Muslims want gun shop to stop selling targets

[TMF]

I have read that it is a kinda similar setup among the muslims. There ain't no muslim pope who interprets the koran for everybody below him. Instead, there are scads of mullahs who I'm not certain there is an official certification procedure, but some people get credence among at least a few muslims that will take what he says seriously. And all these mullahs can declare about any nutty thing and get away with it, except if they go too "out of bounds" and get their heads cut off for their trouble. So in some fashion, it is a similar "disorganized" system as practiced by Baptists. Not that there are necessarily strong theological commonalities. Just the "decentralized" nature of how the thing is carried on.

 

Shia Islam is far more structured than Sunni Islam, but there are still different schools of thought within Sunni Islam, which represent the legal interpretations of the Quran and the hadiths, as well as how Muhammed lived his life and how that should impact the behavior of modern day Muslims. 

 

A quick parallel could be Catholics and Protestants.  Shias have a hierarchy similiar to Catholicism, and there are similarities in how their relationship with God is conducted.  Sunnis have a direct relationship with God, and their Imams are only there to lead them in prayer and provide some degree of spiritual guidance, as they are the religious scholars.  I'm not sure how the schools of thought in Sunni Islam dictate whether or not Muslims are free to interpret scripture, but I would have to assume so.  In Shia Islam that is a no-go.  Kinda like back in the day when the Catholic Church didn't want everyone trying to read and interpret the Bible without their guidance.  It was the clergy's responsibility to interpret the word of God.

 

The term "Mullah" is somewhat ambiguous, as it means different things in different corners of Islam.  At any rate, they don't hold any significant position in mainstream Islam.  Sometimes a Mullah can be nothing more than the only person literate enough in a village to read the Quran, and sometimes Mullah is just an honorary title that someone gets because they've either been formally educated in an Islamic institution, or they are just Quran thumpers that have independently obsessed themselves with being able to recite the entire Quran and memorize every significant hadith that applies to most common life situations.  I would compare a Mullah to the modern day bible thumper who becomes obsessed to the point of starting his own church because all the other churches are screwing it up, or the self appointed preacher has an ego that needs feeding... sorta like the "Machinegun Preacher" guy.

Edited February 13, 2013 by TMF

[E4 No More]

While I respect your opinion I am not wrong. That is my personal experience with those churches, yours may be different if so you were blessed.

"It has become obvious that you guys have never been exposed to the Independent Fundamental Baptist faith that was so prevalent in the South in the 50s-80s."

 

To this sentence I was stating that you are wrong. You who preach to others on this forum to not characterize an entire faith by the actions of a few fundamentalists did exactly the same thing in your statements about Baptists, and specifically Independent Fundamental Baptists.

 

Clearly, by other statements you've made, you have a problem with God's word. That's between you and God just as it is between others and God when they fail in their belief system because they do not study and correctly divide God's word for themselves as directed in 2 Timothy 2:15 where it says "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth": therefore, they spread disinformation about God AND his saints. Who's that the work of?

 

Whether or not you or anyone else believes in God is your business, but I and many others are under direct orders to share the truth with anyone else who is willing to hear it, and that is NOT forcing anyone to believe it.

[E4 No More]

Thanks SWJewellTN

 

Yep the "us versus them" seems to be shifting from race divisions to cultural/theological divisions, which ain't bad at all. Religious folk irrespective of race "hanging together" against non-religious or different-religious folks irrespective of race. So if tolerance of different beliefs and lifestyles can grow some more without losing racial tolerance maybe it will gradually get better.

 

When I was about 12 we lived in Illinois near St Louis in early 1960's when there was a big Southern Baptist worldwide convention held in St Louis so we attended the interminable morning thru evening proceedings for a couple of days because it was so close. Thousands of people in some big indoor auditorium and I was seated in the top balcony "nose bleed" section. I only recall one speaker at the event. A frail stooped aged woman who had worked for decades, her entire adult life as a missionary in africa. She droned on for at least an hour explaining missionary efforts in africa, and my attention drifted and after 50 years I don't recall details of her inspirational message of missionary work. But then after about an hour when she was wrapping up, she finished the sermon in her quavering old-lady voice, explaining how wrong it was that USA white Baptists rarely or never had USA black Baptists in their services, and vice-versa, condemning the whole mess as racist separatism and not a very christian way to behave. Which as best I recall got a great many of the attendees' panties in a wad. As a typical child of the times, little burr-headed redneck kid, I was rather scandalized myself. Hadn't ever thought about it. That last few minutes of her sermon did not go down real well among many attendees, in the early 1960's. It was a different time back then.

 

I'm generally ignorant of all things, and don't misinterpret me as saying muslims are like baptists or vice-versa, but in some ways the SETUP of the way the theology works seems to have similarities. In many religions a priest can dictate fine points of theology to a parishoner, and a bishop can dictate fine points of theology to mere priests, all the way up to the top muck-a-muck in the chain of the command, who can dictate theological interpretation to all the middle-men and common believers.

 

But as you say, Baptists don't operate thataway, though there is a certain level of weirdness that a fella couldn't surpass and still find himself particularly welcome at a baptist church, if he was excessively chatty about his oddball beliefs. Eventually if a fella got too far afield he would find himself more welcome among the unitarians. :) But within certain bounds, the most ignorant fella in the congregation has a right to interpret theology with equal authority as the most famous revered pulpit-thumpers. At least in theory.

 

I have read that it is a kinda similar setup among the muslims. There ain't no muslim pope who interprets the koran for everybody below him. Instead, there are scads of mullahs who I'm not certain there is an official certification procedure, but some people get credence among at least a few muslims that will take what he says seriously. And all these mullahs can declare about any nutty thing and get away with it, except if they go too "out of bounds" and get their heads cut off for their trouble. So in some fashion, it is a similar "disorganized" system as practiced by Baptists. Not that there are necessarily strong theological commonalities. Just the "decentralized" nature of how the thing is carried on.

God didn't set-up a single man in charge of the church, (contrary to some people's beliefs), because men are fallible, (also contrary to some people's beliefs). Paul scolds some of the churches in his time to demonstrate that the saints are fallible. God also set-up bishops, (leader), elders, and deacons who are a leadership and servant structure to teach and minister to the saints of that church, but the onus to study is on the individual saint; not the pastor as we call them nowadays. Humans are lazy, and when you rely on the pastor to tell you what to believe and not believe you fail and set the pastor up to fail.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Shia Islam is far more structured than Sunni Islam, but there are still different schools of thought within Sunni Islam, which represent the legal interpretations of the Quran and the hadiths, as well as how Muhammed lived his life and how that should impact the behavior of modern day Muslims. 

 

A quick parallel could be Catholics and Protestants.  Shias have a hierarchy similiar to Catholicism, and there are similarities in how their relationship with God is conducted.  Sunnis have a direct relationship with God, and their Imams are only there to lead them in prayer and provide some degree of spiritual guidance, as they are the religious scholars.  I'm not sure how the schools of thought in Sunni Islam dictate whether or not Muslims are free to interpret scripture, but I would have to assume so.  In Shia Islam that is a no-go.  Kinda like back in the day when the Catholic Church didn't want everyone trying to read and interpret the Bible without their guidance.  It was the clergy's responsibility to interpret the word of God.

 

The term "Mullah" is somewhat ambiguous, as it means different things in different corners of Islam.  At any rate, they don't hold any significant position in mainstream Islam.  Sometimes a Mullah can be nothing more than the only person literate enough in a village to read the Quran, and sometimes Mullah is just an honorary title that someone gets because they've either been formally educated in an Islamic institution, or they are just Quran thumpers that have independently obsessed themselves with being able to recite the entire Quran and memorize every significant hadith that applies to most common life situations.  I would compare a Mullah to the modern day bible thumper who becomes obsessed to the point of starting his own church because all the other churches are screwing it up, or the self appointed preacher has an ego that needs feeding... sorta like the "Machinegun Preacher" guy.

Who? Me? :D

[Guest RevScottie]

"It has become obvious that you guys have never been exposed to the Independent Fundamental Baptist faith that was so prevalent in the South in the 50s-80s."

 

To this sentence I was stating that you are wrong. You who preach to others on this forum to not characterize an entire faith by the actions of a few fundamentalists did exactly the same thing in your statements about Baptists, and specifically Independent Fundamental Baptists.

 

Clearly, by other statements you've made, you have a problem with God's word.

 

Once again you are making wild accusations that I can assure you are 110% wrong. I have no problem with God's Word nor with those sharing it. I do have a problem with those that add legalistic man-made rules on top of it. I'm glad you had a great experience in an IFB church. I wish there were more stories like yours. The IFB movement as a whole is characterized by these leaders and institutions:

 

Jack Chick
John R. Rice
Jack Hyles
Lee Roberson
Bob Jones University

Lester Roloff
Tennessee Temple University
Southwide Convention

 

All of these shared the common bond of legalism and demanding compliance with their rules. You really need to do some research on some of the outrageous things these churches, schools and leaders did. Yes in spite of their bad God still used them but there are also thousands of people who have turned their back on church completely because of the abuses they suffered under these leaders.

 

Some of their common "standards" as they called them...Women should always wear dresses, Men must have no facial hair and their hair must not touch their ears, All "rock" music including that with Christian lyrics is wrong, Drums and electric guitars can't be used in worship, going to any movie is sinful, KJV is the only Bible version allowed, and so on...

[TMF]

Who? Me? :D

 

Ha, no the actual "Machinegun Preacher" is a lot less cool than it sounds.  Basically a criminal turned war tourist who started his own church for the benefit of his ego.  He touts himself as a man who works tirelessly on the plight of orphaned children in S. Sudan, donating time and and all his earthly assets to the cause..... ya know, while he rides around on a chopper that costs more than my house, making cool guy videos of himself for the interwebz and writing books of exploits that either didn't happen, or are embelished beyond what could be considered "poetic license".

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And there's something wrong with the King James version?

 

I'm not going to dispute you, but one thing I would consider is that all those churches are voluntary, aren't they? If

those churches and their members want to act a certain way, that's their prerogative. Even people in the church

that got burned down outside Waco by the government stormtroopers could voluntarily leave, from what I remember.

 

After I wasted time researching those churches, I might probably agree with you. Still, the idea of whether or not we

like or dislike them, they still have the same freedom any church has to preach their way, even Muslims, which I

don't care to compare to the rest of the churches present in this country. But I have a different view of that group,

not church, because they actively hate Jews and Americans and have shown that.

 

To me the the difference is night and day between someone who loves another and hates the sin, and the one who wishes

to destroy another because of his belief not being with them, and especially because of his bloodline.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Messing with you. :D I never heard of that one, though. Got his religion from a jail cell and made an enterprise. Guess

he saw more money in that than being a jailhouse lawyer.

[Guest RevScottie]

And there's something wrong with the King James version?

 

I'm not going to dispute you, but one thing I would consider is that all those churches are voluntary, aren't they? If

those churches and their members want to act a certain way, that's their prerogative.

Nothing at all wrong with the KJV but to say it is the only "inspired" version is wrong and ignores the history of why King James commissioned a "new" version of scripture

 

I guess it's a church's perogative unless they are peaceful American Muslims and then they are in reality all terrorist cells waiting to spring into action.

[daddyo]

..and by the way there is very little difference in fundementalist Muslims and fundamentalist Baptist when it comes to their desire to force their views on others and make their beliefs the law of the land.

Never mind the fact that fundamentalist Baptists (whatever those are) don't behead those who don't agree with them. Edited February 13, 2013 by daddyo

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know any peaceful American Muslims, but that doesn't mean much. The ones I suspect to be Muslims won't identify that way

so I can't make much out of that. The ones I suspect as maybe being Muslims always tend to go out of their way to claim Christianity,

or something else, but that is a limited sample. I'm not being bigoted, either. It usually shows itself with my liking the folks and the

subject drifting to what part of the world they came from. The ones I have mildly suspected always value claiming not to be, or are

very polite people and value friendship with me and sidestep the issue altogether. And I accept that, since it became unimportant,

anyway.

 

The Muslim camps in the USA, which there are known to be a couple to be right here in TN, are troublesome to me. Bring the targets

on! If they segregate themselves that much, there may be some problems with them being here, and it makes me wonder about them.

Usually, Americans are social animals. That doesn't fit what I consider sociable.

[austin7.62]

That's a good reason to not trust any of them.

If you want to believe that then that is alright. I don't know many Muslims, but I have a few as friends. Once I got past the stereotype, and stupid worrying that had no basis I found that they are not much different than you or me. And strangely enough, most of them that I know are not very devout. Actually one of them is an avid gun guy: NRA, HCP, C&R holder, and most of all a good friend. Another one of them I know does his prayers and avoids eating pork and such, but the others don't seem to care. Am I saying that ALL people who practice Islam are peaceful? No. Are there many out there that would love to see us dead? Of course.

I don't know you, and I respect your opinion of disliking them, but to say you shouldn't trust any of them is a strong statement. I understand where you're coming from, especially after 9/11, and we were and still are very sensitive regarding Muslims. Just remember that there is a large difference regarding radical Islamists and I am not sure what to call them but "regular" Muslims? 
 

Edited February 13, 2013 by austin7.62

[JAB]

The problem is when we lump all Muslims together as evil terrorists we have nothing to stand on when the same is done to us...

 

I would say that the targets which were the original subject of the thread do not lump all Muslims together as terrorists.  Instead, just as a target depicting a ski-mask wearing assailant is obviously meant to depict ski-mask wearers who are 'bad guys' and not everyone who wears a ski mask, the turban wearing skeleton is meant to depict a terrorist.  If non-terrorist Muslims are offended by that target then it is those Muslims who have lumped themselves in with the terrorists by saying, "That target depicts me and mine." 

[E4 No More]

Nothing at all wrong with the KJV but to say it is the only "inspired" version is wrong and ignores the history of why King James commissioned a "new" version of scripture

 

I guess it's a church's perogative unless they are peaceful American Muslims and then they are in reality all terrorist cells waiting to spring into action.

Personally, I have nothing against any Bible coming out of the Textus Receptus, but others I do since Origen Adamantius admitting to having changed the scriptures that he got to fit his personal belief system as a follower of Plato. I do default to the KJV for various other reasons.

 

As far a Muslims are concerned, most are just like us. They view us as we view them. Unfortunately, humans have a herd/school/tribal/gang mentality. The movie "Independence Day" highlighted that pretty well when all of the nations banded together to defeat the aliens.

[Guest RevScottie]

So for all of you who think the Muslims are overreacting would you be OK if their was a Muslim owned range and they had targets depicting American Service Men and Women (these represent only the bad ones),  The President (well some of you are probably OK with that), The Pope, etc? 

[E4 No More]

So for all of you who think the Muslims are overreacting would you be OK if their was a Muslim owned range and they had targets depicting American Service Men and Women (these represent only the bad ones),  The President (well some of you are probably OK with that), The Pope, etc? 

What makes you think that they don't?

 

Personally, it doesn't bother me if they do.

[Guest RevScottie]

What makes you think that they don't?

 

Personally, it doesn't bother me if they do.

If it did upset the local Catholic church or VFW, etc, would you be mad at them for speaking out concerning it?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's like asking Mickey Mouse if he and Donald Duck are cousins. I have been mad at the Catholic Church waffling

on Obamacare, for example.

 

So for all of you who think the Muslims are overreacting would you be OK if their was a Muslim owned range and they had targets depicting American Service Men and Women (these represent only the bad ones),  The President (well some of you are probably OK with that), The Pope, etc? 

They probably do. There is a big one in the middle east, already. You might as well come on out and say 9/11 was our fault.

I think that must be where we are heading with all this, just in order to infuse a little political correctness into the mix as okay.

[BryanP]

I don't know any peaceful American Muslims, but that doesn't mean much. The ones I suspect to be Muslims won't identify that way

so I can't make much out of that. The ones I suspect as maybe being Muslims always tend to go out of their way to claim Christianity,

or something else, but that is a limited sample.

 

I cant' imagine why they'd want to keep a low profile. :rolleyes:  I remember in the first couple of years after 9/11, watching a comedian whose grandparents immigrated to the US from Iran.  "It's amazing how many of my friends suddenly discovered their Italian heritage."

 

And yeah, you probably do know a few.  They just don't talk about their religious faith.

Edited February 13, 2013 by BryanP

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That could very well be the case.

[Guest RevScottie]

That's like asking Mickey Mouse if he and Donald Duck are cousins. I have been mad at the Catholic Church waffling

on Obamacare, for example.

 

They probably do. There is a big one in the middle east, already. You might as well come on out and say 9/11 was our fault.

I think that must be where we are heading with all this, just in order to infuse a little political correctness into the mix as okay.

No 9/11 was not America's fault neither was it every Muslim's fault yet you insist on lumping them all together. The Muslims I know are good hard working families who are giving and care about others regardless of their faith and I count them as friends. It is very easy to insult and degrade people who you no nothing about.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Shia Islam is far more structured than Sunni Islam, but there are still different schools of thought within Sunni Islam, which represent the legal interpretations of the Quran and the hadiths, as well as how Muhammed lived his life and how that should impact the behavior of modern day Muslims. 

 

A quick parallel could be Catholics and Protestants.  Shias have a hierarchy similiar to Catholicism, and there are similarities in how their relationship with God is conducted.  Sunnis have a direct relationship with God, and their Imams are only there to lead them in prayer and provide some degree of spiritual guidance, as they are the religious scholars.  I'm not sure how the schools of thought in Sunni Islam dictate whether or not Muslims are free to interpret scripture, but I would have to assume so.  In Shia Islam that is a no-go.  Kinda like back in the day when the Catholic Church didn't want everyone trying to read and interpret the Bible without their guidance.  It was the clergy's responsibility to interpret the word of God.

 

The term "Mullah" is somewhat ambiguous, as it means different things in different corners of Islam.  At any rate, they don't hold any significant position in mainstream Islam.  Sometimes a Mullah can be nothing more than the only person literate enough in a village to read the Quran, and sometimes Mullah is just an honorary title that someone gets because they've either been formally educated in an Islamic institution, or they are just Quran thumpers that have independently obsessed themselves with being able to recite the entire Quran and memorize every significant hadith that applies to most common life situations.  I would compare a Mullah to the modern day bible thumper who becomes obsessed to the point of starting his own church because all the other churches are screwing it up, or the self appointed preacher has an ego that needs feeding... sorta like the "Machinegun Preacher" guy.

 

Thanks for the explanation, TMF. Didn't know that shias are more hierarchical than sunnis. In my ignorance might have even guessed the opposite.

 

Other than some things I'd read about the "wide array" of opinion on the muslim theology, it was interesting that some obscure mullah from dogpatch west pakistan will issue some nutty fatwa which gets folks all stirred up in bumfuzzle indonesia or whatever. :)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No 9/11 was not America's fault neither was it every Muslim's fault yet you insist on lumping them all together. The Muslims I know are good hard working families who are giving and care about others regardless of their faith and I count them as friends. It is very easy to insult and degrade people who you no nothing about.

I'm not lumping everything together, but the fact remains that until the Muslims show by their actions that they police their own

and stop this terrorism and not just sit idly by and by default allow it, I don't see much reason to trust any of them, do you?

 

Actions and inactions have consequences. We make mistakes, they make mistakes. We correct ours when we can, and usually

do. I expect them to do the same. I'm not willing to allow friendship to someone who wishes my destruction, regardless of how old

and historical the hate is, and I don't really care.

Edited February 13, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Dennis1209]

A tip of the ole ham sandwich to that one...

[Guest RevScottie]

I'm not lumping everything together, but the fact remains that until the Muslims show by their actions that they police their own

and stop this terrorism and not just sit idly by and by default allow it, I don't see much reason to trust any of them, do you?

So how does a Muslim family who has lived in Chattanooga for now 3 generations and the rest of their family who also moved to the US have any impact on what is going on in some other country? They have been living here peacefully as American citizens (some of them their entire lives)  yet you don't trust them. They don't support radical Islam in any way. What would you have them do to gain your trust?