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 07-24-2002, 01:15 PM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 02:40 PM
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: 02:40 PM
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: 02:40 PM
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: 02:40 PM
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: 03:40 PM
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: 02:40 PM
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: 02:40 PM
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: 02:40 PM
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: 02:40 PM
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: 09:40 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  
Old 07-29-2002, 06:12 PM   #31
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whiteflag


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.



What's the justification for this verse of the Koran?

Amna,

Open your eyes.

I did explain the context. The context is that God told Mohammed to announce that all treaties with pagans except the ones that were the most useful to Mohammed were nullified.

I read all of that sura from beginning to end. I could post the entire thing and it would make no difference.

Jesus allowed for no violence. None. Zip. Period. Nada. No exceptions. No excuses. No justifications.

Mohammed gave permission for violence. It does not matter what the circumstances are or what the rules are, or how honorable people are told to be or how much patience and all the other BS that was stipulated.

War is allowed. Therefore it can be abused by people and they can justify themselves religiously which is the worst sort of justification and causes the greatest viciousness. No truly peaceful religion would allow the opening for such abuse or cause such confusion. The allowance of even the least amount of violence is a FLAW. It is one that easily exploited by religious men who are angry and frustrated.

And it will always be until the history of war in Islam's name, including Mohammed's military campaigns, is repudiated by Muslims. Until that day there will always be a culture that will produce people like UBL and the name of Islam will drip in blood.

The war in Islam and the peace in Islam cancel each other out. Like a positive number and a negative number. Islam is like a person that speaks out of both sides of its mouth and ends up saying nothing much and confusing most of the people listening. (The Muslims who would not resort to violence under any circumstances are far outnumbered) It is a religion of situational morality. There is no law in Islam which doesn't have an exception. The Koran and the hadiths have exemptions for lying, stealing, killing and war. Islam says to have patience but it gives permission in some cases for people to give up on patience and non-violence. This is a weakness that must be acknowledged.

Muslims must stop trying to explain why the permission for war is not really a bad thing because all they are doing is making excuses and blaming other things instead of changing the confusing environment that unreformed Islam creates for Muslims like UBL and the suicide bombers.

As for the Koran being read in its original language. I could write a book of lies tommorrow disguised as a holy book, and if people were still reading it in the original language many years from now would that make any difference? What kind of logic is this claim about the Koran? It means nothing at all. Thousands of books are read in their original language. What matters is the message. The message of Islam is all over the map and in many cases incoherant. Even in its original language, the Koran is incomprehensible. It lacks any background or context and it is arranged in no order other than length of sura. Meaning if one wants to know what was going on and when it happened, they are entirely dependent on the contributions of human (fallible) scholars to provide the code (the context and time of "revealation") needed to decipher it. It was humans who gathered the hadiths and decided which ones were the most authentic and then wrote the commentaries which represent the true origin of the Islamic faith as it is known today. It was humans who decided to burn all but certain copies of the Koran. Thousands were burned.

Noone can just sit down with the Koran and read it and understand what the hell is going on and why without any other material or traditional knowledge provided by humans. In contrast, the Bible comes with all the material needed, context, times, commentary, the works. No Christian who has a Bible is dependent on any scholar to tell us what it is saying or how we are supposed to understand it. The New Testament presents a morally consistent message with only two exceptions and a happy, moral spiritually fulfilled Christian life can be easily derived from it with no other education in the Christian religion. The life built in this way will be consitent with the lives of other Christians. The New Testament passes the real test of any Holy Book, "Does it work?" with flying colors. Western civilization based upon its moral teachings is the most wildly successful, dynamic, creative and inclusive civilization ever known. The NT has given birth to countless humanitarians and non-violent movements the world over. Its values have crossed into the lives of the believers of other religions, like Gandhi, who found the blueprint for his non-violent movement in its pages (though it was the Gita that first inspired him.)

And in case any one should doubt its influence. The birth of our current civilization coincides with the advent of the Bible becoming widely available to all people in the 1500's. Its like an incredible power was unleashed as soon as the common man could read the Bible in his own language. In other words, whatever mistakes in the translations or what ever corruptions of the text, these have been proven insignificant to the success of the Gospel in the lives of billions and billions of people.

All this and its message on non-violence, patience, love and othe rmoral admonisions etc is consistent and allows for no exceptions under any circumstances. A Christian in crisis is allowed to act no different from one in a good situation if they want to be obedient to Jesus who was always consistent in all situations.

And no, Amna, I do not believe that anyone who denies that Jesus died on the cross can truly respect him or the people who believe in him. I think that someone who leaves it an open question is more respectful than the one who totally denies it. The death of Jesus, in all meekness and piety has inspired such incredible goodness and love in the world and has saved countless lives through the practice of non-violence. His death is the source of the power of Christians to overcome the worst possible situations. When we die for what we believe in, we see the Cross, and we know we are not alone. There is no more serious and unequivocal example of the power of love and non-violence in all the world.
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 06:17 PM   #32
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention.

The Book of Mormon is read in its original language and due to modern technology and means of preservation, it is likely to be read for ages in English just excactly as it was originally written.

I believe that the Bahais also have a similar claim. What about the Hindus and the Bhuddists?

So the statement that only the Koran is read in its original language would be patently false.
whiteflag is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 07:09 PM   #33
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 09:40 AM

is it true that mormons are allowed ( secretly ) to have a 1-3-6 number of wifes ??
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 07-29-2002, 08:53 PM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 70
Local Time: 03:40 PM
So I'm accused of ignoring your statements, whiteflag,

well, sorry about that, but all I wanted was to explain the principe of Jihad, when does Islam allow war. And, independent of when the verses I mentioned were manifested, they are valid, so the verse "there is no compalsion in religion" is the central message regarding the relationship between Islam and other religions.

Well, to understand and to interprate a verse of the (holy) Quran, you godda know the time of the manifestation, and the circumstances when this verse has been sent. Cause the Quran was sent, as you know, bit by bit.

You pointed out one fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, in fact the christian principe of "not fighting back" and the islamic principe of Self-Defence. As you are a christian its not a surprise that you see the principe of Islam as a FLAW, cause otherwise you would deny your own religion, as well as I see the christian principe as a FLAW, cause its unworldly to me.

Almost all religions were exploited in a bad way, giving empires occasions for wars, for example what do Inquisition, burning of witches, scientists and jews have to do with christian charity? nothing

War is allowed in Islam. Thats true, but only as a self-defence.
At this point, the verses and the hadiths are very clear, Muslims are not allowed to attack first ( see quran 2:190).

But when it comes to war:" fight them wherever you find them.....",so there NO contradicitions here my friend, and like the Quran is saying itself, no doubts (2:2), but I will prove this at another time (it's gettin' late know).

About the Quran you said that noone can understand what the hell is going on there... .

First of all, the quran cannot be read like a novel. To understand the quran you have to speak arabic fluently, cause it is truly impossible to make a 100 per cent translation of the quran, cause of the richness of arabic language (for example there are more than 100 words for lion).
Is this a flaw? I don't agree! it pushes you to learn (like the quran more than 100 times is repeating:"use your mind"), and this book is the only one which is memorized by thousands of ppl all over the world.

You have to know the history of Muhammad (pwh) , cause he was the "living Quran". (I recommend Hamidullah's biography, by far the best one).
You godda know a lot (and I really mean a lot) of hadiths (the prophet's words) and of course Quran interpretations.

To be sure that you have a 100 per cent authentic hadith in front of you, check out if the hadith was translated by BUHARI, MUSLIM or TAHA. Then you can be absolutely sure that this is a authentic one,

Anyway its late no and I'm preparing myself for a 2 week vacation to Bosnia, so I will be absent for some time, so I hope you will be fair and not make duzens of replies...

take care
Tarik is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 09:47 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 02:40 PM
No, pinkfloyd. As far as I know, they are no longer allowed to have multiple wives period. I have heard that a decided minority of Mormons still practice polygamy in out of the way places and that law enforcement there generally looks the other way as long as they don't call attention to themselves. But I have no proof of that. All I know is that polygamy is illegal according to Utah law the same as in the other 49 states.
whiteflag is offline  
Old 08-03-2002, 10:48 PM   #36
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 09:40 AM
well , this case about the girl from Utah , can it be like possible that some guy ( maybe even old one ) decided to get married to this girl ( she's very pretty , talented , perfect ) took her away in full secret and the society, some cops , this is like a closed community right , they could get a deal , , i just read some Artur conan doyle stuff about sherlok holmes btw
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 08-05-2002, 02:04 AM   #37
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Whiteflag, about the whole thing on the Quran being the only book that has stayed the same through out history; what I meant was that the Quran is the only book that (in Arabic) that has not been changed, not one punctuation, not one Arabic word in the book.

And please, don't try and tell me who doesn't understand it... I might not be an expert on it, but believe me... My brother, a friend of mine, and some other people in my community have studied it thoroughly.... And they have a passion for it... YES, THEY DO UNDERSTAND IT. I to, find it so interesting in learning all the things in the book... Everything has a reason to it.... Though some things might sound outrageous to u; u'd have to look at it from all directions to really appreciate it... VIOLENCE IS BAD. But, If your life was at risk b/c some crazy rapist murderer was after you, Islam gives u the right to self protect yourself. Call me crazy, but that isn't something that degrades a human being.

If you study Islam, or if you appreciate it, you would understand that it promotes RESPECT. The Prophet Muhammed was a character who was a perfect symbol of Respect. The words of God (in the Bible) had been scratched up by clerics etc. etc. The Bible had been retouched....So, Prophet Muhammed was the last Prophet sent by God, to send a Message that would not be scratched upon. We see the proof that the Quran has not been retouched... It has remained the same....
I don't mean to offend anyone... But I'm only saying this because this is where we believ Islam came from. I don't want to say anyones religion is wrong... I'm just telling you that this is what my bleifs are, and I respect everyone elses.
Many Muslims (i don't even want to call some of them Muslims) have not practiced Islam well... We see people mis-using it... But, no one has changed the book... No one has to teach it to us... We read ourselves and teach ourselves, and get help from eachother in trying to better ourselves...
All religions have'nt been used properly... We see people using religion as an excuse to take action out in anger....

I always tend to reply to this forum late at night... Actually it's nearly 2am.... So, I'm probably not making to much sense..... I hope I am....

good night
Amna

PS-
Pink floyd, thanx, we all go through hard ships... I only hope that we respect eachother and eachothers beliefs... This world is chaotic because their is a lack of respect and communication b/w everyone.

Maybe we should first start out by respecting all cultures and beliefs, before we start scrutinizing them.
Amna is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 03:50 AM   #38
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: dallas,tx,usa
Posts: 199
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tarik
So I'm accused of ignoring your statements, whiteflag,

well, sorry about that, but all I wanted was to explain the principe of Jihad, when does Islam allow war. And, independent of when the verses I mentioned were manifested, they are valid, so the verse "there is no compalsion in religion" is the central message regarding the relationship between Islam and other religions.
Yes, that is the central message of Islam's relationship with other religions, AS LONG as Islam is in weak mode trying to gain a foothold and legitmacy in a particular society. But every time Islam becomes dominant all of that changes. All non-Muslims become dhimmis. I could go into all the terrible details about just how "pluralistic" Islam really is when it becomes dominant over other religious believers. But just let me say this for now. Pluralism is enjoyed only by Muslims, those with the right belief, in Islamic society (which makes for a entirely false pluralism). And that is true in all countries with a majority Muslim population. (See the article that began this thread and some of Sula's responses about the "moderate" model Muslim states of Malaysia and Indonesia for some specifics)

You said that independent of when the verses were revealed, they are valid. And I am saying that this is exactly the trouble. No part of the Koran, according to a doctrine formulated by scholars, can be done away with. Its all valid, creating that schizophrenic situational morality situation that makes Islam the weakest religion because it causes the most confusion in fallible humans. Since, according to the decisions of fallible human scholars, all of the Koran is supposed to be equally valid, Islam literally has two EQUAL but opposite personalities for which Muslim scholars have been making excuses from the very beginning, especially when they don't have military strength or numbers on their side.

Funny how the most moderate and completely harmless Islam is to be found in Europe and in the USA where Muslims are the weakest and fewest in number and where the rule of law is the strongest. It seems that only in the West are we are told that Islam only seems exceptionally violent because we don't understand the context.

Or is it rather that we don't know or accept all the excuses for the violence of Mohammed and the first Muslims that modern Muslims are taught practically from birth?

BTW, who "convinced" you that the central message is as you said? Was it the same group of professional scholars who have worked for centuries to reconcile the ugly realities of Islam with the (inborn) peace loving natures of most its believers? Was it the same group who came up with a way to tilt the scales in favor of the good side of Islam without discarding any of the supposedly perfect Koran by coming up with nice lawyerly excuses to minimize the bad side of it? Isn't this the method you were taught growing up? Weren't you encouraged to see Islam in a certain light? Isn't that also what spin doctors and propagandists do? Do not spin doctors also support their positions with reasonable arguments and beautiful "preaching?" Isn't it true that spin doctors also always claim that the majority supports their view and therefore that makes it right? Didn't the communists get together and come to decisions about doctrine by majority consensus of their scholars? Isn't the first thing a propagandist does is encourage people to look at the "facts" and use their own minds to decide if they are true?

Don't spin doctors convince reasonable people by controlling the terms of the debate? Don't lawyers do the same? When someone is the beneficiary of centuries of apologetics and they also devote all of their time to perfecting their craft, what chance does some ordinary person have for refuting their arguments? Especially when these same professionals oversaw the training of the ordinary person's mind? Will the ordinary person ever percieve the trap built around their minds by these professionals if they only have the "light" the professionals allowed them? The final result of any thorough 'investigation" by that ordinary person then becomes a given in favor of the professional scholars especially when we also consider the conservative bent found in most human beings. We like it when someone stops the boat from rocking.

My point about the Koran is that Muslims are entirely dependent on the findings of the scholars about the materials that the scholars themselves collected in order to understand it.

Tariq confirms this

Quote:
Well, to understand and to interprate a verse of the (holy) Quran, you godda know the time of the manifestation, and the circumstances when this verse has been sent. Cause the Quran was sent, as you know, bit by bit.
After Mohammed's death, it was Islamic scholars who provided the times of the "manifestations" It was the scholars after the death of Mohammed who decided to arrange the Koran out of chronological order. It was the scholars who decided on the methodology for collecting and including the verses of the Koran. It was human beings that decided any contraversies about its codification. The final arbiter was a leader embroiled in political and military problems with other original followers of Mohammed. It was a human who decided to gather and burn all copies of the Koran which did not agree with the "official" version. It was the scholars who collected and interpreted the hadiths without which the Koran is indecipherable. Islamic apologetics began with Islamic scholars.

All religions have scholarly traditions, and all religions benefit from their scholars, but not all religions are as dependent on scholars opinions as Islam is. This is why all other religions except Islam, have undergone the process of renewal that comes from by bypassing their scholarly traditions and returning to their original scriptures. All other religions have texts which can be independently understood without a code provided by some interpreter past or present. And all other religions have managed to find a vital and fresh perspective that has reenergized their societies (Christianity goes a step futher than even this, in that the original message of Jesus is delivered pure and intact into each true believers heart by the Holy Spirit. We use His very own testimony to test even our scriptures!) The end result is that we find once more that Jesus, Bhudda and generations of rabbis and gurus need no excuses for their conduct. We discover again the original strength of our religions by learning again to depend on their sane and consistent examples.

Again Tariq

Quote:
You have to know the history of Muhammad (pwh) , cause he was the "living Quran". (I recommend Hamidullah's biography, by far the best one).
You godda know a lot (and I really mean a lot) of hadiths (the prophet's words) and of course Quran interpretations.
In other words you have to be familiar with centuries of excuses for Mohammed and what he taught Muslims to do. You also have to know the interpretations of scholars who have seamlessly blended all the contradictions created by the light and dark sides of his character. You have to internalize the method the scholars have perfected that makes the almost constant war of Mohammeds "prophetic" career and the peace that he mostly just talked about not contradict each other.

Finally, for this post at least,

Quote:
To be sure that you have a 100 per cent authentic hadith in front of you, check out if the hadith was translated by BUHARI, MUSLIM or TAHA. Then you can be absolutely sure that this is a authentic one,
I have said it before but I'll say it again. I have studied Islam for ten years with the help of many moderate Muslim friends. I haven't always been a Christian and when I began to study Islam, I wasn't much of one. I thought that all religions were pretty equal. It is because of what I learned about Islam that I have the opinion of it that I do now. Having learned what Islam is all about, I realized that Christianity is the antidote to Islam and that made me decide to commit my life to Christ like I never had before. (Shortly afterward, I had a powerful mystical experience that I will never be able to fully explain. But during the course of this very complex experience, I felt all the anger and fear I felt towards Islam at the time drain out of me but I was still left with the determination to tell the truth about it.) All of the hadiths I know and have seen come from the three collections mentioned above. All the translations of the Koran that I have read are widely accepted.
whiteflag is offline  
Old 08-06-2002, 12:59 PM   #39
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Funny how the most moderate and completely harmless Islam is to be found in Europe and in the

Right, and Whiteflag, where did u come up with those statistics from.... Have u also lived and studied in ALL the Muslim countries. Excuse me, who are u to judge where the most moderate Muslims are....
Lets think about this one carefully..... Whiteflag, if you are so sure of yourself, go live in Pakistan, India, Turkey, or the hundereds of other countries.... I'm sure you'll notice that their are many more moderate Muslims... Just because u see a few extremists groups in the News, doesn't mean that all Muslim countries are extremists.....
Whiteflag, I'm sorry you have such a ugly outlook on Islam.... But, if you are saying that Islam hasn't done well in promoting peace... Then, I guess it is fare to say that all other religions have failed in that sense to.... I mean, the last time I checked, this world didn't only consist of so-called Muslims who have commited murder?

I'm very disturbed on how Islam has been used in some countries... But, the world consists of GOOD people and BAD people...


Btw, Tariq, where are u originally from? My parents are from Pakistan...

peace,
Amna
Amna is offline  
Old 09-08-2002, 12:38 AM   #40
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: island of souls
Posts: 57
Local Time: 09:40 PM
wow, this is such a serious discussion. but i'm proud of you guys who still pay attention in this issue. i think, it's really hard to finish this discussion, i used 2 talk bout this thing w/ my pals. 2 b honest, i'm tired of this issue (or any similar issues) cos i've never got the conclusions. i'm a muslim & have some best friends who r christians or catholics. as long as we believe that our religion & the other religions taught good things & peace, we'll b alright .
__________________

candice star 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 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×