing to ask someone. He clearly meant it in a rhetorical sense regarding extremist clerics who misinterpret the text.What's your evidence for 99.9% of scholars teaching and conveying differently?
I'm not suggesting it's untrue but without evidence you're presenting a universal truth yourself there.
For example, the Danish council of the pressWhich institutions?
Ehm, what? No. You make a 99,9% claim, you better back it up.Come on. This is such a ridiculous thing to ask someone. He clearly meant it in a rhetorical sense regarding extremist clerics who misinterpret the text.
Link?For example, the Danish council of the press
I was careful to say the Muslim world as a whole.For Shia muslims as well?
But in the context of the massive suicide bombings in the Iran-Iraq war I would say it's very influential.I was careful to say the Muslim world as a whole.
It's on wikki.Link?
Not exactly explosive material is it? On the same wiki page you will find that JP's articles on immigration are no more negative than the other major newspapers.It's on wikki.
But here is the quote:
In 2002 the Danish Council of the Press criticised the newspaper for breaching its regulations on race while reporting on three Somalis charged with a crime
But he meant it in a rhetorical sense. Why is that so hard to grasp?Ehm, what? No. You make a 99,9% claim, you better back it up.
I don’t think that anyone here is on the other side of your argument if you’re saying a teacher doesn’t have the right to do that out of malice.of the right to offend and ridicule.
As a general rule I would say that teachers don't have that right, in an academic setting.
To be honest, the orthodox position in both main streams of Islam (Sunni and Shia) teach the position that @iluvoursolskjær mentioned. Of course, there will be fringe aspects in any religion. Whether the orthodox position is 99.9% or 95%, the point is it's the mainstream, most taught and most understood position.What's your evidence for 99.9% of scholars teaching and conveying differently?
I'm not suggesting it's untrue but without evidence you're presenting a universal truth yourself there.
I would say it was more pushed outside of the Iran-Iraq war. Aimed mostly at "showing the Americans". However, it was met with resistance from within as well as other shias from outside Iran, for example Lebanon.But in the context of the massive suicide bombings in the Iran-Iraq war I would say it's very influential.
I thought it was let's even assume that they were the same age students that you teach. Would you share cartoons or materials that you know for a fact will offend certain segments or that may be quite controversial? I don't understand how people treat this as just cartoons when it has an obvious loaded controversial meaning especially in the current climate of the last five or so yearsHas the age group of the class been released?
"99.9% of cops aren't prejudiced against black men"But he meant it in a rhetorical sense. Why is that so hard to grasp?
I'm starting to understand where you get your information regarding Islam fromI don't really think Ayatollah khomeini is fringe either. I remember talking to Farshad Kholgi(A danish-Iranian actor) who were told by mullahs to strap on a suicide belt and go an die as a martyr during the Iran-Iraq war. Which obviously made him run as far away as possible from Iran as possible.
I'm quite comfortable in saying that more than 99.9% of scholars [a 100 maybe!] who are certified by an approved Islamic institution would state that you, Mr VorKazone, or the other dude who intially mentioned it, should not be murdered for the sake of it.Ehm, what? No. You make a 99,9% claim, you better back it up.
I'm not saying that I believe that Shia muslims in general are all for suicide bombings just that the Ayatollah of Iran is a person of major influence. He's not some fringe character. I can find plenty of suicide bombings by Hezbollah.I would say it was more pushed outside of the Iran-Iraq war. Aimed mostly at "showing the Americans". However, it was met with resistance from within as well as other shias from outside Iran, for example Lebanon.
They ENAR report?Not exactly explosive material is it? On the same wiki page you will find that JP's articles on immigration are no more negative than the other major newspapers.
I would dispute that for muslims as a whole.I'm not saying that I believe that Shia muslims in general are all for suicide bombings just that the Ayatollah of Iran is a person of major influence. He's not some fringe character. I can find plenty of suicide bombings by Hezbollah.
Which scholars are influencing all the Sunni and Shia muslims that kill eachother? The peaceful messages aren't being heard as much as they should.I'm quite comfortable in saying that more than 99.9% of scholars [a 100 maybe!] who are certified by an approved Islamic institution would state that you, Mr VorKazone, or the other dude who intially mentioned it, should not be murdered for the sake of it.
I don't really. Not by danish standards. Unlike Sweden where it's illegal to name criminals by ethnicity and religon, it's legal in denmark which is why crime by ethnicity and religion is far more transparent here than in Sweden.They ENAR report?
Yeah I read that too and that's why for it's own internal one saying they were bad makes it more "explosive", don't you think?
Well yes as muslims as a whole.I would dispute that for muslims as a whole.
Sectarianism is another conversation to the one we were just having. See shit like this makes it obvious when someone is "debating" in bad faith and mostly why I don't and won't bother much in the CE.Which scholars are influencing all the Sunni and Shia muslims that kill eachother? The peaceful messages aren't being heard as much as they should.
What do cops have to do with this discussion? and are you equating cops with muslims?"99.9% of cops aren't prejudiced against black men"
You may claim it's just rhetorical, but I'll call out any 99.9% claim if no evidence is presented.
I’ve already said that controversial topics & cartoons are taught all the time, in my classroom and in countless others.I thought it was let's even assume that they were the same age students that you teach. Would you share cartoons or materials that you know for a fact will offend certain segments or that may be quite controversial? I don't understand how people treat this as just cartoons when it has an obvious loaded controversial meaning especially in the current climate of the last five or so years
The intention and professionalism of the teacher should be questioned more so than the cartoons
