for anyone who cares to read (re: no freedome of religion for Muslims in Malaysia) - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2002, 01:56 PM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 07:25 AM
White flag, I think your starting to sound very arrogant.... U usually make interesting point of views... But ur getting to the point where u think
u know everything, and u really don't....
"The crisis in Israel and the Palestinian territories cannot be compared with genocide. That is the "

So, u must have lived through both events to really make that statement? Unless u have seen it throught the victims eyes, how can u blah blah about victimology?
I have talked to my brothers and sisters who have lived in Lebanon, Palestine, Bosnia, and Afghanistan... & believe me, these people are as innocent as can be, but the destruction they have witnessed is beyond me... & for someone who has not witnessed what they have witnessed making a statement as what u have (whiteflag) is kind of disturbing....
B4 making a statement like that white flag...... Talk to "real" victims..... and get a better understanding of where these victims are coming from... That is where u will get real facts.....

Btw, Tarik, I haven't seen u on this forum... Are u a Muslim? I'm just wondering, cuz I thought I was the only one muslim on intereference.
__________________

__________________
Amna is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 03:13 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Talking to the victims and using just the eyewitnesses to gather fact is actually the worst mistake you could make. There are NO objective victims. They are too close. They are too full of anger and resentment to see clearly. Certainly their testimony must be taken into account, but it must also be put into PERSPECTIVE.

The Palestinians are not special. They are not suffering special atrocity. People have it bad everywhere on this earth. Truly, truly horrible things happen to all groups of people. Most of the time it does not make the news AT ALL. More innocent people are brutalized and die unnoticed outside of the Israeli conflict than those who die from it. In fact if the true numbers were fully known for just this year, they would dwarf all the casualties on both sides of Israeli/ Palestinian conflict.

All human suffering must be stopped and one of the first steps in stopping it is taking a step back, taking a breath and realizing that the world isn't ignoring or belittling the suffering of any one particular group. It also helps in realizing that both sides of a conflict are equally guilty for these bad situations.

Truly what the world needs is some perspective and the Palestinians and their supporters need it most of all. Why? Because when you think you are special and your case is the worst, it drives you crazy so you can't think or see straight or make good decisions. Just think for a moment how you would react if you thought the whole world was picking on you for your whole life and noone cared.

I truly believe that the suicide bombings result from this kind of total lack of perspective. 9/11 too.

Using the term genocide for the Palestinian situation is frankly ridiculous, sorry. It stretches the word way too far and runs the very real risk of abusing the word so much that people stop listening. Given the overwhelming power of the Israeli military and Palestinian weakness genocide would be too easy. Genocide is a blatant concerted effort to kill every member of a hated group in the shortest amount of time. Given high Palestinian birth rates and a casualty rate of hundreds per year it will take forever for the Israelis to reach their OBVIOUS goal of genocide! (HEAVY sarcasm) Boy, they sure are stoopid genociders.....
__________________

__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 03:37 PM   #18
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
And while I'm thinking about it.

What could be more stupid than killing over this tiny piece of land. I for one am so glad that Christians as a group are independent of the Holy Land and our Holy Sites. We don't need a piece of land or a certain building to properly worship our God. If there were no Holy Land and no Churches there, we would be sad but we could still fulfill our religious obligations to the fullest. This ensures that we will never be religiously obligated to kill in defense of any holy site. Thank God.

In fact I think its the worst idea ever to mix religion with possession of land. No wait, maybe at one time it had a purpose, but its without a doubt a concept people need to GET over in this modern age.

I think that if both Jews and Muslims could realize that and not make this conflict into an apolcalyptic religious battle where simply EVERYTHING (said hysterically) depends on the outcome, then they might actually see the day where they get to enjoy the free use of The Holy Land together. Getting over it just a little (for God's sake) may be the only way this conflict will ever be resolved with both peoples still being free to live near and worship at their holy sites in peace.
__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-23-2002, 05:38 PM   #19
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 130
Local Time: 07:25 AM
there's persecution on every side of every situation. yes, muslims are persecuted in many areas, and that statistic about 90% of refugees being muslim is shocking.

however we could also look at the slaughter of Christians in Sudan... or the killing of Christians in the USSR and China several years ago...

I don't think the UN is biased for or against religions... it's more so biased to countries and to governments and the like. They won't condone a bombing of Israel because that would upset the US, and the UN needs the USA very badly. And so on and so on.
__________________
KingPin is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 09:01 AM   #20
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Hmm...I'm hoping that it's true, that the UN is not biased for or against a religionous group....

But having in mind that there is not an Muslim country having a steady seat in the World Security Council makes me think otherwise....

I'm not one of those muslims, who accuse the UN for the bad situation of the muslims in the world...

I think white flag is right when saying that the palestinian crisis is not a genocide, as he gives us a definition of what genocide really is, like it was in Bosnia.

It's not a genocide but it's also not an unfortunate conflict between two nations which have the same guild, it's the occupation and expulsion of the palestinians by the israelians, that's the fact.

If you really saw this camps (not on TV) where most of the palestinians are living , you would understand what I'm talking about.

Having no home, no work (an important fact), no perspective, and lot of victims (there is no palestinian family which has at least one family member died by the occupators) offers no other possibilities than to fight....

But I also wanna say that Islam does not allow to kill civilians as well as suicide is tabooed.

Before the battle of Bedr (the first battle in the Islamic history) the prophet Muhammad (peace with him) said that they even are not allowed to cut down trees as well as not to attack men who work at the field....



And Amna, you're right I'm a muslim so you're not longer alone here sister
__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 01:15 PM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik
It's not a genocide but it's also not an unfortunate conflict between two nations which have the same guild, it's the occupation and expulsion of the palestinians by the israelians, that's the fact.

If you really saw this camps (not on TV) where most of the palestinians are living , you would understand what I'm talking about.

Having no home, no work (an important fact), no perspective, and lot of victims (there is no palestinian family which has at least one family member died by the occupators) offers no other possibilities than to fight....
And have you ever seen the slums in other nations? How about the conditions of the shanty towns in South Africa, or Brazil or India? I'll bet there is noone in those places who hasn't lost a relative due to government neglect and corruption. And yet they don't turn themselves into suicide bombers or terrorists.

And yes, there is the same guilt. Someday I will be able to get through to my Muslim friends that this is true. I pray that I will someday find the words. By fighting back from the very beginning, the Palestinians have made their situation worse and they have done their part at every turn to contribute to the escalation of the killings there. The situation did not begin so badly. The Palestinians had ample opportunites to begin a peaceful resistance movement long before things got really bad. But their automatic reaction, encouraged by the Koran which condones war in self-defense, was to take up arms. In refusing the option of non-violent resistence, they incurred as much giult as the Israelis.

This was NOT the only option. MLK, Gandhi, A.S.S.K (of Burma) triumphed over incredible odds against them, against regimes which did resort to physical violence and killing of innocents. These true heroes minimized casualties and still got what they wanted.

But the Palestinians decided right from the start that their situation was different. That they didn't have this option. They did the too proud, hotheaded, overly emotional thing from the start (picture a screaming crowd jumping up and down, pumping their fists in the air and shooting off guns etc you know the drill) I can just imagine the calls in 1967 for vengence for their humilation at the hands of the Israelis. I can just imagine the vows in 1967 to fight them till the end to get their land back etc. They LOST the opportunity and IGNORED past sucesses of non-violent resistance. They informally decided that their case was the exception and that non-violence couldn't work for them. They were the ones who decided that the bad conditions of living under occupation was something worth the deaths of themselves and their families in the violent resistence they initiated.

But nothing catches more attention and gains more sympathy than a non-violent movement. Fighting not only results in an increase in the deaths of innocents it is also all too common. It puts people to sleep. It creates hopelessness in the international audience. But peaceful resistence is eye catching. It shames the other party into concessions AND it keeps innocent deaths to an absolute minimum.

Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik
But I also wanna say that Islam does not allow to kill civilians as well as suicide is tabooed.

Before the battle of Bedr (the first battle in the Islamic history) the prophet Muhammad (peace with him) said that they even are not allowed to cut down trees as well as not to attack men who work at the field....

And what does the Koran say to do when you are attacked by a much greater force? What do Islamic scholars say to do when the situation is truly desparate? It IS ok, isn't it, to even the odds in the most desparate situations. Isn't the survival of Muslim people more important than how the fighting is waged? If not, I would like to see the evidence where Muslims are taught that fighting a clean, but hopeless fight is better than fighting a dirty but successful war for survival.

What does the Koran or Islamic law say to do when fighting clean against a superior force fails to produce a win like the one at the Battle of Bedr?

Also, if I am correct the Battle of Bedr took place early in Mohammeds career. In fact all the tolerant verses that are so often quoted are from this early period. Later, Mohammed was to say that pagans were to be given the choice of conversion to Islam or death. He also said to take the women and children of people who resisted the forces of Islam as war spoils. And his last command to his followers was to drive the unbelievers from the Arabian Penninsula by any means necessary.

But you hit on the main problem of Islam and the reason why many (though not all) Muslims resort to jihad when the going gets tough.

1) Mohammed resorted to violence when the going got tough.

2) Islam is full of examples of battles. The concept of battle, of being battle ready, of the eternal persecution of the House of Peace (Islam) at the hands of the House of War (the rest of the world) is ingrained in Islam down to the bottom. Muslims are taught almost from birth that they live in a condition of spiritual war. They grow up listening to this concept as a constant drumbeat. "The world hates the Muslims..."

3) The concept that war can be fought justly and that war can be just is spelled out in detail. No Muslim has the slightest problem with fighting once they have decided that the situation calls for it.

And thats just it. The loophole to violence in Islam is wide enough to drive a truck through and its visible as a neon sign. Islam allows for war and violence in self defense and celebrates the good battle THEN Muslims (fallible human beings) are free to decide when the situation calls for such an reaction. Big surprise, they often get it wrong. You get all kinds of mavericks deciding for themselves that a given situation qualifies for the war response. From there its just a step to justifying unconventional means of waging war because the survival of the Muslims depends on it (see UBL's reasoning for what he does.)

In contrast, Jesus forbid Christians to retaliate even when struck, even when persecuted. The first Christians were subject to brutal pograms and all the might of an empire dedicated to their extinction, yet they followed Jesus and thrived until the Roman empire was Christian. War is at best a forgivable sin. But there is no interpretation of the teaching of Jesus that condones it as just. Jesus does not offer the Christian with the ultimate battle hero to model themselves after. When the going got tough, Jesus DIED refusing to fight according to Christian teaching. That is our ultimate example. In short, it is damnably hard for a Christian to point to Jesus and say that he would want us to fight wars even with those that threaten us and oppress us. In order to fight we have to appeal to something else.

But Muslims have a long list of Mohammed's battles to study and correlate with present circumstance. And a further long list of battles fought by the Caliphs after him. Muslims immediately began fighting each other after Mohammeds death each side sincerely believing that the situation justified the fighting. And in modern times, Muslims often fight each other in their own countries citing some past example, enshrined in Islamic law of some the just fight from the past. (This tendency just might be the reason there are so many Muslim refugees.)

I know that there are Muslims out there who would refuse to fight no matter the circumstances because they personally believe in non-violence. But they would have to look very hard for Islamic examples and they would have to work very hard to over look the tradition of war jihad long CELEBRATED by Muslims.
__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 03:01 PM   #22
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Hmmmm... I'm right now in a rush to leave my house... So, I'm going to write in this forum again.. But, Whiteflag, In Islam we are told not to strike those who are striking against us. We are to remain as so till nearly 2 decades of the treatement. When the community is being threatened because of their own lives, they are then allowed to self protect themselves... If it wasn't for that, the nation would have crumbled... The Prophet (PBUH) and his family had gone through such such bad treatment (I should give examples later, with the hadiths) , in order to save themselves and this world of destruction, they had to fight for their lives and others....
We Muslims do not CELEBRATE these times, we pay respect... And the real Muslims do not grow up with the spirit of war, but with the spirit of Allah and the prophet and his family....
I have to add on to this...
But whiteflag, being a Muslim does not evolve with the notion of war. That is the last thing we are to resort to. The first thing is with prayers, faith, respect for the poor, and respect for your neighbors (of other religions), and most importently the respect for Prophet and his family..
BTW, the term Holy War is not that of an Islamic Term... It was of Christian terms...
Also, Before u make such statements Whiteflag, maybe u should clearify with other Muslims on what ur saying, and try to be respectful...
WF, u do make good points... However, Try to keep a little respect in what u write; especially when it is about a high figure like Prophet (PBUH). Now, I'm not a great Muslim, but I and all my Muslim friends have grown up with ethics and morals of tolerance, prayers, respect for the poor, neigbors and the Prophet and his family (PBUT)... These traditions are praticed all over the world... True, many Muslim countries have screwed themselves over with ridiculous leaderships... However, places like Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and other countries, are places where u find a positive developement... The US usually likes to look at themselves as the perfect democratic system... But let me ask you, did the system help Afghanistan or Iran develop as a nation.. No, it only corrupted the nation...
Also, how can the US promote democracy if they themselves don't stand all for democracy, in my oppinion, though the US have more postivies then negatives as a nation, we definently don't use a perfect system.. It's much like a hypocratic system....
I don't want to bad mouth the US, because I am an American, this is my home... However, I think each country is in a different stage of developement and cultural aspect, and if we barge in throwing our system at others, then it would only worsten our relations with other countries...

POINT IS, ALL WE NEED IS CULTURAL RESPECT & RESPECT OF EACHOTHER... WE CAN NOT HATE ONE ANOTHER B/C OF OUR RELGION OR CULTURAL DIFFERENCE. THIS IS WHAT CAUSES DESTRUCTION... AND HATE OF OUR NEIGHBORS IS AGAINST THE BELIEF OF THE AHUL QITAB (PEOPLE OF THE BOOK)...
I'll write later, my mum is at the moment getting pissed off at me b/c I'm getting her late..

Peace out
Amna
__________________
Amna is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 04:18 PM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Amna
Hmmmm... I'm right now in a rush to leave my house... So, I'm going to write in this forum again.. But, Whiteflag, In Islam we are told not to strike those who are striking against us. We are to remain as so till nearly 2 decades of the treatement. When the community is being threatened because of their own lives, they are then allowed to self protect themselves... If it wasn't for that, the nation would have crumbled... The Prophet (PBUH) and his family had gone through such such bad treatment (I should give examples later, with the hadiths) , in order to save themselves and this world of destruction, they had to fight for their lives and others....
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference how long you wait to retaliate. 20 yrs or two hundred. Muslims are allowed to retaliate and allowed to justify that retaliation with religious teachings. Period. Muslims are free to interpret when is the time to fight. They are free to say, ok we have had this treatment for twenty years now we can fight. For the Muslims that are fighting now with each other and killing with suicide bombs, they believe they have suffered for more than twenty years. They believe they have suffered for more than 500 yrs.

And I said that, in Islam, Muslims were allowed to fight to defend themselves. You missed my point that even this is wrong to have in a religion because it weakens it and opens it up to many different interpretations of when the time for self-defense has come making it much easier for people to go to war for what they only think are the right reasons. My point is it is much better and safer for a relgion to forbid ALL retaliation. It is better for a religion to have as its example not a warrior but a man who never fought back even though they came to kill him. Christianity is absolutely closed to making justifications for war. Islam is wide open.

Mohammed went through more bad treatment than the Christians who never fought back???? Oh please! Our Lord was crucified. Christians were fed to lions and slaughtered wherever they were found. And yet they suceeded wildly, flying in the face of the so called law that people must fight back to defend themselves and their religion. The sucess of the Christians until they outnumbered everyone else in the Roman empire and the success of Christians in many other situations where they were being killed and tortured without acting to defend themselves proves that it is wrong that Mohammed HAD to fight. He had a choice and he chose to go to war. He just didn't have the diplomacy or the secret of peace that would have prevented the wars he fought. He didn't see that the Muslims could survive anyway no matter what if God was truly on their side. He started raiding the caravans of those who had persectued him in Mecca. Gee, I wonder why the Meccans came after him and his followers. Did Mohammed wait twenty years to retaliate?

Jesus could have easily begun a war in Israel easy to save his hide and make Christianity the religion of that people. The Israelis hated the Romans and they were waiting for the Messiah who would come and smash them. Jesus was so charismatic that if he had wanted to raise an army he could have easily done so. But he told the Israelis to love the Romans, to gladly endure their oppression and he didn't give some time limit, some LOOPHOLE, to get out of it. He is our greatest example.

As i have told you before, I have asked many EXPERTS in Islam about these things. And there is always an exception, a way out, a LOOPHOLE (my word) for every rule in Islam. In other words Muslims are exhorted to the best behavior DEPENDING always on the situation. If the situation is ideal then behavior of Muslims is ideal and if it is very bad then Muslims are permitted to escalate their behavior accordingly. I have asked experts and the primary duty of Muslims is to survive and any rules which conflict with Islam's survival must be laid aside. A Muslim may lie and murder if the situation is extreme. And the only reason more Muslims don't fight right now is that they don't think the situation is that extreme yet.

Did you know that a Muslim who murders a Muslim must be put to death. But if a Muslim murders anyone else, all he has to do is pay blood money? Did you know that a Muslim may not lie to another Muslim but if he lies to a non-Muslim then its not as great a sin? I have seen hundreds of hadith myself. I may not be able to remember the words to them, but I sure remember what they said and what MODERATE Muslims said about their proper interpretation.

Christianity has proven again and again that a religion where non-violence is expected in EVERY situation can succeed even in the face of total destruction. Christians have not always been consistent in applying this absolute law of non-retaliation, but everytime it has been applied it has worked even in the most horrible and despicable and desparate situations.

People of other religions have also tried this method, including Gandhi and A.S.S.K with great results. All groups of people have produced some great totally non-violent figure EXCEPT Muslims who always say that their situation is different and their prophet, their ultimate authority, said they could fight war when they were greatly oppressed and its ok.

PS. Maybe Muslims think that to respect means not to criticize. But to me, respect does not mean that. I respect individual Muslims very much but I will also be totally candid about what I think about their religion. For me Islam sounds great up to the point where the rules change according to the situation. Because of that all of Islams talk about peace and moral behavior is completely hollow to me. I tell my friends that I believe in a relgion where whats is expected of us is always expected no matter how bad the situation. This is VERY important to me to explain this difference. No disresepct is intended.
__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-24-2002, 05:28 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Let me add just one more thing.

I think I should say what is the most important duty for Christians. In contrast to Islam, survival of Christianity does not come first in our religion. What comes first in our relgion is behaving and reacting the same no matter what the situation is (this is the same for us as being loyal to Jesus who is even more important to us than our lives) . We believe this is our greatest strength and our greatest weapon and the key to our survival as a religion.

And it has worked for us in spite of the rules of the world. This principle has always worked in our favor whenever it has been tried and so we have survived and thrived when we weren't supposed to and we have changed the most violent situations into ones where justice prevails.

It is not respect or lack of criticism that will stop violence. Violence can only be stopped with non-violence that doesn't give up no matter what! And the only true path to achieve respect for everyone is to first refuse violence as an option forever.

The non-violent approach is the secret for solving every problem and showing respect for everyone. It is the only way to achieving real lasting peace for all religions and all groups of people. This secret was taught by Jesus but not by Mohammed.

Mohammed taught that peace could only come if everyone is the same religion and he gave his followers the permission to spread that one relgion both through warlike and peaceful means.

I think that if Mohammed was right, then there would only be peace in Muslim countries and Christianity would have failed long ago trying a different approach. But that different approach has suceeded in contradiction of Mohammed's teachings. The violence among Muslims that started right after Mohammeds death also contradicts his teachings that Islam is the House of Peace.

And before anyone says anything. All the violence that began among Christians began with ignoring the teachings of Jesus who taught that non-violence, not being a certain religion or being right about something, is the first part of Love and peace.
__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-25-2002, 11:36 AM   #25
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 09:25 AM
The true story about Jihad :


The word Jihad sends shivers down the spines of many Westeners. They readily eguate this term with violence and opression.
However, it must be said, that the meaning of jihad, as a "holy war", is something which is totally foreign and not from Islam.

If anything, such a description belongs more so to Christianity and its adherents. It was terms like this which were used to justify the slaughter and pillage of towns during the crusades by the Christians.

By simply looking into the sources if Islam, you're able to know that the true meaning of Jihad is make effort in the way of GOD.
Thus striving can be both, peaceful and physical.

The Prophet said:

"The best Jihad is by the one who strives against his own self for Allah, The Mighty and Majestic."

The Quran: (25:52)

"So obey not the disbelievers, but make a great jihad (effort) against them (by preaching) with it (the Quran)."


Anyway, it is the physical or combative Jihad which receives so much criticism. The purpose of this physical Jihad is to raise the world of Allah uppermost.
By doing this, it liberates and emancipates all those who are crying out for freedom all over the world.

The Quran: (4:75)

""And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allah and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose only cry is: Our Lord, rescue us from this town whose ppl are oppressors and raise for us from you one who will protect and raise for us from you one who will help."

Anyone who knows the early history of Islam, will know that all those nations and empires, which came under the fold of Islam were indeed previously oppressed. When the companiouns of the prophet went out for the offensive Jihad agains the Eyptians, the Persians and the Romans, we find that the ppl did not resist against them at all, the muslims were even beckoned to come and liberate these lands from the tryranny of their kings (for example Egypt and Spain)

Islam is the tolerant religion par excellence.
The Quran points out that the difference between ppl (colour, affluance, language, etc., see 30:22) and describes the ideologic and religious pluralism as something given by GOD:

Sure 5, verse 48:

.......Had Allah willed, He could have made you one community. But that He may try you, by that which he hath given you. So vie one with another in good work.


This basic pluralism is an antithesis to the catholic doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (lets test your latin knowledge )

The prophet himself told us that even his community will split into 73 groups. And he was right, cause he predicted the inner-islam wars, as well as many other things he predicted .

look at this verses, and you will learn the truth about islamic tolerancy:

"Say. It is the truth from the Lord of you all. Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." (18:29)

"And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth,would have believe together. Would you (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" (10:99)

It's clear that Islam does not accept this kind of aggressive proselyte, which was practiced by christian missionaries.
Even the prophet has been warned:

"You are only a warner......" (11:12)
See also 3:20 and 11:108

And not to forget this fundamental statement:

"there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

Instead, the Quran tells us to use our minds.
__________________
Tarik is offline  
Old 07-25-2002, 05:43 PM   #26
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Tarik,

You just ignored everything I said and my main point.

The very inclusion of permission to go to war no matter for what reason and no matter what else is said about being peaceful is a major problem in Islam.

It is a crack, a loophole. It is an IMPERFECTION that leads to people going something to the effect "Well, in the same cicumstances, Mohammed went to war to defend Islam" "Or we are permitted to go to war when circumstances are desparate." Since everyone perceives the world differently, which is something God should know, that means there will inevitably be millions of different interpretations of when is the right time to go to war in self defense. That means there will always be Muslims who think that the time has come to defend themselves and Islam with war and killing and that God approves of their violence.

All the peace hope and love that the Koran talks about has the air let out if it by this allowance to go to war. War or as you so euphemistically term it , physical jihad is the opposite, the CONTRADICTION of peace and love. The permission for war is an internal contradiction in Islam.

And Muslims cannot say that any part of what Mohammed said or did is now outdated.

Christians test everything said in our Old Testament by what Jesus said and did. If it contradicts Jesus, it no longer applies. Therefore, our example, who cannot be over-riden, never allowed a crack or a loophole for violence FOR ANY REASON.

You drag up the crusaders. God how tired I am of that argument.

There were no crusades until Muslim armies attacked and besieged Christian kingdoms in the Middle East. That is objective historical fact. Those Christian kingdoms called for help from the West. And like I said, any fighting at all by Christians is in direct contradiction of the example and teachings of Jesus in our scriptures. Jesus never resorted to violence even when they came to kill him and he explicity instructed his followers to do the same.

He did not say be peacful and patient, while he acted in warlike and impatient ways. He did not say, "Love all men equally" and them commit massacres like Mohammed did when he beheaded 500 Jewish men and took their women and children as slaves, war booty. He did not say be non-violent only for a while.

Jesus did not contradict his teachings by his actions. And he never said that a different situation required a different response. He never did anything period that he had to justify to anyone.

It all about the ultimate example in each religion.

Quote:
This basic pluralism is an antithesis to the catholic doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" (lets test your latin knowledge )
And did you find that in the Bible? ( I know you didn't) or was that some independent riffing done by a compromised church? How long ago did the Catholics renounce that doctrine? I wonder.

Christians are not all Catholic. Catholics are part of the larger group of Christians. Are you aware that the Catholic church has been in a process of constant reform for 500 years???? Are you aware that doctrine is NOT Gospel???? Doctrine is policy. Gospel is truth.

And yet you equate the Koran, the Islamic gospel, with Catholic doctrine. That hardly seems fair. Especially when Catholics do not in any way represent all Christians.

I am equating like with like. Gospel with Koran. The example of Jesus with the example of Mohammed. The example of the earliest Muslims with the earliest Christains. I have not once quoted some much later Islamic teacher or some much later precedent of Islamic jurisprudence. I did not bring up the Muslim contemporaries of the Crusaders.

I am talking about the core and the earliest history of each religion, by which they can be accurately judged in their purest state.

The fact is that until the first kings and emperors became Christian (well after Christ and the earliest Christians) and selected the parts of Jesus' message that they would obey, Christianity was well known for its remarkable lack of violence and its remarkable success in the face of the most henious persecution. This disproves the Islamic excuse that Mohammed HAD to fight for Islam to survive. If Christians could, why couldn't Mohammed?

And so my first point. Islam is open to violence because Mohammed allowed it in special cases, and there will always be someone who thinks a given situation qualifies. Due to human fallibilty they will be wrong most of the time. Therefore it is a grave flaw in Islam that violence can be justified from the violent example of Mohammed.

And my second point is that Mohammed did have a lot of choices. to say that he didn't is just an excuse for his behavior. If God, the almighty Creator of the universe, was really with him and the Muslims why couldn't they survive their infancy without killing others of God's children? Were those they killed not as much God's children as the Muslims were? Were the lives of Muslims more important than the lives of those non-Muslims killed in battles? Couldn't God protect the Muslims and cause them to thrive without resort to war?

Does God not know the math of War?

When a group absorbs persecution without retaliation, casualties are kept to an absolute minimum.

But when a group goes to war to defend themselves, not only do their own casualties increase, but casualties are also incurred on the other side as well. War doesn't minimize killing at all. It increases it.

Even if it is over quickly, there will always be many more dead than if war had been resisted by one side.

And war has never stopped other wars. Why? Because the losers will always want to get back at the ones who beat them. There will always be someone who wants vengence for something that happened during a war. War will always come back.

Until all the people of the world stop thinking that war can solve any problems, there will always be war.

Islam has many admirable qualities. Why can't Muslims reassess Mohammed and their earliest history in order to preserve that instead of making excuses and justifying these things? Its those excuses and justifications and denials that will ensure that violence will continue to be a greater problem for Islam than it is for other religions. Of that I am absolutely convinced.
__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-25-2002, 11:53 PM   #27
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik


look at this verses, and you will learn the truth about islamic tolerancy:

"Say. It is the truth from the Lord of you all. Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." (18:29)

"And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth,would have believe together. Would you (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?" (10:99)

It's clear that Islam does not accept this kind of aggressive proselyte, which was practiced by christian missionaries.
Even the prophet has been warned:

"You are only a warner......" (11:12)
See also 3:20 and 11:108

And not to forget this fundamental statement:

"there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)

Instead, the Quran tells us to use our minds.

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. " (Sura 9:5 Yusef Ali)


In other words, if the pagans become Muslims and establish regular prayers and practice Muslim charity, then they can live. God is forgiving of pagans (Hindus, Buddists, American Indians etc ie not people of the book) as long as they straighten right up and convert to Islam.

See what I mean about contradictions? And Muslims can't say that some books are very old and out of date in some respects. All of the revelation of Mohammed is eternally current. Besides the sura which has "Let there be no compulsion in religion" was said many years BEFORE the one about killing the pagans unless they convert to Islam.

And lest I be accused of taking this verse out of context, the verses before this one talks about a proclamation that according to God all treaties with pagans had become null except with the pagan groups with whom Mohammed had some sort of political or military alliance. And those people were safe only as long as they were loyal.

If you were a pagan and you just had some little peace treaty with Mohammed you were screwed after this verse was "revealed" unless you converted. (I use quotation marks not to be sarcastic or disrepectful but just because i simply don't believe they were revealed at all)

Unless I am mistaken. Maybe initiating a campaign to kill to pagans because they are pagans is someho not compulsion to become Muslim?????

What's the justification for this verse of the Koran?
__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 01:24 AM   #28
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 07:25 AM
There was a post here but now there is not.....

Need to re-think it a bit.
__________________
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-26-2002, 11:45 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 07:25 AM
For some odd reason, my computer is stalling... Whateve...
Anyways, Whiteflag, u talk as if Muslims don't are against Jesus...

Jesus Christ is highly admired more then once in the Quraan (45.3).

"And Remember, Jesus, the son of Mary said: O children of Israel, " I am the Apostle of God sent to you, confirming the law of Moses which came before me, and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (Proph. Muhammed), but when he came to them with clear signs they said "I this is evident sorcery" 7:61.

"If you love me, keep my commandments and I will pray the father he shall give you another Comforter (Muhammed means comforter) that he may abide with you forever, even the spirit of Truth" (John XIV, 15-17).

Whiteflag, if you only take out excerpts from the Quraan, then you can worp it into whatever u want to believe in.... You had taken an excerpt explaining the killing of Pagans... But, if u take out a bit of it, u need to explain what it was pertaining to...
"The forbidde month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation and one who attaketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off evil." The Cow 2.33

Patience is the biggest thing in Islam. However, if a community is threatned b/c of Islam... Then they have the right to defend Islam in the proper manner.

40. The sura also goes on to state the danger of exceeding your defense, and the uselessness of what that creates...

Islam is a relgion that praises all the Prophets, not just Muhammed. Jesus is highly admired. Yet, the scriptures before us were usually manipulated, and the Koran was then revealed as a final word... The Encyclopedia, ninth edition, states that Quraan is the One Book which is read in Original Text...



Todays' politics in most Muslim countries in a real big dissapointment to many Muslims.. How can rulings in such places like Malaysia and Palestine butcher the message in Islam.... First off, the main Problem in Palestine is not that of a relgious one, but that of geographic... I'm very tired at the moment.. I'll write some more later...
Peace
__________________
Amna is offline  
Old 07-27-2002, 12:43 AM   #30
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 02:25 AM

and people keep dying ...and priests keep doing their crimes ..and i love ...... i still haven't found what i'm looking for ...

Creed = Israel = USA= Russia = Ben Laden = UK = Terror = Money = anger = Not George Lucas = Hollywood = Me


I'm so sick of all this , that we can't all be happy , no ,if i am happy someone in different place will suffer pain and hunger ...

Afganistan = vietnam = Chechnya = national movements = what's next ????

who ruun , who rrrun

inTo the arms of America ...............................



amna i'm sorry for you and your religion , people , now it's a hard time , but it will be alright .

no more lying faces, no more .........
__________________

__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com