Islam, is it a violent religion?
Does Islam contain some doctrines that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics?
Some say it does. Some others say it was not originally in the text but had been stealthily inserted later by religious fanatics.Maybe it wasn't intended to be violent (and indeed many muslim people are NOT violent people but are peaceful and lovely) but as you say, calls to violence has managed to make its way into the text somehow. Religion is like the swiss army knife of social tools, it can be used as a call to war or peace, a call for love or a call for hate. Not sure any God would inspire any of these easily corrupted religions.....
Actually, MOST people who follow Islam are peaceful.
So far all the muslim people I have met have been peaceful if not down right nice. I guess like christians, the text for violence is there but for the most part it's dismissed in favour of the bits that are more helpful to them.
Islam doesn't contain any doctrine that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics.
Have u went to aboutjihad site, It's good in explaining the situation.
"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors." [Noble Quran 2:190]
"And those who, when great wrong is done to them, defend themselves." [Noble Quran 42:39]Did George Bush teach the soldiers to kill Iraqi civilians?
Don't start a dispute over here. All religions are good, and don't intentionally accuse a certain religion over thousands other religions that exist. Your wasting time here fella!
I don't think I like the way the question has been worded. It seems to me today there is a deliberate attack on Islam as a religion without properly examining its true context. Islam today is continually stereotyped as a "violent" religion without effective examination of the text....where is the western concept of fairness when judging the religion...what about the versus that street the moral aspects ethical conduct, peace, charity and goodwill. Quite frequently there are innuendos, judgments and implications when talking about Islam, standing out as the bogey religion.
Nothing needs to be inserted because unless a text is extremely prescriptive (and this goes for the Bible too) then simply re-interpreting or redefining things is enough to make it mean whatever you want. For example, there is no call to violence in the Quran except for self defense. If an Islamic political leader wanted to justify and encourage violence against his political enemies, all he has to do is frame that violence as a form of self-defense. So he can say something like (illustration only, not my personal view): "American cultural values are a direct attack on the values of Islam". By doing so, he is characterising violence against America and American culture as self-defense, therefore making it permissible according to the Quran. No need to add anything to the Quran. Some slight of hand is more than enough.
The secular equivalent to this would be suggesting that a country is in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction as a pretext for for attacking that country. By doing so the leader of a secular country can make violence against another country seem like an act of self defense and therefore justifiable according to the secular norms of that country.
The only difference between these two is that one takes advantage of religious belief and the other takes advantage of a free but docile mass media. Both these actions are political, and both are forms of controlling a populace.
Human beings have a unique talent for justifying when we want to kill/destroy/annihilate "others". I believe this is an intrinsic aspect of human nature. Politics, religion etc. are just the mechanism by which this aspect of human nature is played out. The sad truths is that human beings are capable of killing each other over anything, and do.-
A Christian martyr is a person who is killed for following Christianity,through stoning, crucifixion, burning at the stake or other forms of torture and capital punishment. The word "martyr" comes from the Greek word μάρτυς, mártys, which means "witness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs
Shahid or Shaheed (Arabic: شهيد, šahīd, plural: شُهَدَاء šuhadāʾ ) originates from the Qur'anic Arabic word meaning "witness" and is also used to denote a "martyr." It is used as an honorific for Muslims who have died fulfilling a religious commandment, especially those who die wielding jihad, or historically in the military expansion of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShahidGeez Phoenix, So ISIS is following the Quran?
It's the fanatics of the religion that causes distrust, not the everyday Muslim who are people just like us
islam means peace persperity and economic stability, those who using the name of Islam to kill other is actually those people , who we called western dogs, it America who support Jihad'is for their own benefits. so please do not link what is happing around the world with Islam
Islam teach us that saving the life of one person is equal to saving the life of all humanity ,You are wrong about this. America does not support Jihad and the American government is built on a separation of government and religion.
Jihad is an Islamic term used many times in the Quran. According to Wikipedia, "Jihad refers to struggle against those who do not believe in the Islamic god Allah and do not acknowledge the submission to Muslims." Jihad is often translated as 'holy war' with a military meaning. "Javed Ghamidi states that there is consensus amongst Islamic scholars that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against wrong doers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
In your country, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, horrible examples of 'non-peaceful' Islamists occur every day. Friday, right after attending prayers in a mosque, Muslims set a child on fire because the child was a Christian.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … stian.html
On Sunday, March 15, two Islamic suicide bombers blew themselves up inside two churches in Pakistan, killing 17 and wounding 70 Christians. "Thus did the jihadis 'kill and be killed,' in the words of Quran 9:111, the verse most often cited to justify suicide attacks."
http://humanevents.com/2015/03/24/chris … ani-jihad/
No, these weren't 'western dogs' or Americans who did these things. These were Pakistani Muslims killing Pakistani Christians.What does "Western dogs" mean? I first heard of the word "jihad" after 9-11. I have never had a preoccupation with Islam until I heard of the anger of some followers of Islam wanted to kill us. Every time I see senseless murders of people who have done nothing to deserve it or hear of young girls being raped by ISIS members, I ask God, "Why?" I pray for the victims and the guilty destroyers of mankind.
if you do not know the meaning of Jihad then do not comments, i can give you 100 proofs who is these fanatics and who created them , just remember the block against USSR and from where the money coming, and who did support it the most, and the world jihad meaning , try again for their best, and these fanantices are trying for their worest,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
open your eyes and read it out , its available every where , but do not where are you sleepingI think it depends on processing what you are reading based on information you already have. I expected to see itemized 1 through 100.
Is it possible for you to pick 5 reasons and explain them to us.
Thank you!
I think you would know better what jihad was. Why do you manipulate it in such a way which makes it sound like we have no goals in life but to kill innocent people. Just incase i am wrong in assuming you would know better, the following is all you need to know about Jihaad.
The literal meaning of Jihad is struggle or effort, and it means much more than holy war.
Muslims use the word Jihad to describe three different kinds of struggle:
1. A believer's internal struggle to live out the Muslim faith as well as possible
2. The struggle to build a good Muslim society
3. Holy war: the struggle to defend Islam, with force if necessary
Many modern writers claim that the main meaning of Jihad is the internal spiritual struggle, and this is accepted by many Muslims.
However there are so many references to Jihad as a military struggle in Islamic writings that it is incorrect to claim that the interpretation of Jihad as holy war is wrong.
Jihad and the Prophet
The internal Jihad is the one that Prophet Muhammad is said to have called the greater Jihad.
But the quotation in which the Prophet says this is regarded as coming from an unreliable source by some scholars. They regard the use of Jihad to mean holy war as the more important.
The internal Jihad
The phrase internal Jihad or greater Jihad refers to the efforts of a believer to live their Muslim faith as well as possible.
All religious people want to live their lives in the way that will please their God. So Muslims make a great effort to live as Allah has instructed them; following the rules of the faith, being devoted to Allah, doing everything they can to help other people.
For most people, living God's way is quite a struggle. God sets high standards, and believers have to fight with their own selfish desires to live up to them, no matter how much they love God.
The five Pillars of Islam as Jihad
The five Pillars of Islam form an exercise of Jihad in this sense, since a Muslim gets closer to Allah by performing them.
Other ways in which a Muslim engages in the 'greater Jihad' could include:
1. Learning the Qur'an by heart, or engage in other religious study.
2. Overcoming things such as anger, greed, hatred, pride, or malice.
3. Giving up smoking.
4. Cleaning the floor of the mosque.
5. Taking part in Muslim community activities.
6. Working for social justice.
7. Forgiving someone who has hurt them.
The Greater Jihad controversy
The Prophet is said to have called the internal Jihad the "greater Jihad".
On his return from a battle, the Prophet said: "We are finished with the lesser jihad; now we are starting the greater jihad." He explained to his followers that fighting against an outer enemy is the lesser jihad and fighting against one's self is the greater jihad (holy war).
This quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars. They regard the use of jihad as meaning 'holy war' as the more important.
However the quotation has been very influential among some Muslims, particularly Sufis.
Holy war
When Muslims, or their faith or territory are under attack, Islam permits (some say directs) the believer to wage military war to protect them.
However Islamic (shariah) law sets very strict rules for the conduct of such a war.In recent years the most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War. And there is a long tradition of Jihad being used to mean a military struggle to benefit Islam.
What can justify Jihad?
There are a number of reasons, but the Qur'an is clear that self-defence is always the underlying cause.Permissable reasons for military Jihad:
1. Self-defence
2. Strengthening Islam
3. Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith
4. Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include overthrowing a tyrannical ruler
5. Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
6. Putting right a wrong
What a Jihad is not
A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:
1. Force people to convert to Islam
2. Conquer other nations to colonise them
3. Take territory for economic gain
4. Settle disputes
5. Demonstrate a leader's power
Although the Prophet engaged in military action on a number of occasions, these were battles to survive, rather than conquest, and took place at a time when fighting between tribes was common.
The rules of Jihad
A military Jihad has to obey very strict rules in order to be legitimate.
1. The opponent must always have started the fighting.
2. It must not be fought to gain territory.
3. It must be launched by a religious leader.
4. It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
5. Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
6. Innocent people should not be killed.
7. Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
8. Women must not be raped.
9. Enemies must be treated with justice.
10. Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
11. The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
12. Property must not be damaged.
13. Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.
The Qur'an on Jihad
The Qur'an has many passages about fighting. Some of them advocate peace, while some are very warlike. The Bible, the Jewish and Christian scripture, shows a similar variety of attitudes to war.
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Qur'an 2:190
To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.
Qur'an 22:39
Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
Qur'an 4:90
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).
Qur'an 8:61
~Source : BBC Islam>Jihaad.
After going through the rules of Jihaad, you may note how ridiculous your statements sound to us when a Christian or Hindu is killed in Pakistan and you say it's because of Jihaad. Jihaad in the sense of Holy war is not applicable isolated incidences. I hope you can grasp this idea and hold on to it for any future discussions.
If you want me to start posting links of incidences where Muslims have been killed just because they are Muslims then let me know. I'm sure I could come up with a little more than 3 incidences you posted.
The shia / sunni fights you talk about in Pakistan are funded mainly by Saudi and Iran. You must note that Pakistan houses the second largest shia community where 1 in 5 people are shia. they are our brothers and sisters in Islam even though we have our differences in a few things. The major cause of all the bombings are not because of religion. It is because of poverty. A man who wants to feed his wife and children takes as little as $30 to wear a suicide jacket and a promise that his family will be looked after. His reason is not Jihaad. His reason is not Islam. His reason is poverty and poverty alone. The only way to end all these disgusting bombings in Pakistan is to bring people out of poverty and provide everyone with education (both girls and boys). It is a huge task but it is a matter of urgency for us and should be on the priority list. Sadly our leaders don't care enough about this and today "Pakistan has some of the worst education indicators globally"(UNESCO).I encourage you to watch this video which was produced by a Muslim. I think he explains very well what jihad is. It's over an hour long, but well worth your time to learn something. After you have watched it, perhaps you can explain about the 12-year-old child in Pakistan beheading a traitor for the Taliban in the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XUub1no1qwI know what Jihad is. For all I know an Israelite could have made the video. It could be thought of as something similar to Simon Elliot (Elliot Shimon) aka Al-Baghdadi (leader of ISIS) who happens to be a Mossad agent. Looks like Isreal is a greater devil than we all thought. Defame Islam and kill Muslims, create havoc everywhere and blame it all on Islam and Muslims. Good plan, see you on the day of judgement.
Did you not read the rules of jihad I put up... any captives are to be treated like your own soldiers. What they did was wrong. Killing them is not part of it. brainwashing is not a part of Islam.No, an Israeli did not make that video and Al-Baghdadi is not a Mossad agent.
I am really surprised at your willingness to believe every lie issued from Iran.
Do you also subscribe to the latest theory from Bakistan that the earth is flat and it is connected to moon from the other side?
Your comment displays complete gullibility and, in your part of the world that is dangerous since ISIS is now in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Have you not heard the analysis "As Afghanistan goes, so goes Pakistan?"
That video that you are so afraid to view was made by Dr. Jasser, a practicing physician in internal medicine and nuclear cardiology in Phoenix, Arizona. He is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD). He is an expert on radical Islam and, unlike you, doesn't bury his head in the sand to the ideology and theology of jihadism. Unlike you, he doesn't blame Israel for all of his problems or for the problems of Islam or for the problems of jihadists and he doesn't subscribe to wacko conspiracy theories. Also, unlike you, Dr. Jasser is brave enough to publicly confront jihadism as a Muslim instead of pretending that it does not exist.
The day of judgment for Pakistan is coming sooner than you imagine and I know of no nation who will help Pakistan in that day. You will lose that war just like you lost Bangladesh.I included Israel to the conversation on purpose to prove a point. The point being we have talked and learnt from each other and after understanding each others points if we spring back and start accusing each other like you are constantly doing by repeating single incidences in Pakistan and blaming it on religion then we are not making progress. I can throw many links at you and I'm sure you can do the same, but it doesn't get us anywhere in the end.
If you feel the minority do not have rights in Pakistan then let me assure you that the minority do not have rights either. I have been stopped at night by the police and almost bullied into giving them money otherwise I would go to jail. When my sister had her purse snatched at gunpoint the police did not file a report. I've heard many people accuse the Pakistan not to look after the minorities, but they don't realize that their majorities do not have many rights either. Sure there is a lot more freedom here than the people in the west would think but there are some huge flaws with our justice system, which affects both majorities and minorities.
I'm not afraid of any video. I did not say jihadism does not exist. I have seen reports and videos of how they get the kids then brainwash them as well as the exact quotes of the Quran used to brainwash the kids. Why do you think I keep stressing on education? It is the lack of education which is allowing this brainwashing to occur in the young and the old.
As I've said before, I am not bothered about them entering Pakistan. If the day of judgement comes early for us then so be it.
my brother/sister, a little reminder for you.
Please do not call them "western dogs". It is disrespectful and not right. You need to control your anger before you speak. Sure it gets hard sometimes, but try harder.
"The servants of the Rahman (the All-Merciful, Allah) are those who walk on the earth humbly, and when the ignorant people speak to them, they reply peacefully"
Al-Furqan [25:63]Don't discourage him, he is only trying to prove the OP right!
lol ... there is a lot of anger on both sides. Calling someone a dog is rude but I would not call it violent. The least I can do is guide a fellow Muslim where I see him go against the teachings.
I've been on youtube recently and my oh my there are some really rude people out there against Muslims and the insults they dish out are not easy to tolerate. I found a guy who claims to be a prophet of Islam too... weird, crazy and amazing things have happened on youtube while I was gone. It has made me realize that the people on hub pages really are an entirely different tribe and I'm grateful to know each and every one of you, regardless of our differences in opinion and religious beliefs. I have learned a lot here.Agree with most of what you say Probably the feeling you got is the same one a Jew or Christian get when your people claim that they tampered with their holy scripture and your prophet is the true one from their god.
No, there wasn't any tampering, in the 3-minute videos, his messages were of peace and love and all the good stuff ... I did point out the contradiction that he believes in Muhammad but does not believe that he was the last prophet, and from the looks of things he was just seeking attention and respect and asking for it in the videos too...
I didn't say he was tampering, what I said was about the claim by Muslims that Christians and Jews tampered their scripture to omit parts about Muhammad.
A Christian at the time of your prophet would have said the same and Jews certainly said the same about Jesus (according to bible).Yes, that is probably what they believed. however, as far as I know they both were not told that their prophets were the last of the messengers. The kind of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) who was a Christian did help the Muslims and some sources say he did convert to Islam after a while.
Actually the prophetic tradition of Jews were closed by 150 AD and Jesus told only the Paraclete will come after him and whoever comes telling as a prophet or him is a charlatan.
Christian and Muslim traditions can be incredibly inventive at times.Paraclete: I don't remember the exact quote of the bible which some Muslim scholars, refer to as the one who "hears" referring to Muhammad who used to hear then recite. If you listen/ watch the debate videos of Ahmad Deedat or his student Zakir Naik then you may see where it is all coming from.
No matter how much I would like to disagree with you, I have no choice but, to agree.JOHN 14:15-17: "If you love me you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Comforter to be with you forever - the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you."
JOHN 14:25, 26: "All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
JOHN 15:26: "When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me."
JOHN 16:7,8: "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment...."
JOHN 16:13-15: "But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own, he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it know to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
This is the one Zakir Naik speaks of. The one who "hears".
Wahi or Wahy is the Arabic word for revelation.
In Islamic tradition, the 42:51 verse of the Quran serves as the basis of understanding for Wahy. It says "It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills". Based on this, Islamic scholars have described three ways in which God's revelation can reach His chosen individuals, especially prophets.[2] An inspired message – not a word but an idea – can enter the heart of the chosen individuals either in the state of consciousness or in dream.[3] The second mode, it is said, is the word heard by the person spoken to, like, from behind a veil.[3] In the third mode, the revelation is sent from God through archangels like Gabriel and is delivered to the prophets. It is the highest form of revelation, and Muslims believe the whole Quran was revealed in this mode.[2][3]
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahy
I always thought wahi meant to hear but there are 3 modes... the second mode fits "he will speak only what he hears".
(didn't have a better smiley to express my feelings)Interpretation and imagination is limited only by human ingenuity.
According to the bible the one who hears is "spirit" and that spirit came to the disciples on "Pentecost" after which they started preaching.I knew about the Christians believing it to be the "spirit". Did not know about Pentecost.
From the same bible
"Acts: 2 1.When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them"
Its is a christian book and hence if Jesus is true by their book, so is spirit.the initial verse talks about a single person or being ... the Pentecost talks about 4. The whole idea is a little new for me and i have to understand the whole context of things first.
Both the off shoots of Judaism are potentially dangerous because they are exclusionary and have the doctrine of spreading to 'save" everyone. They also believe they are the only correct religion. That makes it possible for the religion, through its authorities, to mandate what people believe when ever they gain power.
The Christians were very dangerous in the days they had power. The inquisitions, war in the "holy land" (crusades) 300 plus years of war between Catholics and Protestants, each burning the others people for heresy every chance they got.
There are also two basic types of Muslim. They are constantly at war with each other or oppressing each other when they are a majority. That's why we are seeing Muslims attempting to.create Muslim states. With power they can enforce their one and only true belief.
After all, god doesn't like heretics teaching lies. And, no one wants their kids or their true belief to be corrupted by non believers, infidels, or heretics. Gotta keep it pure.
So inherently any belief that says its the right and only way is dangerous to those who disagree. It's not just religion but any such belief system that comes to power.
That's why there has to be a strong separation between church and state. If any Christian denomination gets into power it's hell for the rest of Christianity, and the rest of us. Same goes for Islam. No difference.I agree with you here ... they would certainly make life very difficult for the Muslims who want to live a balanced life (this world and the next). I do not see them as balanced people therefore they would definitely make it hell for the rest of us. Their rules are more strict now as compared to the time of our prophet.
That's why moderate Christians, Muslims people from other religions and atheists have to stick together to fight fundamentalism no matter where it comes from. Only with a strong separation of church and state can we all live together in peace.
No, Islam is a very peaceful religion.
Muhammad fought only defensive battles with the Meccans who were out to attack Muhammad and his followers. They had to defend for co-existence. Please
There is no verse in Quran to kill non-believers in general terms. Please
Regards
There is no call to ciolence in the Quran except when one has to defend oneself. For example defend against opression, taking over of land etc. I'm sure as humans we wouldn't let things like that happen.
The Quran has always been the same since it was revealed over 1400 years ago. No one has or can put in new verses or chapters into the Quran, as Allah said that even if all the humans and jinns on earth they cannot write one verse similar to the Quran, and many people have tried and failed.
Islam is not a violent religion, but by taking verses out of context, it has been labelled as violent.
Islam means to submit yourself to the will of Allah, and that's what practicing Muslims do. You will find in every religion violent people and wrongdoers even if they are practicing. Just look at the Christian Crusades.
If the message was in the Quran to kill any non Muslims at any opportunity, there would be Muslims killing people everywhere all over the world.
Jihad means to 'strive' to improve ones self first, and most Muslims fail at this first step.
In conclusion, Islam does not teach people to be violent, agressive, thieving, opressing or any bad things. Islam teaches to be kind to it's neighbours whatever their religion, be good in the community they live in etc. In the Quran it says to kill one innocent human is like killing the whole human race, and saving one human life is like saving that of the whole human race.
(To find out the real answers please go to http://www.linkstoislam.com/ where you will find all the answers you are looking for. This site is run by real Muslims, not by non Muslims)There are over 109 direct calls for violence in the Quran such as this:
"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until fitnah is no more, and religion is for Allah"
P.S: Let's not forget the Hadith.Sometimes you have to read and understand the whole chapter or verse to understand the context of the message.
People are always ready to point a finger at Islam to make it look bad. People do not want to understand Islam fully. That's just the way it is nowadays.
Maybe it doesn't look good from the outside, but being a Muslim myself, i know what it is from the inside.Baloney. Context and circumstance are just lame excuses.
Or, maybe we see and understand the effects Islam has on it's followers and how they behave as a result.
Therein lies the problem. It is the perception and decision making process of how Muslims come to their conclusions as to when to defend themselves, often making critical errors in their judgments turning a defensive position into an offensive position.
Context and circumstance are the foremost excuses used by Muslims when attempting defend the violent verses in the Quran or Hadiths.
Most scriptures contain many verses that contradict each other, Islam is no different. In one verse it will call for violence against others while another verse states something entirely different.don't you think the contradiction lies because you are not reading in context?
Context is not an excuse ... there are many stories in the Quran which are for a particular time ... those do not apply right now. what makes you think its an excuse?
why does a judge send a muderer to an mental facility rather than to jail? because he noted the context ... i.e. everything related to the murder which showed the person had a mental problem... i hope you get what i'm trying to say. context is important.Why don't those stories apply? What would be the point of having them, then? Explain.
Sorry, but your example has nothing to do with context.It teaches you about the past in some chapters ... about our previous prophets and what they were taught and how people reacted to it ... they would not apply today because we are not in similar circumstances. Muslims were a small minority in those days and the threat to the religion was much higher ... today we are the second largest religion in the world, there is no threat to the religion itself even if a whole country full of muslims is wiped out.
The times have changed ... this is why it does not apply today and no one is threatening to wipe out islam.
can you give me an example of context if mine is wrong? maybe i can learn something new from you.So what? Muslims will still use those words to support Islam, yet discount them with excuses of context and translation when the same words are used in showing contradictions. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The religion was the threat, not the other way round.
Here are just a few of over a hundred verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule.
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...
Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it.
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."Troubled Man-- I can explain the above references but first I will bring your attention to a basic misunderstanding about violence. Lets believe the modern concept that violence in all forms is bad. Then comes a question that then "why the atheist governments decide to keep the armies whose job is to kill". Or lets put it like this that nuclear arms are bad -- but then why is there no effort to totally ban the nukes in this world. So, you see a huge double standard here such that what is good for us is bad for you. I don't blame them as the right to self defense is a legitimate right. I think this is also accepted by the UN charter as the right to defend also the freedom fighting.
It is very childish to blame it on Islam and Quran while doing the same thing. All military schools teach what Quran has said in above verses but at the same time Quran also gives us a rule-- "that do not do injustice by attacking any nation for looting/ natural resources etc., only attacked if you are attacked or you find your fellow people being persecuted there and do not go beyond an equal reaction. Unfortunately in most countries, the reason to fight is that the President says so and the soldier has no right to make an objection or else he/she is court martialed. There is no court martial in islam and it gives right to even the lowest ranking soldier to make an objection.
There is no example elsewhere except Islamic history--of common man asking the King about how he made his shirt when the cloth distributed among all the people was not enough to make a shirt. And the King Umar Farooq, had to bring his son as witness who told the people that he gave his share of cloth to his King father and he has no piece of cloth now. This was the justice that Islam brought and let me tell you that Mohammad PBUH said that " The system of infidels can survive, but the system of injustice cannot survive". So, Islam was against injustice and not infidels. This is all history of Islam very well recorded and perhaps this is how you may know why Islam kept on spreading despite losing wars. Perhaps this is the reason why it is so hard to convince a Muslim to consider his religion as bad.There is no misunderstanding regarding violence, it is easily understandable.
Atheist governments?
That's all irrelevant nonsense, you didn't explain anything. All you did was attempt to justify violence for alleged and/or fabricated persecution.Troubled Man-- Nations were attacked and destroyed for their alleged involvement-- even statements like "if you are not with us, that means you are with the enemy'" came up from world leaders---at least Islam talks about a revenge that is limited to the damage on your side. This is called 'Rules of Engagement' in Islam. Which is one of the things that very much impressed me.
I am abhorred by any religion that guides it's followers with revenge and war.
Troubled Man-- It would be unrealistic to ask someone to not fight if attacked. A religion that is logical and acceptable will tell the same. However it will advise its followers to not go beyond the damage suffered and encourage to forgive and let go if possible.
In any war, one party may only be trying to protect its territory or liberty and declaring both sides as evil instead of only the aggressor is stupidity which I never expect from any religion or ideology.
"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong." Quran 42-40
And you call this Quran and Islam as abhorring ??? And you expect me to buy your argument.That goes without saying, but it is the perception of attack and the target which are in question, let alone some holy book describing how it is to be carried out.
Baloney.
The latter is the only thing a religion should encourage, not the former. It doesn't work and only serves to propagate violence.
Sorry, but an eye for eye does not work.
Yes, any religion that advises what to do in terms of engagement of war or conflict is no religion of peace, and that is abhorring.Troubled Man-- A religion must answer all the human situations by providing a clear cut guidance in black and white. If a religion only deals with spirituality and does not tell what to do in different situations, then it is not a complete religion. The job of religion apart from creating a perfect spiritual being, is to provide legal frame work for different kinds of situations and conflicts, such that they can be resolved peacefully. In other words a religion has to be a comprehensive solution to social problems.
Human situations are not black and white so a religion that guides in black and white will fail.
The definition of religion is a belief in gods, hence that is the only thing religions should deal with.
And yet, we have observed Islam failing miserably. It does not solve conflicts peacefully, but instead guides Muslims to use violence. Social problems are so widespread in the Islamic world, Islam has obviously failed to solve them but instead just makes them worse.
Troubled Man-- Well your choice of definition of a religion is not acceptable to me. I want my creator to guide me in every aspect of life, instead of creating me and then abandoning me to search for the right path by trial and error in such small life span.
I have heard that crime rate in Saudi Arabia where some of Shariah is seen in action, is far better than the capitals of some great western countries. Iran has no internal problems except that the rest of the world has problem with it.It is the standard definition in most all dictionaries. Sorry, it doesn't suit your purposes.
You want to be a programed robot with no mind of your own?
Yeah sure, and you have some land for sale there, too?
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...
this was when muslims were driven out of mecca. if they are driven out of mecca again ... then this will apply to all Muslims today. i hope you can maybe now understand why we say it doesn't apply today.
you did not give me an example of context.simply put... muslims are in mecca today therefore it does not apply to us today.
still waiting for context example.Until you get driven out, which is far worse than murdering non-believers, evidently.
Wow - driving Muslims out of Mecca is worse than slaughtering non-believers?
i just noted the "clever" addition in brackets ....
"for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. "
persecution is worse than slaughter ... meaning persecution of the non-believers is worse for them than being slaughtered.that was a misinterpreted verse...
it actually reads : "but if they attack you then lay them. "
Mohammed was just trying to win over converts through the powers of seduction
You must admit this conflicts with Christianity as may be expected. Even when Peter tried to defend Jesus, Jesus told him to put down his sword. He said, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword."
I think violence begets violence. However, I would say if someone is threatening your life then it is justifiable to defend oneself even with lethal force.
The Jews were heavily oppressed by the Romans yet Jesus never incited violence against the Romans. Was He being weak?
If Christianity is a religion of peace, then what is Islam?
I do respect many Muslims but their text reminds me a lot of the Old Testament.
- Emile Rposted 11 years ago
0Let's contact the family of the young girl with Downe's Syndrome who is awaiting execution in Pakistan. They could probably clue us in on Islam's policies on violence when it comes to arbitrary determinations on how to react to perceptions of 'attack' on the religion. From where I stand, it looks like a very violent religion.
Islam is a not a violent religion. And keeping in mind 'no one has any right to decide on someone's life'. That poor girl is awaiting execution (hopefully we will see some positive things going on) because of a number of reasons. Alas, the religion is to be blamed at all times. People are either on the far right or far left. The have no or zero knowledge about anything be it there religion. They have never had the curiosity or the need to find out things, to question, to know whats right or wrong based on the religion?!.
But again, its way much politicized now. Thanks to a number of people and states. Its the thought process I believe and knowledge has a lot to say in it. I don't want to point fingers, or anything. But if you start doing some research on this big stream of internet, perspective can change. Thousands revert to Islam every year, there has to be a reason?!.
plus, all these wars going on since the last 50 years?! we all know whose responsible yet you wont see anyone saying oh christianity is to blame?!. because religion is not to be blamed for the stupid unhuman act of ours.Islam, in practice, is a violent religion. It sounds to me as if you are making excuses and attempting to transfer blame. Islamic violence includes beheading non Muslims, honor killings, throwing acid on women and execution without due process of law, by lunch mobs.
Those are every day occurrences within Islamic nations 'at peace'. This doesn't sound very peaceful to me.I dont need to make any excuse. beheading is not islamic, its regional. honor killing, name driven by west. Its mainly stupid rituals and way of life (regional), throwing acid on women (is an individuals act) just like the guy who had her wife chained up for 10 years some where in USA.
Allah (SWT) clearly mentions in Quran that one who has killed one human has killed the whole humanity. An individual`s act cannot be blamed upon the religion, it is to be blamed upon that particular society he or she is living in.You may be a peaceful person, have a peaceful interpretation of your holy text and consider violence not in line with Islamic teachings. Unfortunately, not everyone within the religion agrees with you and they see the Quran as mandating the violence they act out.
It is no different from disagreements over interpretation for the Christians and the Jews. Those acting out violence would argue against any peaceful interpretations also.I don't want to put you on the spot, maniq, but how do imams who preach violence justify it? I mean, if everyone knows violence is un-Islamic, why don't people call the imams out on it?
I don't believe any religion, including Islam, is inherently Islamic. I think the problem is when people think their holy books are infallible. Whenever you think your beliefs are incapable of being wrong, you have a recipe for disaster.
Also, maniq, I want to thank you for your contributions to the forum. What you have said has been very elightening.
Sounds more like the behavior of medieval fools who have not yet got themselves into the current century rather than what their religion says!
Us Christians were still burning witches in the name of religion until a few hundred years ago.. and when did women actually get the vote? Less than 100 years since women in the west have been able to vote, in fact Switzerland didn't allow women to vote until 1971!
I am sure as their countries catch up to "our level of civilization" they will stop trying to kill each over religion and use drugs and money as an excuse the same as the rest of us civilized peopleMaybe, and maybe not. I don't like a lot of what goes on, but it isn't really my right to say they are medieval fools. If they, collectively, decide to live within those rules that is their right. Our 'level' of civilization doesn't make us more modern thinking. It means we have different values and expectations on how society works.
LeanMan ... sure we have bad eggs ... which community in the world doesn't?
just fyi ... women in islam had the right to vote 1400 years ago and racism was abolished at the same time ... two muslims are brothers/sisters no matter what colour .... maybe its the other way around that you might have the "catching up to do" in various aspects of life to reach "our level of civilization".
Just a thought.
Most of the conversions I hear about are those forced to become Muslim or die or those converting to participate in jihad. I have known a few to say they were becoming Muslims. They wore the clothes, ate a certain way, etc. However, a year later they were on to something else.
I am not sure the case of the girl with Down's syndrome in Pakistan is related directly to any tenets of Islam, especially parts that relate to blasphemy, or with the local laws of Pakistan. Perhaps, someone can enlighten us as to whether there is anything in the Quran that provides exemption for some people from the blasphemy laws?
No, it isn't. Mosques I have seen in New Zealand and Fiji were clearly places of peace. If others are places of violence then that is down to local conditions.
Another "Islam is violent" thread - not bad at least you are taking the time to read and ask questions that shows you are willing to explore. I just hope you find the truth and not jump to conclusions based on conjectures and preconceptions based on ideas floated by other biased sources.
YES the Quran and Hadith state verses which calls the Muslims to war and fight so does the Bible call Christians to fght, so does the Torah and many of the other worlds religious books - but it also lays down rules and conditions which you fail to understand and accept. The Quran along with the verses on war and violence also has hundreds of verses on good character, kindness, charity and all the good things that we all assume originated only in non-Muslim communities. I just pray that you also get to read those verses as they will give you a different picture of Islam and Muslims.
Did you know that Islam did not begin with 9/11 but has been around for more than 1400 years, how many World Wars were started by Muslims? How many countries destroyed by Muslim Bombs?
I would urge us all to look for the good in other people, communities, religions and countries in an effort to reduce the divide and learn to live with each other. That way will have less Wars and more peace.
All the bestYou provide ample reason to reject those rules and conditions.
We can easily think for ourselves using logic and reason to have good character, be kind and charitable without the need of a contradictory book like the Quran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquestsTroubled Man-- I went to the wikipedia site you mentioned above and was disappointed to see that Islamic conquest territories were not even a fraction of the British Colonial conquest territories. What a shame for Islamic conquerors who did not do half as much in 700 years what the British did in less than 100 years-- bravo to British Colonials. Anyone would declare Islamic conquests as a failure as compared to other conquerors who occupied many times more territories.
- I cannot believe you actually wrote that post. Outstanding!
Check on what they did in the lands they conquered.. not the size of the territories they took
Troubled Man--
At least now you know that I am a fair person and accept the weaknesses of Muslims, in the field of violence and warfare. But at the same time, I leave you with some food for thought as to what actually made Islam so popular that now 1/4 people in the world are Muslims. The 'Rules of Engagement' in Islam were the main reason, which never let Islamic conquerors to use terror as a weapon to scare others before attack. Apart from women, children and elderly; anyone who does not fight was not allowed to be executed. Torture was strictly prohibited. Use of poison or fire was not allowed. Similarly deception was not allowed as a means of psychological warfare. Dishonoring of women was strictly prohibited. All this were the causes of failure in battlefront, but success on the social front called winning hearts and minds.
Imperial conquests are nothing new, and weren't new even then. Yes, the Islamic conquest were comparitively tiny, but that may have had more to do with the technology of the time, rather than how awesome they were that they didn't conquer more. Considering the period, I think they did a pretty good job.
And I don't think anyone is excusing imperial conquests.
I know that religions born and bred by men are biased toward their male need for supremacy. I don't buy that Muslim women are such a threat to their men that they must hide their faces and by association, their identities. Is that what Allah intended when he created women's faces?
The reality of the Quaran is that, like the Bible, it was written by scribes. It is based not on the teachings of Mohammed; but on the visions of Mohammed as a prophet. Scriptologists have proven the validity of the facts that the Quaran was written by ordinary men who chose to chronicle the visions of Mohammed.
So...men are not perfect or infallible. They make mistakes in interpretation every hour of every day. Often, for their own benefit whether it's the Bible, the Quaran or any country's Constitutional laws. That's gender bias that has NO place in any religion. It only makes that religion suspect as to who the religion believes is the superior gender. Thus far nearly every religion tries to promote the idea that singular most perfect offering to God or Allah is a virginal male. That defies our biological reality. The idea that there's a heaven divided by gender...males to the uppermost region and women following is silly. Yet, this is what the Catholic Church as promoted for centuries. Has anyone died and return to confirm this?
I am also admittedly turned off by the idea that a male who kills himself for the sake of religion gets a reward of 20 virgins. Is that what heaven is? A pit of males who finally get to indulge in sex? The very image is too childish to imagine.
It is possible to interpret any document to suit a personal agenda. This is why I may be inspired by ancient writings. I just don't have to believe that the writer is superior because of his gender or because he interprets what he sees, hears and writes to suit his own personal gender format. I have never been all that fond of the visions of St. Paul because it is barely possible in his lengthy fasting and abstinence in those remote areas of Turkey, he was delusional. Denial of human sustenance plays havoc with the mind.
Every human being, no matter which male religious spouts this differently, is born with free will that allows them to choose good or evil. Hiding behind the sanctity of any religion to take control is heinous and deliberate misinterpretation of the visionary experience.Talk about nearly hitting the nail on the head.
Free Will > Tree of Life, Immortality
Choice > Reason, Tree of Knowledge (good or evil within the parameters of Reason, the battle within the mind, madness, Adamic Inception, amnesia, death).- heaven lies under the feet of the mother.
- After Allah, next Muhammad, then comes your mother; then your mother agian; then your mother again; then your father.
to you these may sound like nothing useful in this world ... but for muslims these statements have a great meaning and the status of a woman is much higher than a man.
women have rights that men do not have ... and men have rights that women do not have. there is still a healthy balance but its not as simple as the equal rights women are fighting for today.It is mother, mother and mother, even father becomes a distant second. She is the one who sacrifice most for your well being. The first two, have you seen either of them? Do you know them personally? What have they sacrificed for you?
That sir, is a misleading statment.
A man can marry four but a women can marry only one, so is 1:4 equality?
A women's testimony has only half the value of men's, (because women cannot be trusted) is it equality?
A women has to prove that she is raped while the man can most of the time go scott free, is that equality?
Women's right are the most abused in muslim countries where they are denied the right to drive (in some countries) or the right to use the dress they choose and more importantly even the right to education (to site a few), is that sir the higher status for women you envision?first you need to decide if you are talking about Islam ... or the followers of islam... the things you mention about women's rights being abused today is accurate and i agree with you 100%. but its not Islam which is at fault ... it is the followers who have modified the rules to suit their needs.
Islam not at fault?
You mean your prophet didn't marry more than one at time and all such accusations are by slanderers?
You mean Qur'an 2:282, 4:3, 4:11, and 65:4 are not from Quran?
A religion is no better than what its followers do collective.He did have 4 wives at a time yes... he had 13 wives during his life time... most of them were widows ... life was tough for a woman without a man in those days so he supported them.
Quran [2:282] is below... check your sources ... i think you got the figures mixed up.
O you who believe, when you transact a debt payable at a specified time, put it in writing, and let a scribe write it between you with fairness. A scribe should not refuse to write as Allah has educated him. He, therefore, should write. The one who owes something should get it written, but he must fear Allah, his Lord, and he should not omit anything from it. If the one who owes is feeble-minded or weak or cannot dictate himself, then his guardian should dictate with fairness. Have two witnesses from among your men, and if two men are not there, then one man and two women from those witnesses whom you like, so that if one of the two women errs, the other woman may remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when summoned. And do not be weary of writing it down, along with its due date, no matter whether the debt is small or large. That is more equitable in Allah’s sight, and more supportive as evidence, and more likely to make you free of doubt. However, if it is a spot transaction you are effecting between yourselves, there is no sin on you, should you not write it. Have witnesses when you transact a sale. Neither a scribe should be made to suffer, nor a witness. If you do (something harmful to them), it is certainly a sin on your part, and fear Allah. Allah educates you, and Allah is All-Knowing in respect of everything. (282) If you are on a journey, and find no scribe, then (you may have resort to holding something as) mortgage, taken into possession. However, if one of you trusts the other, then the one who has been trusted should fulfill his trust, and should fear Allah, his Lord. Do not conceal testimony. Whoever conceals it, his heart is surely, sinful. Allah is All-Aware of what you do. (283)Ayesha was a widow? Was the wife of his adopted son a widow?
Are women allowed to marry many widowers?
Why was life tough for a women (in Islamic community) that it needed one man to support four?
If the one who owes is feeble-minded or weak or cannot dictate himself, then his guardian should dictate with fairness. Have two witnesses from among your men, and if two men are not there, then one man and two women from those witnesses whom you like, so that if one of the two women errs, the other woman may remind her.
From YOUR quote only.
One man's equal to two women!! Women are feeble minded?I did say most were widows, not all.
women can marry a widower if she likes... not more than 1 at a time though.
I think one of the main reasons for a woman not being allowed to marry more than 1 man at a time is because you will never know who's child she is bearing. therefore as the rule of giving the child a surname it will be difficult to conclude who's child it is. Another reason could be the man would reject a child who is lawfully and biologically his.
A period of 40 days has been set if the woman is widowed or has divorced before she can re-marry once again. this is also because if she becomes pregnant then it will be clear as to who the father of the child is and where the responsibility lies.
it was tough for a single mother to raise her children alone until not too long ago in the west as well... i'm assuming the earlier times would be harsher.
the reasoning has been given to you in simple words. interpretations may differ. It could be seen as men are good manipulators and can easily manipulate or pressurize a woman, therefore if 2 women are present then they can hold their ground with the support of each other to tell the truth about what they have witnessed ... a number of variations can come out of this in both the positive and negative sense.Then you should know that Ayesha was one among the last of his wifes and he was an old man and she was very young and he was almost certain to make her a widow. So why did he chose her, if it was not to help a widow?
Why not? no equality?
Why not name him after one among the husbands, or why not give women equal property share and name the child after the women. Why should a child be named after a man? There are societies (earlier times) in the world were women can inherit property and husbands stay with the women and children are named after the women, nothing happened to them, that is other than women had equal rights.
That you may know that is because of the unequal property, wage rights and hindrances made by men for work. Why god didn’t asked for equality?
If men can coerce women it doesn’t matter whether there is one woman or ten. And it is specifically said that women are “feeble minded” and that is why, especially in hadiths. In some hadiths as narrated by Ayesha even seeing a woman during prayer is not allowed – equated with seeing a dog.you are just trying to pull arguments out of no where. maybe he knew she would live long enough to spread the hadith... many chains in the hadith are narrated by Aisha.
now you are questioning the current system of the world. i did not make the rules ... maybe you can change them.
probably because women have a higher status in the spiritual world.
we were talking about the verse in the Quran ... i have not yet read a hadith which degrades women. why would anyone compare a praying woman to a dog... i seriously have doubts on the authenticity of that hadith.Because you did the same. You said he married because of the obligation to help widows. Neither Ayesha, nor Zainab nor Hafza nor Umm –Habib Juwayriya nor Safiya were widows. Zainab was married to his adopted son. So there is no equality in islam for it is not to help widows as you allege. Equality occurs when one man loves one women and vice versa.
You didn’t make rules, but your prophet did. And it is the CURRENT system, not a system followed by all in all times.
As if you know what happens in spiritual world!! So you agree that there is no equality in this world. Your prophet says majority of women are in hell, is that equality in spiritual world?
1. “The prophet said., “isn’t the witness of a women equal to half of that of a man?, The women said “yes”, he said “ this is because of the deficiency of women’s mind”
The correct books of Bukhari vol. 1 bk 48 no 826 narrated by Abu Said Al- Khudri
2. Females have only half the inheritance of male Surah 4: 11
3. The things that annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said “prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman.” I said “you have made as dogs” The correct books of Bukhari vol. 1 bk 9 no 490 narrated by Aisha
4. The prophet said, if there is evil omen in anything it is in the house, women and horse. : The correct books of Bukhari vol. 7 bk 62 no 31 narrated by Ibn Umar
5. Once Allah’s apostle went out to the musalla…….Oh women giove alms as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of hell fire are you………………. This is the deficiency of you intelligence…. : The correct books of Bukhari vol. 1 bk 6 no 301 narrated by Abu Said Al- Khudri
6. The prophet said I looked in paradise…….and I looked into hellfire and found majority were women. : The correct books of Bukhari vol. 8 bk 76 no 456 narrated by Imran bin Husain
Forgive me for not quoting 5 and 6 fully, it is difficult to type all of it.I wrote a really long reply agreeing to half of what you've written here including the actual hadith and when i hit submit i was logged out by hub pages... lost what i had written... will re-write soon. but yes i do agree some things seem wrong in these hadith and there are similar hadiths in the books you mention.
Immediately press the back button, that way you will be able to see what you wrote, select it and copy it. It works sometimes, though not always.
You were right in many instances in the 5 points you put down. No matter how hard i try to persuade you there is a sense of equal opportunity for men and women, i cannot deny the truth of the hadith you posted, and i thank you for sharing them. I do not have to the time to go back and search for all of them again as it took me a few hours, so will not post them.
It is things like what you posted that do make me feel uneasy about the hadith and i seem to start questioning it as a whole. although there is a lot of good in it... these kinds of hadith just don't go down too well.
there is a school of thought in Islam which says the hadith is a cause of the decline in the independent thinking of a Muslim and thus moved Muslims away from science and the golden age of Islam. i'm in the middle of analyzing the trends i see in the hadith and sure am inclining toward this school of thought. wikipedia has put it in better words which i'd like to share.
"There is little agreement on the precise causes of the decline, but in addition to invasion by the Mongols and crusaders, and the destruction of libraries and madrasahs, it has also been suggested that political mismanagement and the stifling of ijtihad (independent reasoning) in the 12th century in favor of institutionalized taqleed (imitation) thinking played a part."
Taqleed (imitation) being imitation of the prohpet (sunnah), which comes from the hadith.
once again thanks for your input.Mostly it is the mongol invasion, if you ask me.
Heaven lies under the feet of women? I think not. Not when men stone women for being raped or committing adultery. How about hold your Muslim men up to the same, not double standards first before you try justifying such brutality and unspeakably inhuman cruelty?
the teachings do say heaven lies under the feet of the mother. if people don't want to follow is it the religions fault? it had the same rules since day 1, and works pretty well for those who follow.
Arksys, I'd like to know about the rights that the women have. I've only heard about the way they should dress and can be stoned for having sex. I'm not asking to be sarcastic.
hi Diane,
Arksys, I'd like to know about the rights that the women have. I've only heard about the way they should dress and can be stoned for having sex. I'm not asking to be sarcastic.
there are 2 sets of rights.
1. spiritual
2. worldly
As you probably know, not too long ago the place for the woman was in the house and the place for the man was to bring food to the table... things are changing with time and so is the muslim world, but we cannot change the rules because the times are changing... any addition to islam is called Biddah and is a grave sin which can expel even a muslim from the realm of Islam.
Spiritually the women have a much higher status.
In worldly affairs men have more rights.
Dressing variations you will see within the muslim community. like many misinterpretations of hadith about killing non-muslims there are many interpretations of dressing ... both men and women are supposed to dress modestly with a little loose space in your garments so your figure is not visible... this goes for both men and women... covering the hair is also for both men and women... men usually do it only when praying (wearing the cap), however it is advised for men to do it more often too... i personally don't cover my hair either.
Being stoned for sex - this is in the case of adultery, but there are very specific rules which need to be followed as this is a huge matter. if found guilty both the man and woman are stoned, this rule is no longer in use in most muslim countries today. the main part of the rule is that 4 people eye witnesses must come forward to testify... when 4 people have testified the matter still remains in the hands of the judge... if the judge has even the slightest doubt (that maybe 1 of the people are lying) then he will order them to be whipped instead.
Marriage and 4 wives - the man needs permission of his first wife to marry another. if he is allowed by his first wife then he HAS to treat them equally in all aspects of a married life(financially, physically, emotionally etc). if he doesn't he has committed a sin. similarly when he wants to marry a third time he needs the permission of the first two wives. if he marries without the approval of his wives then he has sinned and will pay for it either in this world or the next.
Just as Allah blew his spirit into man ... he blew his spirit equally into women.
Men who were eager to fight with the prophet muhammad in the early battles of islam were ask that if they had anyone to look after their mothers... if he was an only child he was ordered to look after his mother instead of going to battle.
"Among His Signs is this, that he created for you mates from among yourselves, that they may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): Verily in that are signs for those who reflect." [Quran 30:21]
"Whatever men earn, they have a share of that and whatever women earn, they have a share in that." [Noble Quran 4:32]
- this is a place where you may see a woman better off than a man... What men earn, there is a share for the woman (wife) in it.... what women earn, there is no share for the man (husband).
its not a black and white scenario ... there are a number of complications and to the distant viewer it definitely can be seen as an equal rights problem area, but if it was really that bad for them don't you think they would have opted out of it all by now? its been 1400 years since our prophet passed away... my own sister spoke to me once saying she used to feel that women don't have equal rights but after giving birth to her first child she said she understood that women actually do have a higher status. (i still don't know what was going on in her head but relaying the msg as i heard it).
I hope it answers some of your questions.So if the wife gets the permission of her husband can she marry again?
That, sir, is misleading. You know what happened to people who apostatized? When it comes to choice between death and slavery, most people choose slavery. Then there is the lack of education. People are so brainwashed they don't even know their rights. It shows the success of superstition not "equal rights".out of the 20,000 people a year who convert to Islam ... why aren't the 75% who leave Islam in the first year get killed? (i saw these figures a few years ago, forgive if i'm wrong)
I will agree with you on the issue of education... even though Islam stresses on gaining knowledge it must be practiced more and more.
(did you know that if you go out to learn and die in the process you are a martyr in Islam... it is also a type of Jihaad ... you don't have to blow yourself up to get the best of heaven... and i've never seen the hadith which states you get virgins for jihaad... maybe you could share).Are the 75% in the middle east or any muslim countries?? From where did you get that figure?
Gaining what knowledge?
Which of my comments say about virgins?
But since you brought it up,
Why Muhammad said he saw in heaven mostly men while in hell mostly women?
Hadith Al-Tirmidhi in the Book of Sunah (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah, chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise. The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Quranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman:
"The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]."
Why not 72 husbands?knowledge of the world as well as Islam ... the golden age of Islam is an example of what we were supposed to achieve.
i don't see the word virgins ... is that an invention?
secondly it starts with "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying:"
this is not how a hadith starts ... the name of the person who narrated the hadith is mentioned. to me this is a fake hadith. there are also different categories of hadith therefore give the exact number so i can verify.
just incase you didn't know the categories of hadith... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_of_HadithThe golden age occurred centuries after your prophet. Site the hadith that says knowledge, I know plague death or even abdominal disease death an be considered a martyr not knowledge.
No there is no virgin there, but there are other verses that say "houries".
Ismail ibn Kathir (Arabic: ابن كثير, born c. 1300, died 1373) was a highly influential Sunni scholar of the Shafi'i school during the Mamluk rule of Syria, an expert on tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and faqīh (jurisprudence) as well as a historian.
Jami` at-Tirmidhi
Jami` at-Tirmidhi is a collection of hadith compiled by Imam Abu `Isa Muhammad at-Tirmidhi (rahimahullah). His collection is unanimously considered to be one of the six canonical collections of hadith (Kutub as-Sittah) of the Sunnah of the Prophet (). It contains roughly 4400 hadith (with repetitions) in 46 books.
Hi arksys, I had to look back to find this. In your response to my question about how women are valued you wrote:
"Whatever men earn, they have a share of that and whatever women earn, they have a share in that." [Noble Quran 4:32]
- this is a place where you may see a woman better off than a man... What men earn, there is a share for the woman (wife) in it.... what women earn, there is no share for the man (husband).
---
It seems husbands shouldn't have to worrying about the women not sharing what they because it seems they don't have an opportunity to earn anything.
With regard to the other comments, I did not see where women were esteemed. With all due respect, I don't understand what women get in heaven. The men get "virgins." Since the wives are not virgins, what do they get?Women do have the opportunity to earn. One of the prophets wives was a business woman, if a remember correctly.
An example from my family would be my sister who earns more than her husband because she has a higher qualification, or my cousin who bought a house with her own money and moved in with her husband. There is no restriction for a woman to earn money, every person comes with their own fortune.
The second question you ask is what I have also asked many fellow Muslim men and women. I still have not come across a satisfactory answer for that yet, so I'm sorry but cannot answer that one at the moment.Arksys, thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I am truly asking because I don't know. What country do you live in.
I asked about the women going to heaven because that is the ultimate reward of Christianity ... eternity in heaven for everyone who becomes a Christian.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with a real Muslim. The ones who I have known in the past were jail house Muslims and knew nothing of the religion.Its been a pleasure talking to you Diane. I can tell by the words you put together that you come from a good background. I'm currently in Pakistan which is my native land however was born and raised in Zambia and lived there for quite a while... i sure do miss the people there, the best of people i have seen yet.
One thing is for sure... women do get a place in heaven in Islam and it is equal to the place of a man. here are a few quotes from the Quran.
------
So their Lord accepted their prayer: That I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female...Surah 3:195
And whoever does good deeds whether male or female and he (or she) is a believer -- these shall enter the garden, and they shall not be dealt with a jot unjustly. Surah 4:194
Whoever does good whether male or female and he is a believer, We will most certainly make him live a happy life, and We will most certainly give them their reward for the best of what they did. Surah 16:97
Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember -- Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward. Surah 33:35
They and their wives shall be in shades, reclining on raised couches. Surah 36:56
They will have with their Lord whatever they desire; that is the reward of those who good. Surah 39:34
Enter the garden, you and your wives; you shall be made happy. Surah 43:70
--------
Ultimately every muslim will go to heaven, if they have sinned in this world then they WILL go to hell for a certain period of time... If there is a particle of faith in a person they will enter paradise or will be in a place between heaven and hell. In Christianity, you have been saved by Jesus. In islam, you pay for what you have done in this world. Most of our concepts are very similar, the dividing factor is the way we both look at Jesus.
One thing I always wanted to ask Christians is ... do you feel the pain when fun is made out of Jesus in the media? I remember watching a cartoon called south park about 10-12 years ago, there was an episode which made fun of Jesus... I've seen similar pokes in various TV shows at Jesus and knew it was unhealthy for me to watch so i change the channel whenever something like that comes up... what i wanted to know is if you as Christians feel the same or more pain in such a situation, and how you handle it?Do you get the same pain when any other god/godmen/prophet is made fun of or only when those of islam are made fun of?
any and every faith. respect must always be there even if no one is looking.
1) That is not the question.
2) Anything in the public domain can be and should be questioned. Nonsense will be ridiculed, after all no one can make fun saying the other is intelligent or ones god is powerful. Only by such criticisms that we got rid of many myths.I don't see shows where Islam is ridiculed on television .... I don't think. There may be some subtle ridicule that I'm not aware of because I don't know enough about Islam.
there are subtle jabs at the moment and definitely not as prominent as shows ridiculing Christianity. I have noticed many but sometimes its good to know what kind of conclusions people have made up in their heads so you can address the issues and iron them out. I think you just have to be in the right frame of mind to address them at times ... as things can get real nasty, real fast.
Why the Abrahamic religious are afraid of truth?
i saw your profile and you claim to be the "devils advocate" ... ummm ... well the devil belongs OUR Abrahamic belief system therefore please go find yourself another identity to look cool.
once you've figured out what you really are, then you can come back to talk about the truth.Wrong again, "devil" is from Zoroastrian religion, later co-opted by the abrahamic religions especially christianity and islam.
Devil is the one who lie (kill,.....) and the abrahamic books contain nothing but lies(murder,.....), so you can figure out who the real devil is?
Really afraid of truth? Afraid of rethinking what you were taught or based your life on?I'm not afraid at all. Spill the truth then... Im listening.
Moses is a lie, Jesus is a lie, both are fictions hence what Muhammad preached also is fiction. There are factual errors in all Abrahamic books. God is described as an emotional king whose behavior is just like that of a tyrant.
GOD is not a human being with emotions, god is not a judge or arbitrator, these are all human constructs.
Think.i can see your point of view by describing god as an emotional king.
calling Moses Jesus and Muhammad a lie does not cut it... many people in their time called them a lie too ... but one thing i want to clear right here is... even it is false, i have tried to follow a decent amount of teachings of the prophet Muhammad and wherever i have gone people usually remember me in the positive sense ... i have met wrong and bad people yet they still treat me well because i do my best to treat them well. I have learnt from the teachings of the prophet and applied it to my life, and if i see a positive response from most people and can see that his teachings really do work in life then how can i believe they are wrong or false? If those teachings make me a decent human being then why is it such a great problem for you? do you want me to leave Islam and join you? is that your motivation? or you want me to follow the truth... you still didn't tell me what the truth is ... if all this is a lie then what exactly do you see as the truth? there are always a set of procedures or a system that a person follows in life... mine is the teachings of Muhammad ... what set of procedures or system do you follow? I want to know your version of the truth and how its made you a decent human being and how you've looked after your siblings and parents in old age and all that good stuff.
the problem i see atheists having with most religious people is that the religious person always tries to shove religion down everyone throat. I agree with the atheists here and I've seen it happen around me all the time and its wrong. Just because some fools think they have authority over others and can force people to do what they think is right doesn't mean the whole idea of religion is wrong... those people are practicing it wrong. no one has the right to judge anyone for any reason whatsoever. its a personal thing between the person and God. no one else is involved or matters.
i look forward to your version of the real truth.Good points arksys! With regard to God's "humaness," Genesis 1:27 So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
God made us! He wants us to be like Him. He created us and always existed. What one considers "human" characteristics may actual be "godly" characteristics.
I don't try to shove what I believe down anyone's throat. I would like to know what atheist believe and why.I watched a sermon a while ago and the man said the same thing... I believe it to be true. He wants us to have those qualities and the only way we can achieve it is by living this life and experiencing different things... we must make a constant effort to bring those qualities within us ... it is also in-line with the sufi thinking where you polish the mirror of your heart. this in Islam is known as the greater jihaad, which is the conquest of oneself.
“And you? When will you begin that long journey into yourself?” ~ Rumi
It is not me but bible and quran does so. Have you seen me describing god?
Moses is a fiction, there was no exodus, israelis were local people local to that region.
Regarding jesus, all information we have about Jesus is from gospels and you yourself (islam) says that gospel is a lie. You say jesus was not dead as the gospels and Christians claim. The biggest thing in gospel if is a lie, then what else is not a lie? You also know what your religion says about what the “people of book” did to the book?
You do not follow the prophet entirely, you follow your interpretation. You might have noticed that Al- queda and ISIS also claim to follow the prophet and that works for them to. What you follow is universal human behavior, religious rules are simple post hoc rationalizations. You might have noticed that people with different religions and even atheists are not amoral and they also say that it (their respective beliefs) works.
Did you hear me preaching a religion or atheism? All I asked you is to think about what you preach. You are here to justify and rationalize islam, you use some misleading statistics or phrases to justify. You are doing it as a gentleman while the evangelist Christians and ISIS is doing it in a barbaric way. So why do you do that? You cannot justify the backwardness of Muslim countries or the tribal quality of Islamic religion which is there for everyone to see. Islam is not one religion, just like Christianity, it is a myriad of religions with some common threads. If you have read about the history of islam it is evident as such. Though very few dared to act like Al Hallaj, many have reached near.
Do you love your parents because Muhammad told you to? I do not need anyone to tell me to love my parents; I do it since birth naturally. Morals are part of being human. Those without morals, even religion cannot make them moralists, ISIS is a good example.
I cannot tell you truth; you yourself have to find it. Think about the tenets of your religion. Think about the people to whom Muhammad spoke. Were they educated fellows? Did they knew as much as we? What is applicable then is not applicable now. Even though everyone want their religion to be universal and eternal, it is not so. Morals changes, I hope I do not have to tell you about the wide variants of thought in islam before the Mongols, it is suffice to say that “KALAM cosmology” was invented by mulsims.
So think about what is taught about god and whether GOD can be like that? The god of religions is a mere superhuman with partiality to one sect or group. GOD do not tell a lie or give factually incorrect information, don't you think?There is a lack of education in the tribal muslim world i agree ... and there is a lack of understanding because of this lack of education. The first words of the Quran were "IQRA"
"Iqra can have both meanings (read & recite). For the Prophet directly, it is a command to preach and to speak the message (to recite). But given the statement of Allah in the following verses that one of His blessings is the pen and what is taught by it, it also means read. The Prophet could not read but from the first revelation there is an emphasis for writing and reading. This is for preservation and teaching/spreading the message. Reading/understanding and recite/teach are also sides of the same coin."~ taken from an answer in stackexchange
the problem is we as Muslims have failed to do what the Quran has initially guided us to do. It is so easy for me to brainwash an uneducated person. they listen to you carefully because they think you are reading and telling them the truth. many people have used this technique to fulfill their personal agenda which has created sects over time. we know that there will be approximately 72 sects of Islam by the end of time and that is exactly what is happening at the moment. the only place i can realistically make a change is within my family and that also not with force but with more education for everyone and more logical reasoning rather than blind faith.
Pointing fingers and saying the whole system is wrong is an easy thing to do. Understanding the issues and addressing them is the hard part.
Lets say for example ... in the year 2050 we have 2 billion atheists in the world. not all of them will be educated ... many will still be having civil wars for land ... theft / rape / murder would be almost the same as it is today. the only difference will be its not the fault of religion anymore. it is the fault of the people or individuals. we are humans and we will continue to do what we have been doing since our early days on this earth.
For me, Islam did not teach me to love my parents, you are right these are basic things... but it has told me where my responsibilities lie and the priorities have been set out for me ... when i'm in trouble i consult the list of priorities and responsibilities even if they go against what i feel like doing... for example: continue a prosperous career in a different country and you can have all the gains of a worldly life, or go back to a country where you know it is impossible to stay prosperous, but your old parents are alone in that country and need someone to look after them. Parents in old age are our highest priority therefore, instead of earning lots of money and keeping a maid to look after them you make that difficult choice to leave and spend time with your parents. It is these kind of issues i am talking about where you take steps which you would not have taken. The depth comes here, the humanity comes here, the contentment comes from issues like this, and you learn a lot from it. If only people followed it correctly.
Finally ... i was looking forward to your version of the truth but didn't get much. I was browsing through Facebook and a quote caught my attention because of our discussion of the truth here, and i think it fits quite nicely.
"The truth was a mirror in the hands of God. It fell, and broke into pieces. Everybody took a piece of it, and they looked at it and thought they had the truth." ~ RumiIsn't that too post-hoc rationalization? Many muslims choose the other path, still remain deeply religious. Many non muslims choose your path and remain religious in their own religion or remain areligious/atheists. It is again individual choices that matter and religion is used to justify what we decided.
How can I tell you the truth, how can my truth be yours?
I asked you to think outside the box if you want to know the truth but you are still in the box. Think outside the box and you will get the truth [pointers: humans are just another species of animals and all GOD's creation are equal to him (is your left hand more important to you than your right? Is your hand better than your leg or liver or eyes? and GOD is not a king, tyrant, emotional.... without any human attributes]. If Quran is the word of god it should have no errors, but it has. Its rules and regulations pertain to a tribal (based on chieftains and kingship) society. At least some of its words and meanings are obscure. Modern religions evolved at the time of monarchy is the reason why god is "king" and there is no democracy in religion.
For god to sent prophets to particular people 1) he should be partial, otherwise he should sent a prophet to all races = America, China, Africa.. 2) he should be a fool to think that people will believe anyone who claims to be from him. You yourself know that, otherwise why do you reject the claims of Ahamadiyas? How can you say that he has not been sent by god? After all Muhammad was also rejected by his people.
72 sects? Each person follow his religion based on his understanding and his experience (rather most people keep religion aside and live and use it only when the occasion demands), there are a million sects. More than 72 where there during the knowledge revolution that took place before mongols.
One cannot be uneducated and remain an atheist. Human nature is to believe in god.
Then why do we need religion? Why do we justify obscurantist religions? Why can each one practice their truth without the encumbrance of a religion? You remove guns, there will still be killings, but the number of deaths will be far less. Chimpanzees are as deadly as we are, but without our offensive weapons their murders are indeed far less. Teach a chimpanzee how to produce and use a gun, they will kill as much as we do.I now understand BuddiNSense! According to his Bio, he is the Devil's Advocate. That's why the words and tone are what they are. Welcome BuddiNSense!
Your religion ask you not to judge, but morality dictates that when we judge we here both sides before making a judgment. So did you hear the devils side before attributing all the failures of your god on him?
After 17 months?I'm sorry if you feel I was judging. The name "Devil's Advocate" means looking at the other side; testing your thought to see if it will hold water.
I have been off HP for a while and started reading and posting again about 6 weeks ago. I didn't realize you had been on that long.Why sorry? I was talking about judging the "devil" not me. I know what a devil's advocate is, but you can call the advocate of "devil" as 'devil's advocate', can't you? It is also looking at the other side.
What do you call it when we use same word with different meanings, equivocation?I sure think there is another word when we use it in poetic sense.
remaining deeply religious means your actions reflect your belief. I know many heavily bearded men who look the part and play the part much much better than myself, but the moment they are found in an awkward position they would back out. If the non-muslims choose the right path coming from a different background then i would like to know their reasoning too. my reason would be "it is what i learnt from the Quran". that's all i'm trying to say.
The Quran does state that there are things which you will understand and things you will not in this book. they are known as the Mutashabihat and Muhkamaat verses.
there are believed to be a total of 124,000 messengers sent to people. I recently read the philosophy of the native Africans and found it to be very similar to the Sufi thinking. The Egyptians built the pyramids with tunnels that point to specific stars, they had some kind of messengers too in their time i'm sure... when we talk about the soul we don't look at the colour of the skin.
Ahmadi people believe in the prophet muhammad and Allah. As far as i know they believe in a messenger after muhammad. Now i believe in muhammad too so when he says that he is the seal of the prophets that means he is the seal of the prophets. there is no one else coming after Muhammad. Now although, i believe that Ahmadi people are wrong, I also believe that because they believe in one God and his messenger muhammad they will at one stage enter paradise.
I am not aware there are a million sects ... i will look it up.
I don't agree with this point ... there will come a stage where people may not know about the concept of god... you can have that if you;re thinking outside your box.
you need something to practice the truth. religion is that thing. humans have a natural tendency to generalize things... for example: you see 20 elephants with four legs then we learn in school that all elephants have 4 legs. we say all elephants even though we have not seen all the elephants in the world. Similarly, there is a lot of negativity seen in religion so people like you say why do we need religion... you do not see that there is a beauty and great depth in it. When you see something bad, a good person like yourself would always want to separate himself from the bad. a small example would be a father angry at his child ... when telling the mother what the kid did wrong, the father says look what "your" child has done... for that little instant even the father wants to break the blood relation with the kid... similarly many see wrong things happen in the name of religion and they break all ties with religion and complain about religion but if you are able to see the beauty of the religion itself then instead of leaving religion you will keep religion and let go of the other people who are wrong. I hope i relayed this properly and makes sense to you... I was repelled by the people who follow the religion but there was more beauty in the religion so i chose to keep the religion and left the people.
yes there are things i don't understand and i know it will take more than a lifetime to understand them but i just cannot let go of something which i find to be beautiful and experienced that if practiced correctly then it causes no harm to any other human being.The reasoning is the same reasoning as that of a child who love his mother or mother loving her child –human nature. [not strictly human nature, for altruism and compassion is elicited by any mammal that lives in group and more so by our closest kin – bonobos.
You cannot articulate the reason hence you attribute it to quran (just like a non-muslim attributing it to his book or atheist to human morals) is what I said.
Then contradict by saying it is written in clear Arabic. What god will sent words that humans cannot understand?
The so called Africans are all from North Africa -continuation of fertile cresent. Those in the south (of Sahara) doesn’t have much civilizations for “prophets” till medieval or modern age. Even the Egyptians prophets (except Aknaten) didn't advocate monotheism. And American were continuing with human sacrifices advocated by their prophets.
You might at least think that the prophets agree.
For Jews the prophetic tradition ended with the end of Babylonian captivity. Yet the Christians said Jesus is the end. When Muslims came, they said NOT jesus but Muhammad is last. Ahamadiyas is just continuing the tradition. Muhammad is treated the same way by Christians as you treat Ahamdiyas. But that is not the point. He might be a real prophet, how do you know? A god will understand that people won't automatically believe a person because he claims to be from him?
What I said each person has his own concept of god, so there are as many god as people. But there were a number of Islamic sects during the golden age (falsafah), rather uniformity is a modern feature.
There are no human societies that are atheistic (except the modern ones or philosophical ones), all humans believe in some sort of god (the definition may different and may be translated as spirit, ancestor….). We will believe in god as long as we cannot understand death, have person permanence, near death experiences, hallucinations, and attribute “cause” and see pattern, that is as long as we are human we will.
It is not religion, but human nature that is beautiful and intriguing. “Religion” is just an explanation. It is like Newton calling the force of attraction gravity, without ever understanding the underlying mechanism. We got a name, but we are none the wiser.
The god and bad are part of being human. Only when we understand the doctrines and question the tenets we can really know what it means. Blindly following and rationalizing the mistakes and contradiction won't get as any where, does it? For most of its history, modern religion is nothing but a political tool, a glue to hold a society together and sets it apart from the near by one. In the era of globalization, in the era where we KNOW that all humans are similar, isn't that an artificial separation?
Hi arks, I've been pretty busy lately so I haven't been on HP.
Thank you for taking time to respond. I thought everyone believed in God when I group up in Arkansas. There were a few Black Musllims who converted when they went to jail. When I came to California in 1973, the first difference I noticed was that there are many people who are atheists. Soon I realized the difference between Jews and Christians. Then I began to learn about other religions. The most I know about Islam I have learned in the last 5 years.
Yes, people make fun of Jesus. Use His name in cursing. On some movies, actors have said "Jesus F*cking Christ!" Many non-believers make fun of Christians and say we are stupid. Do I get angry ... no! I pray for them.
Like you, I turn off shows like South Park. It is one of hundreds of shows that purposedly make fun of Jesus. My belief in Jesus is so strong that I pray for those who go out of their way to show their disdain.
It is one thing to "not belief" something but to get angry because someone else does. There is something very wrong with that. The good thing in America is that we are allowed to belief whatever we want. You may get verbally persecuted for what you believe but it is not against the law.
Thank you again for taking time to respond. Is the book of Sarah based on Abraham's wife?you are right. there must be a respect even though you don't share the same belief as the person in front of you.
the book of sarah question got me a little confused because we don't have it and to be honest i had never heard of her. this is what i found about Sarah in islam.
"Sarah (Arabic: سارة, Sara), the wife of the patriarch and Islamic prophet Abraham and the mother of the prophet Isaac, is an honoured woman in the Islamic faith. According to Muslim belief, she was Abraham's first wife. Although not mentioned by name in the Qur'an, she is referenced and alluded to via the story of her husband. She lived with Abraham throughout her life and, although she was barren, God promised her the birth of a prophetic son, Isaac. Abraham, however, prayed constantly to God for a son. Sarah, being barren, subsequently gave him her Egyptian handmaiden,[50] Hājar (Hagar), to wed as his second wife. Hagar bore Ismā'īl (Ishmael), when Abraham was eighty-six,[51] who too would become a prophet of God like his father. Thirteen years later, God announced to Abraham, then ninety-nine,[52] that barren Sarah would give birth to Abraham's second son, Isaac, who would also be a prophet of the Lord. Although the Qur'an does not mention Sarah by name, it mentions the annunciation of the birth of Isaac. The Qur'an mentions that Sarah laughed when the angels gave her the glad tidings of Isaac" ~ wikipedia
The 19th chapter in the Quran about Maryam or you may know her better as Mary the mother of Jesus (Isa - pronounced ee-sa). It gives the whole description of what happened at the time of the birth of Jesus and how she was asked not to speak to the people for 3 days. this is where baby Jesus spoke to the people instead so that they would not blame Maryam for being unchaste.
many other stories can be found in the Quran which you may be familiar with, such as:
Musa (Moses), Sulaiman (Solomon), Dawud (David), Lut (Lot), Nuh (noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Idris (Enoch), Ya'qub (Jacob), Yousef (Joseph), Harun (Aaron), Dhu'l-kifl (Ezekiel), Al-Yasa (Elisha), Ilias (Elias), Yunus (Jonah), Zakariyya (Zechariah), Yahya (John), Ayyub (Job), Adam (Adam) and obviously Maryam(Mary).
Muslims read about, learn from, and respect all of the prophets. Many Muslims name their children after them. In addition, when mentioning the name of any of God's prophets, a Muslim adds these words of blessing and respect: "upon him be peace" (alayhi salaam in Arabic). the same is used for the prophet muhammad. The English phrase is also given the abbreviation pbuh (peace and blessings upon him) in writing. An extended variant of the phrase reads ṣalla llāhu ʿalay-hi wa-sallam (Arabic: صلى الله عليه وسلم) "may Allah honor him and grant him peace".
When mentioning the Sahabah (the companions of Muhammad), radhi Allahu anhu (for males) and radhi Allahu anha (for females) are used by Sunnis; they mean may God be pleased with him or her respectively. The phrase is sometimes also used after mentioning other names including that of Jesus and Moses, but the term عليه سلام ʿalayhi salaam, "On him be peace" is more common.
I hope after this you may recognize that Islam is not too different from Christianity, and that we have a great respect for the people in your book.Thank you arksys for taking time to explain.
In the Bible, there is a book of Ruth. There isn't one of Sarah so it drew my attention.
This morning I cried as I thought of all of the barbaric killing for no reason. That was before I heard of what happened to the Jordan pilot. That was sooo monstrous. God help us all. The King of Jordan and the King of Egypt have said publicly, "This is NOT of Islam." Now Saudi Arabia and other countries are being encouraged to speak out.
Before being harrassed and ridiculed for being a Christian, I was ridiculed by Black people for having dark skin. Then I was ridiculed by white people for being Black. When I came to California, I was ridiculed for getting a college degree from Arkansas rather than prestigious UCLA or USC. At work I was passed over for promotions because they wanted better looking women in those positions. When I became a Christian, that added another level of hostility. Now I have been home since August 26, 2014 because my boss doesn't want to make a medical accommodation. They think I am so old that I should retire. This is age discrimination.
Throughout all of this I am learning to trust God more and more. That is the only way that I can possiblity deal with what is going on. I pray to not be bitter but to love those who hate me for whatever reason.
God bless you arksys.
It's pretty difficult to look for the good when there's a photo of a group of men stoning a woman in a burka for adultery, pushing the male adulterers off a cliff and shooting them at point blank range. This was a photo in several prominent US newspapers. It was obvious people in the crowd behind the murdering men were cheering.
Please do explain to us how anyone deserves such uncivilized punishment in this day and age? Stoning a woman who is raped? Because "she" dishonors her "father and brothers?" Is male honor such that it requires the support of uncivilized violence?
I stand on my belief that it is the men in Islam who must clean house to get rid of the savages who perpetrate such uncivilized animal behavior in order to preserve Islam in peace.
how do murderers justify what they do?!.. the norweigian dude who killed so many innocent people justified it! People are stupid, people can sell themselves for a dollar. And in most of societies in today's world its happening, its going on everywhere. People don't opt-out the imams because they don't have the tendency to do so. They are slaves themselves and all they worry about is the 'war of survival'.
Problem comes in when people try to justify everything according to what they know i.e. everyone making their own small mosque or church according to how they want to run so!.
Beliefs are capable of going wrong, but one has to fix them, themselves.Muslims are very kind and helpful people. they love all peoples . they dislike who don't respect them and their prophet .
How would I go about opening up a kosher bagel shop just outside of Mecca? Or maybe a tourist shop selling bikinis, lotions, music etc?
I would love to take advantage of all the pilgrimage traffic!lol ... sorry to burst your bubble but that aint happening in your lifetime ...
come on.. there's gotta be someone who I can give a few bucks to to look the other way
now why would you want to sell bikini's in the middle of a desert? no shop for you.
fyi ... we are allowed to eat kosher meat.
Wow...Most common question of the 21st century: Is Islam a violent religion?
There are only two ways to find the answer:
1. Believe, whatever anyone says about Islam (may be right/wrong) OR
2. Read by yourself.
The choice is yours.Greek One wrote:
BUT can you eat kosher meat while wearing a bikini??
THAT is the true test of freedom!
(especially if you are a man)
================================
Men shouldn't be wearing a bikini while eating any kind of meat; least not at my back yard cookoffs. No offence intended to those that do.All religions barring jainism has had its share of violence...Prob with Islam is that it needs reformation and since most muslim stand on Qur'an being unaltered , reforming it is difficult. Religion is based on faith and most people take it too seriously ...The action of muslims even in protest show the violent streak...it has more to do with from where we came (i.e. jungle) t...fanatics do justify their violence quoting from books...
pisean-- the Muslims feel that killing 1.6 million people in Iraq in search of the never found Weapons of Mass Destruction was something violent, instead of protests that killed few. Also the drones that kill 1% terrorists and 99% innocent people. Everyone has his own definition of violence that favors him. Also that invasions are justified by declaring the invaded nation's religion as bad. Its an unending blame game as long as there is greed.
@arshad then why do muslims who r killing more muslims than anyother faith call for jihad in their own country...syria, pakistan, afghanistan...pakistan army which has muslims in it kills balochs which r muslims on daily basis...their supreme court call fouls itself...syria which has muslims in government and army kills its own citizen in large numbers...taliban kills shias,sufis etc...so instead of looking outward solution for muslims lies within...three out of four caliphs where killed ...hussein was killed by yasid who himself was muslim...so muslim must introspect ...then blame west or others...
pisean-- If I accept your prognosis then the question that comes to my mind is; Pakistan was established in 1947--why the Pakistanis were not fighting among each other before the incident of 9/11? Don't forget that in Pakistan, the shia, sunni, sufi, baloch, punjabi, muhajirs have married among each other and have lived side by side for ages without having any history of fighting and still living. Killing there is a mystery. Similarly Iraq and Syria also have no history of civil war between shia and sunni in last 1400 years which makes anyone wonder, if Islam teaches violence, then why all the Muslims waited for the recent Foreign Invasion, to start fighting each other. Any student of history will not just look at the face of events, but will go into the historical background.
Regarding the Caliphs-- You did not mention that they were all killed within less then 20 years which makes one wonder why the other did not made a palace and arranged for proper security. You picked up this slogan that 3/4 Caliphs were killed but did not bother to investigate their life style. Non of them had a palace or a history of executing its rivals. Non of them was killed by a rival group but infect an unknown killer. Those caliphs were not only leader of the nation but also the Imams whose job was to daily interact with common people five times a day, in public mosque where they use to preach and settle disputes as a judge. One of the caliph was killed during prayer by a stranger who was praying close to him. The reason was simple; Islam is easy to enter and anyone can recite the Kalima and be next to the Caliph in the next prayer. If the Caliph was late, he use to offer prayer in the last row and did not even had a special place in mosque.
So they were world apart from other rulers or kings. Their life style made them vulnerable but to protect their own lives was not their objective. None of them left a fortune when he died because he was just a servant of Islam and not a King. And as you can see that this is the reason that the death of 3/4 Caliphs only promoted Islam instead of leaving a negative impact. You will find ancient historical places, very well preserved including the simple grave with only one un-carved stone as a sign, to the small quarter where Mohammad PBUH use to live or for that matter other caliphs use to live but what you will not find is one luxury palace in those ruins in Macca, Saudi Arabia. With so many enemies around and not having a Palace to stay away from common man, I am not surprised that they were killed but none was killed in a battle—the point that you missed.
One of your respected leader Mahatima Gandhi praised one of the Caliphs that,“The best thing to happen to India would be to be reigned by a dictator as just and upright as Umar, RA.” (Gandhi).
Regarding Yazeed-- I am not going to defend one black sheep that you found in Islam. You may have your own share of black sheep indeed.@arshad coming to my black sheep...My religion is humanity and every religious extremist is black sheep for me...In islam i have thousands ,in other have hundreds...but all r equally bad for human race...
Mahatma Gandhi is respected world over because of his stand for transformation and so world celebrats 2nd oct as world non violence day.....But Mahatma gandhi understood islam through books...Mahatma Gandhi should have asked Iranians about umar, they have first hand experience and the way they treat umar is impt too than only what sunnis books tell about umar...
pakistanis where not fighting before 9/11?...is baloch movement after 9/11 ...wasnt bangladesh part of pakistan ?...is ethnic clash new phenomena in pakistan?...where ahamadis always safe in pakistan...STOP IGNORING TRUTH..TRUTH IS THAT MUSLIMS HAVE NEVER HAD PEACE ANYWHERE SINCE ISLAM WAS BORN....they keep fighting...first muslim v/s muslim war had ali on one side and aisha on another...its politics at cost of innocent people ...pisean-- Yes; baloch movement was not even known until last five years. Yes; Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, like Pakistan was part of India. Yes; ethnic clash is new phenomenon in Pakistan.
23.5% of the world population is said to be Muslim and more than 80% live outside Arabia from where Islam started. It would be hard to prove that it was a violent religion as people don't buy such a religion. But I accept that the Mogul Kings of India were not that good example of Muslim rulers and apologize for that. But the damage was done by the Islamic Saints of India whose writings and live styles, forced many to convert to Islam and the cast system in Hindu religion was also a contributing factor.@arshad i am not questioning muslims out here...i am sorry if it landed that way....converting to faiths in not new phenomena in human race...it keeps happening and in future Islam too would see that happening...old ideas r replaced with new ideas...but that would be out of topic out here...
one of major difference between other faiths and Islam is lack of reforms in latter...violence is in every faith ...from oldest to youngest...prob is people of modern era sticking to those verses which r irrelevant today...once muslims discard those verses violence would be subdued in Islam..
coming to baloch movement it is 60 year old movement...Shia v/s sunni in pakistan is much older phenomena and karachi has seen muslim killing muslim much before ordinary pakistanis even knew what is full form of usa...
In all muslim countries shia vs sunni ...wahabhis v/s shias have happened...arabia is home to wahanbhis and since advent of them , islam has become more violent day by day...Instead of blaming others , its time that peaceful muslims call for jihad against fanatics of their faith...pisean-- violence is part of human culture and Islam was not the only one where you can find instances of violence. I can give you hundreds of wars where Islam was not even close-- including in India. But I agree that due to a smear campaign against Islam, a young person in the west may believe that Islam had to be behind the World War 1 and World War 2 as well. Islam is the only religion which explains that revenge is allowed only upto the extend of damage suffered but forgiveness is more like by the God.
Regarding Jihad against fanatics... indiscriminate killing of women, kids and elderly by bombing their villagers is not a Jihad. Neither it will bring peace to any conflict. We should not act like fanatics ourselves instead to try to resolve issues with dialog.
But what we find is that fanaticism in this part of the world started after the invasion of Afghanistan. When so many international powers wanted a piece of Afghanistan cake due to vast natural resources in that area which may have caused the local population go fanatic. If all the countries including Pakistan start to respect the right to natural resources and freedom of Afghan people, peace is not far away.@arshad nope...fanatism pre dates afghan invasion by centuries...if u see use of religion by dictators in name of infidels or name of god, u can see how much islam reformation is needed in current times...and it is not that difficult ...just disband few verses of quran and what u get is non violent islam...i am sure somebody would do that in futre...the day fanatics start taking quran's those verses not so seriously we would have peaceful future ...
piscean-- Well I understand that India was very much a target of the message of Islam and produced not only two huge nations of Pak and Bangladesh, each with around 200 million, but itself now has some 230 million Muslims. Which may make you feel that Islam was not fair to Hinduism or India may be but I don't see those invasions any different from the Hindu riasats fighting each other before the mogul kings arrived. Even your religious books are full of motivation to fight.
But anyways I am happy that you noticed that there are few verses only that you find promoting violence in Quran. I shall be glad to discuss them with you.
Arshad, you're committing a logical fallacy called "tu quoque," where one tries to excuse a wrong because someone else committed a worse one. If I commit a murder, it is not excused because Charles Manson killed many more people. Also, I agree drone strikes are indiscriminately killing civilians, and personally, I think killing even terrorists without a trial is unconstitutional and un-American. But drone strikes are not done in the name of Christianity, at least on a national level. Individual pilots or soldiers or whomever may find their own motivation, but as a national policy, there is not a war against Islam, whatever your media may be telling you, or what certain buffoons (such as Ann Coulter) have said. Also we don't kill each other within the US because of religious differences, and I personally think ANY violence because of a difference of opinion - poltiical, religious or otherwise - is morally wrong.
twosheds-- I am totally with you on this one that killing is bad. All I am trying to tell you that we all want it to stop and since violence breeds violence, why not try to stop it at first place. I mean instead to put each other's religion on trial, we can think of what can be done to bring peace to this world. The public reaction is not always blamed on public alone. I will advice you to listen to Ron Paul's speech about intimidating other nations. He has put it in a better way the reasons of this unrest that we see in this world today. I think if Ron Paul would be running for the Presidency, most of the unrest would have gone away automatically. I feel sad that such an honest person who speaks the truth, could not succeed to be the Presidential candidate and we are still pulling each other's leg trying to prove that your beliefs are stupid and mine are superior.
@thirdmillenium Nope. Killing indescrimanently is against Islam. Ours is a faith of peace, mercy and submission to god (Allah). However, if attempts to force us to accept foreign religions ensue, particularly if they are accompanied with invasion into Muslim territories, we are commanded to not only resist, but overcome the invaders – utterly.
And on the issue of religious fanatics *sigh* yes, Islam has been attached to groups like these, but these groups are unrecognized by practicing Muslims as truly Islamic. You cannot go against the teachings of the Qur’an (the guide given to us by Allah swt and delivered by angel Jibreel to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)), The Sunnah (accounts of Prophet Mohammad’s’ life (PBUH)) nor the Hadiths (his sayings), and call yourself a Muslim. Islam, in this sense, is incorruptible. You do, or you do not do. You believe or you do not believe.
Additionally, we do not make allowances for innovations. In other words, just because it’s acceptable to be gay, does not mean we should change gods rules, and adapt to this innovation to appease popular, “modern” opinion. For the record (since I brought it up), homosexuality is considered a sin by Muslims, and corresponding acts are punishable by death. This does not, however, mean that we go out hunting gay people! It means that within the context of Islam (pertaining to Muslims), this is our law (Shari’ah).
Besides, thirdmillenium, there are people that attach their behaviors and theologies to others that truly practice faith to be found in any religion, sect or what have you. Nevertheless, media worldwide is quick to report and sensationalize just the guts, gore and ill-will that occur.
People are people, and all should be treated fairly, teaches the Qur’an. We are taught not to hate or deal unjustly with our oppressors, or those that hate us, because god is with and loves the just.
If you have any other questions, I’d be happy to do my best to answer them or direct you to someone that is more capable than I.
Key:
PBUH: A respectful term meaning Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him.
Swt (Subhanahu wa ta’ala): May He be glorified and exaltShowing well beyond a shadow of a doubt Islam is NOT a faith of peace and mercy, so don't try to label as such.
And yet, Muslims don't all agree on Islam, hence you have your own factions that fight amongst each other. Some even get killed.
You do little more than add more evidence showing Islam to NOT be a faith of peace and mercy.
That isn't even remotely true.
@thirdmillenium Nope. Killing indescrimanently is against Islam. Ours is a faith of peace, mercy and submission to god (Allah). However, if attempts to force us to accept foreign religions ensue, particularly if they are accompanied with invasion into Muslim territories, we are commanded to not only resist, but overcome the invaders – utterly.
And on the issue of religious fanatics *sigh* yes, Islam has been attached to groups like these, but these groups are unrecognized by practicing Muslims as truly Islamic. You cannot go against the teachings of the Qur’an (the guide given to us by Allah swt and delivered by angel Jibreel to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)), The Sunnah (accounts of Prophet Mohammad’s’ life (PBUH)) nor the Hadiths (his sayings), and call yourself a Muslim. Islam, in this sense, is incorruptible. You do, or you do not do. You believe or you do not believe.
Additionally, we do not make allowances for innovations. In other words, just because it’s acceptable to be gay, does not mean we should change gods rules, and adapt to this innovation to appease popular, “modern” opinion. For the record (since I brought it up), homosexuality is considered a sin by Muslims, and corresponding acts are punishable by death. This does not, however, mean that we go out hunting gay people! It means that within the context of Islam (pertaining to Muslims), this is our law (Shari’ah).
Besides, thirdmillenium, there are people that attach their behaviors and theologies to others that truly practice faith to be found in any religion, sect or what have you. Nevertheless, media worldwide is quick to report and sensationalize just the guts, gore and ill-will that occur.
People are people, and all should be treated fairly, teaches the Qur’an. We are taught not to hate or deal unjustly with our oppressors, or those that hate us, because god is with and loves the just.
If you have any other questions, I’d be happy to do my best to answer them or direct you to someone that is more capable than I.
Key:
PBUH: A respectful term meaning Peace and Blessings Be Upon Him.
Swt (Subhanahu wa ta’ala): May He be glorified and exalt- rabbiaYposted 11 years ago0
I remember my history teacher quoting a saying by a writer whose name i cant recall............
."Islam is the best religion, and muslims are the worst people"
And though that cannot apply to all muslims ( i apoligize if i'v offeneded anyone) but that statement explains why non-muslims have so many questions regarding the religion of "ISLAM" because they see everything that MUSLIMS do being a part of the religion,,but sadly just like followers of many other religion we muslims do not have the knowledge of Islam that we should and we do not exemplify our religion in its entirety....... this gives out the message that ISLAM is at fault when really it is us MUSLIMS who aren't following it correctly........................The religion in itself is amazing......... the literal meaning of ISLAM being PEACE.@rabbiaY Islam means peace or submission?....anyways whether it is best religion or not is debatable...for that one needs to be aware about all 400 religions to reach to such conclusion...commenting before that would be immature part and emotional too...
Troubled Man-- Rest is OK but I expect you to not lie. Go and check the American Heritage Dictionary for the definition of Religion.
And by the way you forgot to call me baloney this time. If it makes you feel better, I don't mind.Why would anyone lie about the definition of religion when it is readily available to everyone.
Troubled Man-- Oh God-- you want people to work for you
. Following is the copy paste from American Heritage Dictionary.
NOUN:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY.
So, you see its not just a faith in Gods.And yet, that's exactly what it says in the definition you provided. It says nothing about anything else regarding our lives. Do you understand, now?
Troubled Man-- Now you are living up to your nick. Half the definition is about a life, principle, activity pursued and practices based on teachings of a spiritual leader.
The day will come when all we of faith will unite together and smite all the pagans of the world!
....After that, we'll get the Muslims and the Jews after each other, so that the Hindus and we Christians can divide the world in two amongst ourselves....
just like God intendedWhen did It intend hardware fragmentation?
One might ask was Catholicism a violent religion by launching the crusades? The Mongols accepted all religions but still waged war and slaughtered countless people. Evil is the issue and it hides behind doctrine or misguided believes to tear down civilized society.
How many Muslim fanatics are there? Look at history, Hitler was able to recruit millions of men to join his Browns shirts in a Catholic country and preach genocide. Mao launched the cultural revolution based on his own cult resulting in terror, torture and death recruiting millions of young people to commit acts of mayhem .
It's not the text of a book that makes people kill others.I think this quote sums up the Islam religion:
Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".
A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....JThomp42, if there were a like button, I would like your comment.
Christians and Jews used to say "you will die for what I believe", don't forget that.
Islam is a religion of Peace. It teaches us equality, love, unity & brotherhood. Islam wants the betterment of Humanity and wants to create a united society.
I am muslim. Islam is perfect, but I am not. If I make a mistake, blame me, but not my religion.
ALL religions are perfect...according to it's adherents. But when the religion instructs its followers to perform evil acts, what then? Is it still the fault of the follower or is a problem of the religion?
You can blame the devil if things go wrong.
Can we say that Islam is a perfect religion where a big majority of its followers are imperfect in interpreting and practicing the religion as per Quran? Then there must be some serious problem somewhere!
And this is the perfect answer for that,
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/43097?p … ost2696574Wonder if the devil is only from within your mind.
Only kindness and love can get into mind.I meant to say
Only love and kindiness is the only thing that is freely allowed to entre my mindLove and kindness is under my control. You think the Goveniment is in controls on who and how I love my job, relationship and the World. Govenment tries to play God, butt I'm the BOSS
Well let's all hope that good will prevail over evil and that truth will prevail over deceit and that all forms of fascism are rejected.
All religion (theos) is violent, vile and futile, be it the sensational or scientific approach.
For it or against it.
Religion, by definition, is the Moral Dilemma.Moral Dilemma
Makes senses
It may not coinicide with worldly ethics
ISIS seems to think Islam is a violent religion and is threatening two more beheadings:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/20/middl … index.htmlAnd the Japanese don't get involved unless they are attacked.
Japan donated $200 million to fight ISIS. This is why two Japanese are now being held for ransom. This is the statement from the video ISIS released:
"And to the Japanese public: Just as your government has made the foolish decision to pay $200 million to fight the Islamic State, you now have 72 hours to pressure your government into making a wise decision by paying the $200million to save the lives of your citizens.
"Otherwise, this knife will become your nightmare."Although the Japanese embassy has helped in some projects in Pakistan ... i wish japan would have pledged that money for the starving people all over the world instead, or for clean water supply projects. $200 million... how many would that look after.
The money Japan donated to fight ISIS will help the 2 million starving refugees who fled the ISIS advance and help stop the massacres and the refugee crisis which is still ongoing:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/d … camps-isisthanks didn't know that it was to help people. sure is a shame.
Japan's donation was for 'non-military' aid.
Most of ISIS' victims so far have been other Muslims. Reports have emerged that the Sunni populations of Pakistan and India are at great risk due to an alliance between the Taliban and ISIS. (Pakistani Taliban is the terrorist organization that sent gunmen into a school in Peshawar in December and killed 132 children, 9 adults, and wounded many others.)
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hafiz-saeed-kh … an-1484135I am only 2 hours away from Peshawar, and was there last week. The TTP (pakistani taliban) is a newish group and after the killings in Peshawar the original taliban (afghanistani) cut their ties with TTP. TTP are basically fighting against the Pakistan army which is why they attacked the army school in Peshawar. they have however sent threats to all the schools in Islamabad. If they were fighting only the sunni then they would not send threats like this because schools here contain a mix of sunni, shia and christian kids. their only purpose is revenge for what has happened to them. its nothing to do with Islam, its plain and simple revenge. my niece told me her school received a threat recently, where they sent white cloths (body bags) and told them to be ready. I don't think they will attack schools again because of the outrage of the people of Pakistan as well as the death penalty being allowed on all the captured terrorists of TTP.
I can see a blood-bath in the near future and i could probably be one of the people in the statistics of this war, but i'm sure TTP will not be able to take hold of any place in Pakistan. I have faith in our army... (in the top 10 Armies of the world).Not be so sure, it is not the ability of the army that decides, but the will and will can be manipulated.
over 100 army officers kids died recently... you think they will be lenient?
There are no absolute rulers, everyone needs support. Practicality trumps past emotions most of the time. If the taliban comes to power and offer the "needed support", the crucial people will change sides in the blink of an eye.
no one wants the taliban in Pakistan. your hate against the taliban is less if compared to a Pakistani's hate for the taliban (unless you belong to the tribal areas ... there is a mixture of emotions).
The public has no role, especially in a place like Pakistan which is not a true democracy. So it doesn't matter whether the people hate it or not, what matters is whether the people in the top echelons of power, people who matters, condone its rule.
Japan, like all civilized nations, will continue to fight ISIS and ISIL because these are savages. Why do you feel the need to justify what ISIS does...like pushing a human being off a cliff to his death? Like stoning a woman to death for adultery?
Through what possible religious tenet of faith can you EVER justify such brutality, savagery and inhuman acts?the same civilized japan you nuked not too long ago?
The same Japan who tortured our soldiers in WWII. Not even the Japanese stoned women for adultery. The Japanese have never forced women and ONLY women to walk around in black death shrouds because some middle eastern men are so sexually repressed they can only handle the sight of a woman's eyes.
a simple Google search shows how your civilized men treat women.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … agues.html
http://www.internationalpolicydigest.or … n-assault/
http://speier.house.gov/index.php?optio … ;Itemid=15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib … oner_abuse
there are a lot more results on google ... i just gave you the first 4.
look in the mirror before you talk.No matter how many links you post, you lose the argument when photos show ISIS males standing over a woman with rocks in their hands stoning her for adultery. You lose the argument when a photo is posted of an ISIS male standing over a Japanese man he is about to behead.
So..tell us...is this your idea of civility? Islam may not be a violent religion. But, if it preaches that women have to walk around in black death shrouds with only their eyes showing because some idiot Islamic male can't control his sexual desires, then I'm sorry but that kind of ancient Neanderthal BS is not acceptable in today's society.
It is what You Islamic males do TODAY that counts. Stop trying to regurgitate history to prove savagery is acceptable. It is NOT and NEVER will be. Be prepared for the entire world to hunt down ISIS like the animals they are.fine ... your men rape your women and our women and torture our women too and you still call yourselves civil?... now i understand why muslims can never be civil.
fyi ... i'm not in favor of ISIS at all... (i also read somewhere it stands for Israeli Secret Intelligence Service ... but i'll assume they are "muslim" for arguments sake)
i don't need to defend those fools who have lost their way. my purpose is to inform you what Islam really is. what ISIS is doing is not Islam ... and i am with you when you say hunt them down. I want them gone too... they are a disgrace to the teachings of Islam.No...Americans do not go around beheading, throw men off cliffs or stoning women. Stay on topic. Your culture of males are men who are so sexually repressed that you can't manage the sight of a woman's hair? By the way, I understand Muslim men have a real fetish about hair.
How many Americans know that Muslim men shave every tiny follicle of hair from their bodies and demand their women do the same? Didn't think I knew that. Did you? Sorry...that came from an American who married a Muslim.Seriously? you sound like a broken record ... it is amazing that you cannot see and accept what your people have done wrong. you need to take some time to see and accept the reality.
Every fossil is a little strong wordings ... but yes it is a rule of hygiene in Islam ... to cut the pubic hair when it grows older than 40 days or longer than a grain of rice, whichever comes first.
It is not the demand of the man that counts as in the case you mention. if the woman did not convert to a Islam when she married the muslim man then she is not obligated to follow this rule.
and i'm sorry it didn't work out between you guys.Arkys...When was the last beheading? When was the last woman stoned to death for adultery? Answers these questions and stop trying to prove how "RIGHT" you are. I'm not impressed with your posts for one reason. You lose an argument and then refuse to be an adult and admit you've been proven wrong. And, for your edification, I am not unaware that you support uncivilized men trying to ram their religion down our throats. It is NOT going to happen. There are 78.6 million Catholics in the US alone. When your religious fanatics manage that, let me know. Till then, I do not now nor EVER will accept any religion that is so lopsided as to treat women as second class citizens, dress them up in black death shrouds so men who can't control their sexual urges can rule like imams and califates. You are proof positive of just how far some will go to be in control of others.
That may work with women in the Middle East. Your Sharia laws are biased toward male supremacy. In the US, our government has laws for people like you who are gender biased. Now..do you plan to grow up and act like an adult or do you wish to continue your little child attitude?
hey Ewent,
wanted to share this specifically with you because it is related to the discussion we were having.
http://www.zemtv.com/2015/01/25/taliban … ournalist/
i'm not saying its the definitive word, but its an angle which most of us here in Pakistan see, and because its explained by an american you may consider to accept what he says.You might be on to something here. The mayor of London tends to agree with you: http://www.timesofisrael.com/london-may … ed-losers/
lol... i cannot argue with that... it probably is true.
while were are on the topic of sexual frustration... you may also want to note the number of rape cases worldwide. Muslim countries do not come near the western trends. i accept the fact that they may not be as many reported rape cases due to various reasons but still there is a huge gap. you can find the statistics on wiki.
which country would you feel a little safer to live in if you were a woman?
1. where men watch lots of porn to subside their sexual urges.
2. where men rape women to subside their sexual urges.
i would assume everyone would ideally prefer the first option.This is misleading, you know very well that rape is very much under reported or not reported in Muslim countries and if the women cannot prove that she is raped, she can be punished? [Rape in Pakistan has been notable, and continues to be a tool for suppressing women in the country - from wiki, and there is no statistics from Saudi or many muslim countries, not only that the definition of rape is broad in western but narrow in Muslim countries.] A western women can freely report the crime without the fear of reprisals and ostracism. A western women can live without a man, is that possible in Muslim countries?
If I were a women I would prefer to be in a western county where I can work, be free, do not need to be a co-wife, can complain if husband beats me, not accused of complicity in rape nor will be shunned or killed if I were raped.from your words it sounds like you haven't stepped into a Muslim country like Pakistan before. to answer your question... well if i look into my bloodline ... my aunt lived without a man for the past 20 years and raised her daughters who are now married and lives with her youngest son and daughter in law. I can give you thousands of examples of women living alone and raising their children. since we don't have the government unemployment schemes here... the families of those women help them get through life.
I did mention in my post that rape measurement was not accurate due to various reasons. the main reason being the loss of dignity of the woman in society. word of mouth is quite strong here, and i have heard of murders taking place in the vicinity but have never, ever heard of a woman or a girl being raped. fyi UAE is on the list, so is pakistan, and a few other muslim countries.
the point i was trying to make was .... so what if the men watch porn? so do the men in the west. the women probably watch some too in their own time. so what?Are they the rule or exception to the rule? In the core muslim countries is it applicable? Even in Pakistan in the NWFP? I am asking not about people who are independent out of necessity but choice.
No issues here. I am only asking whether a female can enjoy as much as freedom as a man can?NWFP was renamed to KP or KPK (khyberpakhtoonkhwa) a couple of years ago... the family dynamics or the culture there is that you will find between 20-50 members of the family in 1 house. they follow the joint family system therefore you will never find a woman living alone in those areas, unless something like a drone attack kills the rest of the family.
the borders of KP is only a 30 minute drive from Islamabad. I have been in the mountains and talked to the locals during the past year ... an example of how they inhabited the place is as follows. their forefathers found a valley where there was sufficient water and the 2 brothers built a house each on a side. with time the family grew and there was not enough space for the grandchildren to be married and live with their children ... so they were given land to build their own house within walking distance ... this procedure carried on until the valley was filled with people from the bloodline... some outsiders came and were allowed to settle there too. now there are about 200 houses filled with relatives in the same valley. the young respect the old and the men respect their women and help them out whenever they can. here i have seen women work among men in their farming fields and is considered a normal thing. the women teach in the schools too. the women there have the choice to do whatever they want and i've seen that the women there are more open and welcoming than the moderate muslim women you will find in the cities.
as you go deeper into KP things do change in terms of women leaving their houses but due to this kind of family dynamics in the mountains you will rarely find a woman living alone in a house. If they want to live completely separately from family then they will most likely move to a city.
in all of this you cannot just point towards religion and say that religion is the cause... there is family dynamics involved, social issues and many more things ... sure they follow a common religion but they have a different culture. Just because they have been brought up to pray 5 times a day no matter what, doesn't mean they are the ones who are following the real Islam... i have seen men who have come from deep within the KP region who strictly pray 5 times a day yet drink alcohol at every opportunity they get.
In the cities, where i have lived ... i have seen women having the same freedom as men, there is not much difference in the amount of freedom they have ... sure they are advised by their parents to be home by 10 pm or so if they are out with friends but so are the boys. A lot of gun fire and havoc starts very easily and quickly in a city like Karachi... I was lucky once where just before i left the house one evening when a rocket launcher was fired somewhere near our house which followed a 30 minute gun battle. Another time i arrived a little late at a friends house and saw cars and tires on fire near their street with the police patrolling the area but the fight had finished... in situations like this most parents would prefer that their children would stay at home, and it changes the mindset of the people living there without them noticing... its not about religion at that time, yet you may wish to see it as religion causing the issues where parents not letting their girls go out.
So my point being, separate the people from religion then decide if the religion is right or wrong. If you choose to judge religion based on what is being practiced then religion will always fail.Isn't Malala from that region?
My point.
religion is neither good not bad, it do not make people do NEITHER good nor bad, but religion tries to maintain status quo. It is against progress in any form. Religion is all about politics not GOD. In the golden age of Islam more people thought about god and expressed their ideas, but as political landscape changed that also changed. Then we also have to understand that the moment the well being of priests are threatened they respond, Al Hallaj was the natural culmination of free thought but he was executed because he was a threat.
By following doctrines one never find GOD but one will integrate better in the given society however barbaric it is.yes she's from Swat ... thats where the taliban came in and tried to take over the place... a lot of fighting went on there a few years ago and i think our army managed to sort it out.
at the moment our forces are fighting in Tirah ... i know a local from Tirah ... he is a tribal man... even his daughters go to school etc... probably not at the moment though with all the fighter jets bombing the place.
I agree with everything you have said in your point apart from the following,
Religion has been used and abused by politics. It is however still about God.I could have agreed with you if history had shown otherwise. Religion and politics (authoritarian) is a symbiosis. Religion legitimizes power. If religion was independent and was not for power, it would not have suppressed individual expressions of god and would never have done persecutions. Al Hallaj again is a great example he never threatened any political leader but only religious. This is the reason why democracy do not function in Islamic societies. Norway and Sweden where people identify themselves as atheistic or nominally Christians is where democracy has its greatest extent while Muslim middle east is authoritarian. Russia and India are classical examples, these countries are reverting to authoritarianism and to more fundamentalism, Russia more so.
so does democracy. you give supreme powers to a group of individuals who govern the state.
Democracy can function in Islamic societies. If not completely then at least away from the authoritarian class you categorized it to be.
There are concepts in Islam such as shura (consultation), ijma (consensus), al-hurriyya (freedom), al-huqquq al-shar'iyya (legitimate rights) in islam. Examples of, shura (3:159, 42:38) may include electing leaders to represent and govern on the community’s behalf. A hint of implementation of this system is described below.
"In the early Islamic Caliphate, the head of state, the Caliph, had a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad's political authority, who, according to Sunnis, were ideally elected by the people or their representatives, as was the case for the election of Abu Bakr,Umar bin Alkhattab Uthman and Ali as Caliph. After the Rashidun Caliphs, later Caliphates during the Islamic Golden Age had a much lesser degree of democratic participation, but since "no one was superior to anyone else except on the basis of piety and virtue" in Islam, and following the example of Muhammad, later Islamic rulers often held public consultations with the people in their affairs.
The legislative power of the Caliph (or later, the Sultan) was always restricted by the scholarly class, the ulama, a group regarded as the guardians of the law. Since the law came from the legal scholars, this prevented the Caliph from dictating legal results. Laws were decided based on the ijma (consensus) of the Ummah (community), which was most often represented by the legal scholars. In order to qualify as a legal scholar, it was required that they obtain a doctorate known as the ijazat attadris wa 'l-ifttd ("license to teach and issue legal opinions") from a madrasa. In many ways, classical Islamic law functioned like a constitutional law." ~wiki
"Ahmad Moussalli (professor of political science at the American University of Beirut) argues that despotic Islamic governments have abused the Quranic concepts for their own ends: "For instance, shura, a doctrine that demands the participation of society in running the affairs of its government, became in reality a doctrine that was manipulated by political and religious elites to secure their economic, social and political interests at the expense of other segments of society". ~ wiki
the view of Ahmad Mousaalli is again an example of what i have tried to say throughout our discussion. People modifying rules to suit their needs... it is not the religion at fault, it is the people.Democracy does not give supreme power. It will not let the leaders to rule as authoritarian. India and Russia are not examples of democracy. Religion legitimatizes authoritarian despots , monarchs and tyrants, not people power.
Yes, if they becomes less Islamic. Even christianity whose founder is supposed to have "communist" ideas, who was not an authoritarian(or less authoritarian) is not conducive to democracy. The west became a democracy only by turning away from religion (albeit incompletely)
The power of a ruler is restricted only by the people who support it. Democracy is good only because the leader needs more people's support. As the base of support increases(by necessity) , the power becomes more diffused. Caliphs or any other despots(monarchs, kings, chieftains,..) the base is only a few people and it is such people who need religion more, to legitimize their tyranny.
""Ahmad Moussalli (professor of political science at the American University of Beirut) argues that despotic Islamic governments have abused the Quranic concepts for their own ends: "For instance, shura, a doctrine that demands the participation of society in running the affairs of its government, became in reality a doctrine that was manipulated by political and religious elites to secure their economic, social and political interests at the expense of other segments of society". ~ wiki"
It is the other way round, all religion is for rulers to maintain power, and to keep the populace subdued. It is the elites who make and propagate religion, the good people have only god no religion. It is the elites who try to convert and it is for power."democracy. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies." ~ dictionary.com
no, if they become more Islamic. Madrassa was a place where people learn laws etc, as stated in my earlier comment. today a madrassa is reduced to kids learning the quran by heart without even knowing the meaning. it cannot be called a true madrassa.
you missed the point ... the power stays in the hands of the literate... no one said upper class... would you choose an illiterate person to run the country in a democracy? i don't think it works that way.
I agree there is room for politics and people pushing for their own benefits on way or another, but honestly, i have seen politics even in the smallest firms i have worked for. I have seen people pushing for power too in these places ... and this is a place where in a way no religion exists. So do you really think removing religion from the equation will solve the hunger for power in people?It is my fault that I was not specific, Authoritarian politics is what I meant like chieftainship, monarchy, tyranny, despotism, oligarchy.
Even America is not a true democracy, is it? American president doesn't need the support of even 50% of the total population. Imagine the worst case scenario, he only needs 10% of the support, even that is a huge number pf people. If America was an authoritarian one, he needs support of only a 100, even if we extent it to the maximum support, it is still less than 10000. In democracy the benefit extends to more people compared to authoritarian.
How many were there in Madrassa? How many control it? It is a minority.
Politics is all pervasive, even authoritarian but a firm is different from a nation, isn't it?
Power does not need to be literate, your Prophet was not literate. Most of the ancient kings were illiterate. A modern example, the great Mughal Akbar was illiterate.
I do not, but I think removing religion can remove, to an extent, the legitimacy of authoritarian rule.there is not just one madrassa... there would be many and with time the numbers would grow as more people got educated. the current madrassa's do not follow the original concepts therefore i would not mind if the current system was scrapped as it fulfills no real positive purpose.
i may not have put the question out properly... in a democratic environment would you vote for an illiterate man/woman?
while i agree there has been a lot of garbage accumulated over the time with regards to religion, and i'm with you when you are standing against authoritarian rule. this authoritarian rule will not end unless we make efforts to educate the masses... the lack of education is a main cause in allowing this to happen in the first place. there will always be an inner desire for authority in humans. the only way you can diffuse a person is when you have equal or more knowledge, when they cannot obtain that power through fair means they resort to politics. but the first step is to educate people. then you may see it was never the fault of religion.How many Madrassas and people in that Madrasas with any saying in power? That is a minority. The Madrasa exist to provide a job for local Ulamas and nothing else.
"whoever rebels against one of the Imamas of the Muslims - once the people have agreed upon him, and asknowleded him as Caliph....... that rebels have broken with the community and fdeviated from the rtaditional practice.....by god.....fighting against authority is not permitted nor is anyone permitted to rebel against it. Whoever deos so is an unlawful innovator, outside the sunna and the way" Ahmad ibn Hanbal. This was what was taught in Madrasas, this made people obedient not wanting democracy.
Depending upon the person, if he has shown his ability and mettle, why not? But what is the relevance?
Well I have to disagree with you to a certain extent. Education is not going to liberate, one thing. Second authoritarians will not allow education beyond the basics even if the populace desires it. This has nothing to do with religion but a basic rule for the survival of authoritarians (there are exceptions too, like Singapore) for authoritarians need money to survive but not a population that is beyond its means to control. A land with natural resources, there is no way an authoritarian can be toppled unless by external intervention, so here the legitimacy provided by religion will be a hindrance. On the other hand, a land without any resources, external help is the problem and religion may or may not help.if the madrassa really taught what is right then i would not mind the ulema getting paid for it.
chosen leaders have normally been educated. so if the power remains within the literate then what harm is there in the degree holders of a madrassa. anyone can twist facts, doesn't have to be only religious people... just saying.
true... it is very hard to get out of the authoritarian system. Pakistan is in the middle of fighting it too. there are a few families who run the country and power goes from one end to the other. it is not a system which is liked by the general public, but as awareness (knowledge) increases things are changing. you are right in saying some external forces need to be applied. heavy military actions have been taken to clear the air in some circumstances.But they have no say in power. Not only that Madrasas teach conformity. They teach to think and behave a particular way. It is not by conformity one seeks god but by free thinking. Madrasas make one follow rules and be in the confines of religion and people are happy with the certainty and the conformity it brings but they will never seek or reach god.
There is no harm except that they try to impose the laws of 8th and 9th century. They are backward looking than forward looking. But in an authoritarian govt they do not have much say either way. It is not the one who is educated but the one who decides what to be taught who has the upper hand.I agree free thinking must be encouraged as much as it is encouraged in the Quran. you may note the words "for those who ponder" appear quite often, yet it is not widely practiced. Many a time it has happened to myself when i ask tough and difficult questions i get told to stop the nonsense and stop worrying about what we don't know... if we all did that then how would the human race gotten so far now. I agree with you 100% that free thinking must be encouraged.
this may work in your society where children are given choices to make. in many other places people have no choice, especially children. there is no upper hand ... the only way is to go through the system and stay alive and be lucky enough to be able to provide for your family... if you are able enough then you have the upper hand in choosing where your child goes to be taught. but most of the time you get brainwashed because of lack of interaction with the outside world, and the vicious cycle continues generation after generation.
Many of the madrassas in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are funded by Saudi Arabia and actually teach Wahhabi terrorism.
This is a fact which doesn't get much publicity. Here is more information:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … assas.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yousaf … 01916.html
Certainly there are many Muslims who do not agree with these teachings; but the fact that terrorism is taught by some forms of Islam cannot be ignored and the horrific acts committed by the adherents of those teachings will never be ignored.
Although most world leaders and political science professors understand which forms of Islam teach terrorism and which do not, the average person in western societies does not understand these differences. Consequently, there is an increasing perception that all of Islam teaches and supports terrorism against people of other religions.Saudi sure is no angel... without looking at the articles you shared, i believe what you said about them. i agree with your statement about madrassa's of today. you may remember general Musharraf of Pakistan and the lal-masjid issue in Islamabad - 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Lal_Masjid
I was with Musharraf that day and I will be with him if he ever takes another stance against such institutions. Many Muslims in Pakistan including many of my educated friends turned against Musharraf after the incident and they blame him for the Peshawar attack. they say Musharraf made a mistake to open fire on them. I say he made the mistake of letting many of them live.
everyone just gets too emotional when religion is involved and they overlook serious issues which need to be addressed. another account which you may not have heard of is the teacher in the madrassa who took advantage of a kid then slit the kids throat. when caught he blamed it on the devil. these are the kind of people makes the blood boil. seeing people like this makes others turn away from religion. these are the kind who will be heavily punished in the hereafter too.
so who are the kind of kids who go to these madrassa's ... well mostly kids of the poor. the poor cannot afford to feed their kids so they let the madrassa's take care of them and the parents visit once in a while. If they were educated they could have means of having enough to support their families. this is another reason why i'm stressing on education. the more people are able to support their families, the less kids go out of hand.
taking religion out of the equation is not a realistic method to change anything. its more like wishful thinking. the education way will not fix things overnight but i'm sure its a realistic way forward.
I agree arksys. The Bible tells what sin is AND says that GOD is the judge. We want to be judges and that means taking God's job. We see past the large poles in our eyes to see the tiny needles in the eyes of others.
To be clear, I am not a supporter nor condoner of what Daesh is/stands for.
But, it must be clarified that they are [no doubt] going to succeed in the restoration of the Ottoman (Sunni-based) Empire, which was watered down to Palestine and further watered down to the Transjordan region, and finally watered down to the Balkan-ized regions we currently call the Levant.
If history is any indication, less than 85 years ago, these Balkan-ized areas, which are now called the states of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Golan, West Bank, Gaza, Israel, Jordan, etc., did not exist. They were formed from the British and French mandates just after WW2, completing the cycle of the total dissolution of the Ottoman Empire / Transjordan / Palestine territory.
The people behind Daesh know this. As does the States, Britons and especially the French. Rather than stop the happening, they fueled, funded, trained and encouraged them, to be used as pawns, as hired thugs. The brainchild grew too strong for its masters and now has them in total chaos -evidenced by over 2,000 airstrikes x 2 missiles each, between a coalition of 100 countries, and a laundry list of other effects from petrol prices to food. Yet still they persist and expand even more rapidly, now into North Africa (also once a large portion of the OE) as well as the hedges of Europe. The sad irony is the "force" believed to stave off Daesh are the Kurds. A people disliked by all its neighbors yet given the promise of the State of Kurdistan (with Western occupation, naturally). A strategic crescent country buffering Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria to keep them all in check?
History is an interesting thing.
And religious history even more interesting.
The religious future is not going to be so interesting.I cannot fathom the polls I have read regarding sharia in islam. I cannot fathom the uhm context, proposition or premise of the poll itself. The requisite or need for a poll like that, seems outlandish, in and of itself
Paraphrasing (badly I admit) :
Should people be killed for leaving islam? Yes, No, undecided?
Should people be stoned to death?
Should people be killed for insulting islam? Yes, No, Maybe?
Should people have their hands cut off? Raise your hand if you agree?
If the need for the poll itself is not alarming enough, the results are terrifying. Who printed these polls? Did they think it was a sick joke? Can anyone imagine weighing the decision and marking the poll accordingly? Has the world gone completely insane? Do you punch out the chads of a poll like that with a sharp object or a blunt instrument?interesting to see that half the muslims don't know that the sharia is derived by men and not the word of god. thanks for sharing this... there is a lot to be learnt from this especially for muslims.
So are the hadiths.
And you only have the word of your parents that quran is the word of god. Did god ever tell you?
Islam, is it a violent religion?
The question should be, is it the most violent religion NOW?Islam has been the same from day 1.
adding the word "now" means its the muslims of today at fault, not the religion itself, therefore will not support your arguments... you'll have to think a bit harder. lose the emotion and you'll perform better. i'm not going anywhere.The major present religions were all violent some or other time in their history except probably the major Chinese ones including Buddhism, and that is why I added "now", as a comparative analysis(MOST....now). I never said it was non violent.
If Islam was the same from day 1 it is a violent religion for it started with violence (from its tradition). Though it never repudiated violence, it was less violent and was more scientific than the west (read christianity) between 9th and 12th century.violence was in the people of the time... the first few battles of islam were only to defend islam... its a matter of perception ... look from muhammad's point of view standing today you could say he was being attacked for his "freedom of speech"... he did not hold the sword at people to join islam... people believed in him (shows character) and followed his path on their own .... but if you call defending yourself violent too then sure i agree with you 100% ... it was violent from day 1.
No, the first battles were stated by muslims. After conquering Mecca, armies were sent out to conquer. Armies were sent even to Byzantium. It didn't start as a defensive war, but as an offensive one. Muhammad's followers attacked Meccan caravans. Meccans were reacting against raiders. Even after the peace treaty, it was first broken by Muslims.
Did you here me blaming Muhammad? [Muhammad did what any ruler of that time did. He cursed t his people, he insulted them, their customs and gods. They resorted to violence only when it became intolerable (one only have to compare how Muhammad was treated with how Muhammad treated the poets). Any preacher can get followers, so getting followers doesn't mean anything other than that the preacher is charismatic. Once Muhammad was out of Mecca, after the peace treaty who started the attack?] It was fit for that time and place. A tribal society with barbaric rules, his rules were progressive to that time, but regressive today. It was applicable only to that particular time and place, not eternally applicable.I stopped after your first sentence.
i was talking about before mecca... the initial stages ... the muslims were driven out of mecca... they had battles in between.Then read it fully, it is not a good habit to answer before knowing what the other person said, nor the answer will be correct.
Muslims were driven out because they insulted the local people. Then they started raiding Meccan caravans.insulted by freedom of speech ... freedom of thought ... freedom of belief?
You ask your prophet or his followers which of these insulted them that they decided to kill the poets, decided to attack neighboring tribes and nations, they will tell you. You can also ask the present followers which of these they find offensive in a few cartoonists, novelists or a few scholars who genuinely doubt the authenticity of Islamic tradition.
And don't say it is the 'so called pagans' of Arabia started it all first.
I know, but the modern scholarship is more an more in favor of the theory that most of Arabs of that time were christians and jews and not pagans.
Muhammad insulted the Quraysh is the tradition.if you say the christians and jews were there at the time then it would change many things. for example ... removal of idols from the kaaba etc ... also when the prophet told his men to go to the christian king for help/shelter... i think that was Abyssinia. every story would fall out of place. but we can only speculate, since we were never there.
Not entirely speculation. There was Christian/Jewish Kingdom near Yemen (Himyar) and remains of church/es were found in Yemen. Ghassanids and Lakhmids were Christians and Christianity was a proselytising religion. The earlier Jewsih also were a proselytising religion. Khadeeja went to her Christian cousin according to tradition. There were the jewish tribes of medina. During the time of Quran arab letters have no vowel markings and hadiths were finalised only during Abbasid periods. Isinads are similar to the pseudoepigraphy of bible. Though there were scribes to write down the constitution of Medina none bothered to write down the most important things the prophet said.
But for me that is not the most important thing, the Arabian Peninsula do not have the resources to create and support an empire. Neither they had the best horses nor the superior weaponary of the later Mongols. Even with the oil power Saudi is nothing but an average nation. You know the first historically attested Khalifa, Muwaviya (Umayyads) was based in Syria while Abbasids were in Bhagdad.
Abbysinia or Ethiopia - The Christian Kingdom of Axum, just across the sea.yes there were jewish people around at the time ... hazrat umar had jewish neighbours. its a shame they didn't realize to utilize the scribes at the time of the prophet. would be more reliable.
some interesting facts... thanks for sharing.Why do you think they failed to employ scribes even though there were many or even write it down immediately after his death?
I heard from another person (not sure it is correct or not) that afterthe battle of Badr, prophet utilised the prisoners of war to teach his followers how to read and right.I think because they had a great line-up of potential leaders living during the time of the prophet... they just didn't need to write the rules because they were with the prophet everyday and when the companions ruled they knew to use their best judgement. or Maybe it wasn't meant to be noted or emphasized as much as it has been... the focus was on the Quran.
Badr was the initial stages. there were literate people with the prophet before badr. they had written verses down and the message was relayed to various people in mecca through the scribes.
came across this video recently ... wanted to share with everyone who's following this thread.
http://www.zemtv.com/2015/01/25/taliban … ournalist/Don't you think it as a lame excuse? They could have wrote down immediately after his death. If focus was on Quran, and it it was god's word, it should have been written down. According to the story (Moses), even god knows a mere saying of the rules are not enough and he himself wrote it down.
And there is a curious parallel with Jesus too, both didn't write a word, both were considered by their followers as the most important persona till that time, yet the followers of both forgot to write what they taught.
I was merely pointing to the fact that in addition to scribes there were lay people who could read and write.
The audio volume is too low. I can only read that America is behind the attacks. Sounds like some conspiracy theory. But I still blame America, unless America give aid on condition of Pakistan delivering the promises, such attacks will continue.it definitely could be seen as a lame excuse, but sometimes the truth also sounds lame. I have no explanation as to why it did not happen while he was alive or right after his death.
There were three main groups of early converts to Islam: younger brothers and sons of great merchants, people who had fallen out of the first rank in their tribe or failed to attain it, and the weak, mostly unprotected foreigners (The Cambridge History of Islam (1977), p.36). A minority also included slaves who were purchased by Abu bakr to be set free in accordance with Muhammad's principle of equality.
With such kind of people converting to Islam I agree that there were many people who were able to read and write in addition to the scribes.
Arksys,
You said Islam has been the same from day 1.
I think that is the fundamental problem. There is perhaps no proper evolution.
C.VC.V,
That is a good observation, but what i meant was the principles have and always will be the same, but there is evolution or new rules added if you like.
as an example: the prophet set the principle of dealing honestly when selling goods like milk. after the prophet passed hazrat umar found out that people were mixing water in the milk to gain on their sales. Umar then gathered a group of men and women who used to monitor the markets to make sure the people were not cheated. (note: both seller and buyer were muslims) ... therefore evolved into a monitoring system of markets.
so if you let me re-phrase then ... the principles have been the same from day 1.
Irfan.Irfan,
In Hinduism, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to say that the scriptures contain sugar and sand mixed together. The earnest seeker should take the sugar and discard the sand. Fortnately, in Hinduism, great spiritual masters come from time to time and guide the people on the righteous path suited to the times.
That's how a bold statement by Ramakrishna as stated above is possible in Hinduism. Probably if any Islamic saint says so about Quran, he would probably be beheaded!you are probably right about the chopping of the head if someone tried to change the rules of the Quran. No one changes the Quran but we do have fatwa's which are issued according to the time by scholars of Quran. that is where the evolution you speak of comes from in Islam. They are not mandatory but more like an advise of what to do if you're not sure.
Ah! I think the the problem is with "scholars" interpreting the Quran. In Hinduism scholars can interpret scriptures in any way they like and keep arguing with other scholars. But they have no authority. It is saints/ spiritual masters/ Avatars/ Gnyanis to whom people go to understand true spirituality and get spiritual guidance.
Followers take the word of realized masters, because they know that what a saint interprets will be in line with dharma and the spirit of the scriptures rather than the "words" of the scriptures.
(Again, there may be groups of people not acknowledging a Realized master and they may even oppose his guidelines. That's part and parcel of the variety of scope available in Hinduism).similar to you we do have "Qalandars" who are spiritual leaders and with time become very influential people. Many follow their routes and because of their closeness with the Almighty. you also get a number of phony leaders this way.
The problem we have is that mazaars are made in their names (where they are buried) and people go to these mazaars and ask that person to pray for them. These people have taken it too far because in Islam you only ask and need Allah, and that is why most of the sects do not follow or have stopped using this culture.
but looking at the big picture i would agree that there are only scholars and since they differ in opinons and interpretations there are people who follow them and others that don't ... but no real leader who has come along to correct things... In the ideal Islamic environment this would be the job of the caliph of the time, which today does not exist.
Jihad, that should answer the question. The nonbelievers are infidels and need to be decimated. Strife within, strife outside. A romantic gun toting cowboyish movement where the stray cattle and horses are to be lassoed and tamed to remain within the fence.
lol ... the Indians are in the house ladies and gents... dunno why i get the feeling buddinsense and Nithya Sree are your friends? I could be wrong, but it doesn't matter.
By the way ... that 58 year old hindu lady in Bihar who saved the lives of 10 muslims 4 days ago deserves a medal. its was sad to hear that the wrong-doers managed to burn 3 muslims alive though... My grandmother lived in Bihar too and Hindu's helped her escape to Pakistan during the rough times. Proud to be a Bihari. (jo na katay aari se, woh katay bihari se)
Back to the topic,
you just wrote your own interpretation of Jihaad... which Jihaad are you talking about? the greater jihaad or the lesser jihaad? also seems you quoted the Quran ... you need to add the chapter and verse so i know where you are quoting from. try again please if you are interested in clearing your mind about islam... if you only want to say what you want to say then go ahead and get it off your chest. trust me you'll feel better. i'm listening.
Sorry I don't know about the last beheading or the last woman to get stoned. It's not on the news here ever. Mostly only shown in the west to show how cruel we are. You would argue that we may like to hide it or whatever. Ypu can believe what you have seen and I will believe what I have seen.
I did get curious during this discussion if in fact our women did feel repressed or lower than a man so I asked a few I know.
Question put forward was : do you feel any lesser than a muslim man being a Muslim woman?
An answer from a convert friend who has been practicing Islam and studying for 2 years:
Islam doesn't make me feel lesser, Islam makes me understand my value and how we are to be honoured and respected. Muslim men however, don't seem to read the same message from the texts...I guess everyone reads with bias.
Second answer from another acquaintance who was born in a Muslim family:
Not at all. I feel much more stronger! To understand equality you must first understand islamic society, What it is supposed to be like in Medina when prophet was governing...
From this and what I see around me everyday I can safely say that Islam is not at fault... It is the men who follow wrongly who are at fault. So when you stop blaming Islam and start blaming the people who are not following the teachings of Islam, I will agree with you everytime.I saw a youtube video of a woman that was being bull-whipped. While there was a "crowd of people watching" the man bull-whip this woman, she was screaming. The supposed reason for the bull-whipping was because she had worn a pair of pants in public. I was curious if this was a valid reason. I am thinking if it is about keeping covered up, or to keep from "provoking desire" from the men, that pants would serve that purpose just as well as a black, head to toe dress or whatever? Is there a rule against pants?
i've even heard that wearing a tie is wrong from many ignorant muslims. The main reason for whipping is probably not because of the clothing item itself. What hurts them the most is change in which most muslims are now imitating the west in dressing. There is nothing wrong in wearing pants for male or female as long as they are not too tight (I.e: highlighting the figure), and as long as the required areas are covered you can do whatever you like. The people who whip have made their own rules.
There is nothing wrong in wearing pants for male or female as long as they are not too tight? Right or wrong ways of dressing? If not a whip, what is the punishment for "wrong dressing"? What if women just wear whatever they want? If there is right or wrong dressing "rules" then a woman that dresses wrong is at the very least a target.
as far as i know there is no punishment for dressing however you want. If the people whipped her for wearing jeans, they will be punished for their ignorance by Allah. This could be seen an example of 'Biddah' (addition in the teachings of Islam), which leads straight to hell even if you claim to be the most pious muslim. (even if a thousand others testify)
Islam only encourages dressing modestly for both men and women. I cannot explain it better than the person who wrote this article. please go through it if you have the time. http://www.mwlusa.org/topics/dress/hijab.html
It definitely is not Islam. I felt crushed when they killed the second Japanese man. I have a great respect for the Japanese because they have so much discipline and have excelled in becoming such a strong economy after the nuclear attack. They also aid Pakistan in various areas and never boast about it. I just did not want to see anything negative to happen to them.
Jordan did the right thing by executing 2 ISIS prisoners. I hope they execute all of them. It is a disease we need to get rid of.
After the killings of children in Peshawar the government brought back the death penalty in Pakistan then started executing the prisoners of the Taliban in Pakistan... Unfortunately it only lasted a week or so with a handful executed. The rest have not been executed and I don't understand why not. Corrupt officials are most probably the cause.
Last week Friday someone bombed a Shia mosque in shikarpur killing 53. Our Friday's are like your Sunday's where everyone goes on that day and that's when the bomb went off. Once again sunni Muslims like myself have to stand up and openly declare to the shia that we are not against them and we stand united against this violence on the shia (minority). I had to reassure my own friends who are Shia too... There is just too many reassuring going on on this side but only a handful will take your word for it. I can at least sit comfortably and know that I tried as best I could to keep the unity between Muslims as well as to help clear the stain on Islam.
You are a strong woman to endure all that during your lifetime. God is with those who have patience, and you are never given more burden than you can bear. In tough times we normally give more to the needy than usual to help ease our issues. Even a smile to a stranger is considered as a charity (doesn't need to be monetary). I would suggest you try it if it doesn't create a conflict with your belief system.
You will be in my prayers and Inshallah (God willing) your boss will come around.
Take care and God bless.Comrad Stalin,Mao tse tung and their best buddy Adolf Hitler are on the list of the top mass murderers in history. Non of them are muslims, in fact they did not have true religion.
In my opinion human race will always have ups and downs.
To blame it on religion alone is superficial, blame it on the person doing the killings.You are correct that the person doing the violence is responsible and to blame, but if he follows the Quran's command to commit that violence then the Quran is also responsible. Isn't that also correct? The Quran says to kill all non-believers doesn't it? To chop off their fingers and heads, etc? Make it hard on them and their families to make them convert? It also says to punish in violent ways for other things that people may do that is against Islamic rules. Pedophilia is allowed in the Quran, therefore it is also wrong as the man is wrong for committing those acts. It also says that a man can have sex with an animal such as a goat or sheep or camel but then he has to kill that animal after he has had his "heavenly feeling". Is that not in the Quran? Is this also permitted for this day as well as ancient times? The Quran is the Bible of the Islamic religion, right? Therefore Islam is ultimately responsible and will be held guiltless for all the murders and violence committed by the humans it has influenced to commit these violent acts against humanity and animals. Islam condemns itself. It certainly is a violent religion. I blame it on the Religion as well because it influences the person to do the killing.
Barbara ... i'm not sure which Quran you have been reading, but i can assure you it is not the Quran which teaches all that you have mentioned. I know you have a personal grudge against Islam but please try to look at things without bias. If you have specific quotes then please do share them and i will try to clear the misconceptions, that is, if you are really interested in knowing the truth of the Quran.
I do not have a personal grudge, I have a personal dislike of Islam because of what the Quran tells it's followers to do to others which is violent and not even human but demonic and hateful. I will post some of these verses here for you to explain to us what they mean. It is not just these verses but the people who are obeying them that I am against.
1. Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them". What the heck is that? A Horrible, peaceful religion. Is not the prophet telling believers to do this literally? It is right there in black and white.
2. Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
3. Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
4. Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad
5.Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally.
6.Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.
7. Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
There are many other verses about starting wars and killing non-believers.
I'll start with those verses. Thanks.1. Quran (8:12 - 8:15) When your Lord revealed to the angels: “I am with you. So, make firm the feet of those who believe. I shall cast awe into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So, strike at the necks, and strike at every finger-joint of theirs.” (12) That is because they were hostile to Allah and His Messenger; and whoever becomes hostile to Allah and His Messenger, then, Allah is severe at punishment. (13) That is what you have to taste, and for the disbelievers is the (further) punishment of the Fire. (14) O you who believe, when you face the disbelievers in a battle, do not turn your backs to them. (15)
It is a story which is talking about war. you may note that in 8:13 it does say it is because they were hostile. the thing to note here is the quran teaches us peace, but it also teaches us to be firm with those who act against us.
2. Quran (9:1 - 9:7) Here is a disavowal (proclaimed) by Allah and His Messenger against the Mushriks (polytheists) with whom you have a treaty. 1 (1) So, move in the land freely for four months, and be aware that you can never frustrate Allah, and that Allah is going to disgrace the disbelievers. (2) And here is an announcement, from Allah and His Messenger, to the people on the day of the greater Hajj, 2 that Allah is free from (any commitment to) the Mushriks, and so is His Messenger. Now, if you repent, it is good for you. And if you turn away, then be aware that you can never frustrate Allah. And give those who disbelieve the ‘good’ news of a painful punishment. (3) Except those of the Mushriks with whom you have a treaty, and they were not deficient (in fulfilling the treaty) with you, and did not back up any one against you. So fulfill the treaty with them up to their term. Surely, Allah loves the God-fearing. (4) So, when the sacred months expire, kill the Mushriks wherever you find them, and catch them and besiege them and sit in ambush for them everywhere. Then, if they repent and establish Salah and pay Zakah, leave their way. Surely, Allah is most Forgiving, Very-Merciful. (5) And if any one of the Mushriks seeks your protection, give him protection until he listens to the Word of Allah, then let him reach his place of safety. 3 That is because they are a people who do not know. (6) How can the Mushriks have a treaty with Allah and His Messenger? Except those with whom you made a treaty near Al-Masjid-ul-Haram . Then, as long as they remain straight with you, you too remain straight with them. Surely, Allah loves the God-fearing. (7)
In order to understand these verses, it is necessary to note that the polytheists in Arabia were of four categories as regards their political relationship with the Muslims: (a) Those who had entered a peace treaty with the Muslims for an indefinite period. Verse 1 declares the termination of such a treaty, but verse 2 allows a period of four months for such people before the termination takes effect. In other words, the terms of the treaty are allowed to be continued for four months only. (b) Those who had a treaty for a definite period, and did not violate its terms. Verse 4 directs the Muslims to honor the treaty up to the agreed period, no matter how long it may be. But after the expiry of the agreed term, it will not be renewed, and the disavowal will be operative. (c) Those who had no treaty with the Muslims at all. Such people are again allowed (in verse 2) a period of peace for four months. (d) Those who had a treaty with the Muslims but breached it on their own initiative (like Quraish). Such people did not deserve any respite, but the disavowal having been announced in the Sacred Months, no war could be waged against them during this period. The Muslims are therefore directed to fight against them only after the expiry of the Sacred Months. (verse 5) As explained in the introduction, the basic purpose of this announcement was that the Arabian Peninsula, the base of Islam, had to be cleansed from polytheism. The polytheists have been given these different periods to think about their future and to decide whether they are convinced to accept Islam, or they wished to leave the land and live elsewhere, or to face war. Since all these rules must have been clearly conveyed to the relevant parties, the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) directed his noble Sahabah Abu Bakr (R.A.A) and ‘Ali (R.A.A) to announce them at the time of Hajj in year 9 A.H. (See verse 3). It should also be borne in mind that the rules mentioned above are restricted only to the Arabian Peninsula. In other Muslim states, the non-Muslims may live as minority citizens with all their civil rights safeguarded, so far as they submit to the laws of the Islamic state.
I have to step out right now, but will come back to answer the rest for you at a later stage. One thing you need to keep in mind is that the quran tells you stories about the past and about a specific set of people. it also covers many wars therefore you will find violence in it. We are not under those circumstances today therefore it does not apply to us.Why, aren't the polytheists human? Muhammad usurped power in Medina, according to the islamic tradition it was Muhammad himself who broke the treaty with Mecca (we do not get to hear the Meccan version), so what right muslims have in waging war against Arabia or killing them?
In non muslims states will the muslims live as minority citizens submitting to the laws of that state?yes they are supposed to follow the laws of that state. It is not their land therefore the Muslim laws do not apply.
A delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community.
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Medina
you have to get your facts right first. twisting facts according to what you want to believe is something i cannot help you with.I have my facts right, he was called as an arbitrator not as a ruler, you yourself acknowledge that. Then he became the ruler and do not forget, the history is one sided. We do not know anything about what Medina people wanted. We have a glimpse though, he had two banish two tribes and kill another.
why would someone call Muhammad as a chief arbitrator of a city, if he was so wrong? I mean would you even think to advise anyone to call upon an ISIS member to come as a chief arbitrator of any city of the world today? I definitely would not.
It shows the greatness of character that Muhammad possessed.It indeed defy commonsense and logic, didn't it, that a preacher who is detested by his own tribe is suddenly called upon by a "small" town 275 miles away to be the arbitrator and he became the ruler?
Even if we take it for granted, it was the common practice then,wasn't it, according to tradition, a neutral man of another tribe to be called upon as arbitrator/judge? After it was resolved the judge cease to be anyone special, he is not made a ruler of all the tribes concerned.
You say Muhammad was fighting for freedom of speech and belief, for whom? Why didn't he allow freedom of speech of his rivals?
Muhammad and his followers were a minority and they DIDN"T follow the rules of the tribe is the reason why they tried to kill him, it is the same thing Muhammad did to those who didn't follow him.
But think about it, they didn't tried to kill him first. According to tradition they give him all freedom, money and promised even assistance if he desist from INSULTING their tradition, the rituals of their forefathers. They never asked him not to follow his religion, all they asked was not to insult their gods in public contrast that against what Muhammad and his followers did to the poets. They didn't tried hard to kill him is evident by the fact that his protection was withdrawn in the year 619 and he continued to live their till 622. Only when the Quraysh suspected that he was plotting against them and was assimilating an army to fight them they really started to try to kill him. After all it is not difficult to kill, the difficulty is in saving someone.See this is where you skip the step and overlook a few things.... you think he was not attacked at all, but it is clear that he was attacked many times, from individuals and in some cases tribes. The did not let him live so he fought back. you have to understand this point.
they were given the freedom of belief and were allowed to practice their religion otherwise there would be no minorities left in the arab region.
I think you have your facts a little mixed up... wherever i read i see he was attacked first or a treaty was broken. people did not let him stand, then he retaliated and even went to war because of this. your version of history makes him seem quite bad and ruthless, but what we learn and what i'm reading from wiki is different to what you say.
What gave him the right of being a ruler in Medina?
"The Constitution of Medina (Arabic: دستور المدينة, Dastūr ul-Madīnah or صحيفة المدينة Ṣaḥīfat ul-Madīnah), also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, Christians[1] and pagans.[2][3] This constitution formed the basis of the first Islamic state. The document was created to bring to an end the bitter inter-tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, Christian and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community—the Ummah."
~wiki.
why would he want to have rights and responsibilities for pagans if he wanted them all killed? He was there to make peace between communities/tribes and he kicked tribes out who violated the treaty.He didn't obey the rulers of Qurash, did he? He was a minority and he should have obeyed the rules but he didn't. I never said he was not attacked, what I said is they didn't try hard to kill him till they thought he was plotting against them. And islamic history itself says that before they tried to kill him they offered him too many things NOT TO INSULT them and their tradition. Contrast it with how he treated the poets.
According to you a non Muslim in a Muslim country (and the other way) should obey the rules, but it was obvious he didn't, so it is justified that he be punished. It was the greatness of Quraysh that they didn't. A non muslim in a muslim country who says something against Muhammad will be put to death (the Poets/Danish or French cartoonist), the quraysh didn't. You mean the poets should have joined forces and attack the Muslims?
Remember, he did that as a judge that is before he usurped power and became the de facto king. After he became king he banished or killed on various pretexts. Later it was either be a muslim or get killed, wasn't that the rule you said applied only to Arabia?
Was there any Pagans left in Arabia?"Sumayyah bint Khabbab, and her husband Yasir were tortured to death by Abu Jahl.[1] [2]
Muhammad was protected somewhat by the influence of his family, but even he was subjected to such abuse as thrown over with the entrails of a camel over him by Abu Lahab, while he was praying near the Kaaba and Abu Lahab's wife Umm Jamil would regularly dump filth outside his door.[3] The master of the slave Bilal ibn Rabah (who would become the first muezzin) would take him out into the desert in the heat of midday and place a heavy rock on his chest, demanding that he forswear his religion and pray to the polytheists' gods and goddesses, until Abu Bakr bought him and freed him."
The physical assaults began in 613.[4] In 614, a group of Muslims were on their way to the hills of Mecca to hold a meeting with Muhammad, when a group of polytheists observed their gathering and began to abuse and fight them.[citation needed] Sa'ad defended himself from a polytheist and accidentally shed his blood,[citation needed] reportedly the first instance of bloodshed in the history of Islam.[citation needed].
In seventh Islamic month (Rajab) of 7 BH (614–615 CE) twelve male and twelve female Sahaba, the Muslims who originally converted in Mecca, migrated to Aksum seeking refuge from persecution.
Following the return from the First migration to Abyssinia, the Muslims continued to suffer Persecution by the Meccans.[4] This time, in 6 BH (616 CE) almost one hundred Muslims made a second migration back to Abyssinia where they stayed protected. After the Muslims in Arabia had migrated to Medina in AH 7 (628/629) and attained security, the Muslims in Abyssinia migrated back to Arabia and reunited with them in Medina [4] after six years absence."
There was constant abuse because of conflict of belief. You are defending the Quraish for torturing people for death.
Why are you bringing in the french cartoonists into this? The french are known to be against religion and the Jews have already started moving back to Israel with the increase in anti-semitic attacks, the muslims will probably follow with time. It is their land and they can do whatever they want. It is the muslim who chose to go there and it is the muslim who will leave because its not his land. I don't know why you say the poets need to join together to attack muslims... there were 147 attacks on muslims between 7th january and the end of jan in france, some involved deaths too, like the father who was stabbed 17 times for being a muslim. But i'm sure this is fair play in your world, Its the muslims who are always wrong.
The words you use always portray him the negative light. you sure are not fond of him. he did not usurp power... he was given power by the people in that treaty. they signed a treaty allowing Medina to be the first Islamic state. This automatically gives Muhammad power in that state.
The treaty did include pagans so i'm assuming there were pagans in that region.Actually it is you who defend the Quraysh by your defence of muhammad. Quraysh treated muhammad the same way muhammad treated the pagans. By defending Muhammed's action you indirectly is justifying Quraysh. There ia one more reason why the Quraysh are expiated, Muhammed broke the law, blasphemed against their god. What is the punishment for blasphemy in islam?
Sorry I was not clear. The poets - kahin whom Muhammed killed. Not only the muslim manority is obeying french rules, but is emulating the prophet in killing them. Whoever talks against Muhammed is immediately put to death while the Quraysh didn't kill him immediately even though his protection was withdrawn.
I am as much fond of him as I am find of anyone who claims to be god, god's son, or spoke's person/prophet.
Was it the traditional practice to give power to judges to rule till the end of their life? If it was an unanimous decision three tribes wouldn't have revolted.
I was asking about pagans after the islamic rule fully established, under Muhammad's jurisdiction."Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy."
~wiki
"The hadiths, which are another source of Sharia, suggest various punishments for blasphemy, including death. Various fiqhs (schools of jurisprudence) of Islam have different punishment for blasphemy, depending on whether blasphemer is Muslim or non-Muslim, man or woman. The punishment can be fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading."
~wiki
Once again, the hadith as i stated before, causes uncertainty. but if you follow the Quran there is no punishment.
So now you are blaming the 1.6 billion muslims for a crime 2 people committed? I can see how your justice works.Then why were the Kahins killed?
I apologize again for causing the misunderstanding, what I meat was the killers were emulating what the prophet did to the kahins."At some point Mohammed started preaching against the kahins and for restoring an egalitarian society."
this is what i could find. you will have to give me a link which says he killed them.
No they were angry individuals who committed a crime. how can they emulate the "muhammad & kahin" situation (as you have defined it) when these individuals are not prophets?It is because the prophet didn't tolerate criticism, no king does, his followers don't tolerate. I can't remember who it was, whom your prophet wanted killed, after forgiving him after his repeated beggings the prophet said a prophet is not allowed to pray tricks with eyes and the followers should have understood he wanted him to be killed as he intially didn't forgice. So he was giving examples (of kahins asma or abu afak) of what to do in case any one criticised him. So his modern followers were acting with that understanding.
And claiming oneself as a prophet do not give a right to kill. The earlier kahins also were thought of as god's mouth peace, if one is to be rejected the same logic applies to the other.but so many people in mecca also criticized him in the start and many of them turned to Islam later. One of them was Hazrat Umar. Leaving criticism, some of the people who tried to kill or people close to him later became muslims. An example would be Wahshy ibn Harb - He killed Hamza, Muhammad's uncle and a leading Muslim general and formidable soldier, but converted to Islam.
They converted not because of the superiority of beliefs but because of survival needs. You know why the Umayyads were disliked?
Disliked might be too strong a word, not pious enough(according to the Abassids).
thats a personal judgement, they could have been wrong. the same hunger for power, is seen in those times as it is seen today ... to be stronger/better/ more or something the other is not. is is not what religion teaches.
Religion is about power both for the one who start it and for the religious "leaders".
Religion is simply a set of beliefs and rituals coopting the values and morals of the set of people who start it. It is perpetuated and propagated by person relationship or sword.
Then why didn't the first Muslims follow the Qurash law?
The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. ~TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding IslamThe description I put forward was from a very well known scholar - Mufti Taqi Usmani. This is in the commentary (also known as Tafseer) of the English translation.
I do not know the authors of TheReligionofPeace.com, therefore cannot truly rely on their words. I would advise you use www.quranexplorer.com where you can get the tafseer by choosing Mufti Taqi Usmani in the translation list of quran explorer.
One more thing "idtihad", as far as i know means unity. I could be wrong but i'm 90% sure that is what it means.
"Muhammad had preached the religion of Islam in Mecca from 613 to 622. He had attracted a small community of followers, but also drew staunch opposition from the rest of the Quraysh, the tribe that ruled Mecca and to which he belonged. The Muslims fled Mecca in 622 after years of persecution and established themselves at Medina (formerly known as Yathrib), Medina means City. The Quraysh had seized the properties and families of Muslims in Mecca and dispatched caravans to Damascus which the Muslims intercepted and raided. The Meccans sent out a small army to punish the Muslims and stop their raiding. At the Battle of Badr in 624, a small Muslim force defeated the much larger Meccan army.
Many Muslims considered this unexpected victory a proof that they had been favored by God and believed they were assured such victories in the future.[4] A number of the leading tribesmen of Quraysh had been killed at Badr and so leadership passed to Abu Sufyan. He forbade the mourning of the losses at Badr, for he was eager to exact revenge upon Muhammad, vowing to conduct a retaliatory raid on the city of Medina. Several months later, Abu Sufyan accompanied a party of 200 men to the city, obtaining temporary residence with the chief of the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir and learning more of the current situation in Medina. He and his party then left Medina, burning down two houses and laying waste to some fields in fulfillment of his vow. Further skirmishes between the Meccans and the Muslims would occur thereafter.
The reason for the battle was to defend against a Quraysh attack"
~http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud
I hope this clarifies the situation for you.
Thank you for your time in answering my questions. I am sure that there are many Muslims that don't believe in violence. However, the Quran seems to be pushing it on it's own, old testament or new. You say that it does not apply to us today but Muslims all over the world are starting wars to spread Islam for the sake of Allah. Therefore since the war is happening now, that gives them the right to obey the commands of old testament laws? That means it is ok to chop the head and fingers off and wait in ambush and make it hard on non-believers? Where do you find the distinction between old and new Islamic laws regarding the infidel? Apparently it seems to be so vague that 'radical' groups are rising up everywhere starting these wars. Aren't they clearly following the Quran? They start the war and then have the right to do whatever it says. I do not think it is just for the old days but can be also used today to kill people who do not believe in Allah. Everyone has the God given right to believe what they want.
it does not give them any right in this day and age. As i mentioned before, the Quran contains stories of war and the orders which were given to the people of that time. The way you present the Quranic verses are good examples of how they can be used to incite hatred against non-muslims. they do not explain the context of the story, therefore are successful in their brainwashing techniques.
It is not ok to hurt another human whether muslim or non-muslim.
The laws were valid during the life of the prophet. Once mecca was taken, these rules did not apply. Many non-muslims did come to the prophet to accept Islam. If he treated them as infidels then no one would be allowed to convert to Islam either, because according to the script "kill them wherever you find them".
I agree that everyone has the right to believe what they want. By forcing Islam down someones throat doesn't make the person a Muslim, because Allah knows what is in the hearts of the people and if you don't accept it in your heart then you will never be a muslim. In the eyes of the world a certain muslim could be seen as the most pious muslim yet he could still be an infidel in front of Allah. We cannot be the judge, it is not our place.Then why did he tried to attack Byzantium?
I'm sure you can look these things up quite easily using google. I'm not a historian, and i'm not denying that these things did not happen. If you have a point you are taking this towards then bring it out. if not, then its no use creating a new wikipedia here.
"According to Muslim biographies, Muhammed, having received intelligence that Byzantine forces were concentrating in northern Arabia with alleged intentions of invading Arabia, led a Muslim army north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of pre-emptively engaging the Byzantine army; the news, however, proved to be false. Though it was not a battle in the typical sense, nevertheless the event represented the first Arab attack on the Byzantines. It did not, however, lead immediately to a military confrontation.[8]
However, there is no contemporary Byzantine account of the Tabuk expedition, and many of the details come from much later Muslim sources. It has been argued that there is in one Byzantine source possibly referencing the Battle of Mu´tah traditionally dated 629, but this is not certain.[9] The first engagements may have started as conflicts with the Arab client states of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires: the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids of Al-Hirah. In any case, Muslim Arabs after 634 certainly pursued a full-blown invasion of both empires, resulting in the conquest of the Levant, Egypt and Persia for Islam. The most successful generals were Khalid ibn al-Walid and 'Amr ibn al-'As.
In the Levant, the invading Rashidun army were engaged by a Byzantine army composed of imperial troops as well as local levies.[1] According to Islamic historians Monophysites and Jews throughout Syria welcomed the Arab invaders, as they were discontented with Byzantine rule.a[›] The Arabian tribes also had significant economic, cultural and familial ties with predominantly Arab citizens of the Fertile Crescent."There is no contemporary historical attestation of Muhammad either. However we are treating it as a story really happened though through the partisan eyes of a muslim chronicler who lived 150 years after. You won't find much that implicate muhammad, will you?
Heraclius defeated Khosrou 2 in 622AD and withdrew from middle east completely living it to his Arab governers(Ghassanids), so there was no reason for Muhammed to attack Byzantium other than either to obtain booty or because of intolerance to rival religion/people. There was no peace as you allege.you need to give some sources of information... how i can i plainly believe what you say when you don't believe what i say?
You can check wiki, otherwise you will have to check the history books.
There are NO historical sources for Muhammad - Donner, Reza Aslan, Gabriel Said, what we have is Islamic tradition.
Regarding the attack of Byzantium you know the source, only the motive is in question. Koshrau was ruling middle east from 613 AD (after his attack on Byzantium to avenge the death of Maurice), so if anyone was happy with withdrawal if someone, it should be the withdrawal of Persians not Byzantians as they were no there. Even otherwise north part of Arabia was divided between Ghassanids who were the vassals of Byzantium and Lakhmids that of Persians, both christians..(mainly Susan wise, also Roberts). Heraclius defeated Khosrou 2 and Khosrou was later killed by his own people.
Now regarding why Muhammad attacked, you yourself said it was due to rumor, but there is a catch there, if he was a prophet why did he act on a rumor? I think ibn Ishaq reported that he even admonished those who were reluctant to go for that attack and there is a hadith/sura admonishing him for exempting some people. I didn't say that and only listed the most common reasons why someone will go to war and it was based on his history.
if I write my autobiography, I won't be 100% honest even if I want to be for we easily forget the bad about us and remember only the good. Why should Ibn Ishaq be any different when he wrote about his religion, also what he writing was orally transmitted for 150 years, so any bad thing would be removed by that time, won't it? Umayyads were put in a bad light by the compilers of Hadiths as they were writing under the Abassids, so naturally it is colored.i can agree when you say anything bad could have been omitted. it probably has, but that leaves us with endless possibilities and no certain conclusion. Therefore i don't see the point of debating about something which will never come to a conclusion.
everyone views things differently about different situations, and views change with time which are greatly affected by our environment. For example: i saw a ted.com presentation by a psychologist where a presenting lady says it took 20 days for a woman to go from "I think this man raped me" to "I am 100% certain this is the man who raped me". They later found that the man was wrongly convicted, but had died. The presenter went on to give reasons why this happens. there is a lot of uncertainty in history.
I understand that there was a lot of bloodshed, but after all that came peace, and after that came the greatest scientists the world has seen (who's work we use today), then more bloodshed and the decline of Islam in the department of science and a millennium later the last caliphate empire. racism was abolished in Islam, women were given rights they didn't have at the time, new born girls were stopped from being buried alive. slaves were freed. Overall there was a positive change in the world on the humanitarian side of things as well as advancement in literature and science. these are the hard facts and cannot change.
I do trust the judgement made by Muhammad to be correct. sure he did make a mistake or two in those 23 years and there are verses in the Quran where God scolding the prophet by saying "how can you raise your eyebrow in discomfort when one of my people come to ask you a question?" ... the prophet did get guidance from Allah but sometimes he was left to make his own choices... he had to go through a much tougher test than an average muslim. Our bar is much lower than that which was set for Muhammad.That was why I took islamic stories as true and discuss from that vantage point, only I don't accept anyone communicating with god.
I did agree with you that muslims were the front runners in science during the middle ages. That happened years after it started. Just as Christianity cannot make any claim in the advancement of science islam too cannot. [ In spite of the fact it was muslims and christians who were the scientists after the greeks]
There is none from god but only people claimed to be from god for various reasons. All great men, real or imaginary, were the products of their time. Whatever they taught, the teaching attributed to them and followed was what the people of that time wanted. (jesus is the great example, an imaginary man whose teachings all varied depending on the sect/people). There teachings mostly applied to their era, applying it to today's era will be anachronistic. Trying to apply ancient understanding to the modern world is one important reason of muslim backwardness, and stating islam is the same from day one is not only factually wrong ( it greatly evolved and changed from Abassids to gengis), it impede any progress.If you don't accept anyone communicating with god then that is your belief. Nothing wrong with that.
See it is your beliefs which is causing you not to give the credit to Islam. It takes time more than 23 years for a society to evolve. an ideal environment was given to the progress and it thrived. it did not happen with the greeks and did not happen with the christians. Just as the sufi's say ... the discipline found in islam was like the glass around the flame of an open lantern, which is why the sufi embraced islam. Sure Islam may not be cause of some specific scientific knowledge (although it has given many hints in the Quran), it sure was the umbrella under which it all took place.
What i meant about what hasn't changed is the rulings such as pork, alcohol, fornication, usury, carrion are still not allowed. The difference between good and bad is the same, the rights of people are the same. The rules laid out in the Quran have not changed from day 1. The problem with Muslim people (and this includes myself) is that we do not follow the teachings completely. We bend rules according to our needs on the individual level as well as the global level, causing all kinds of problems. On the global or country level the leader is responsible for every living thing in his territory, that is a great responsibility and they will answer for it on the day of Judgement. These leaders (such as the ones in my country) forget this fact and involve themselves in their greed and worry about their 5 year term goals. how to impress people so they can be voted for again and in the process make as much money as they can in case they are not elected again. They stop concentrating on the long term goals and objectives. They do all this for their personal benefits, then we complain why God allows people to starve to death.
It is stated in the Quran that "only the good comes from Allah and the bad comes from you". We are the beasts causing the deaths of the starving children. We have our priorities turned upside down. we are willing to spend so much more on war, yet not prepared to help the people with that money instead. that beast is in each and everyone of us. we look at a homeless person but do we give them shelter in our homes?
this is a fact we need to accept ... the world has enough resources to cater for every living being (given by God) the bad in this world does come from us (we do not distribute fairly/equally).Either everyone communicate with god or none, anything in between make him less of a god and a make him a partisan.
Islam took 200 years to evolve, it blossomed only during the time of Abassid Khalifs. It did happened with Greeks, only the total collapse of the city states prevented it from achieving great heights. Even Islam took and got inspiration from the greeks.
With Christianity you are right. But you know how the words of the bible are twisted to fit the understanding of modern times, Quran is no different. There is no clear, unambiguous message in either of the books and that is why the followers can interpret it the way they wanted. You interpret Quran to say there is no violence while ISIS interpret it to justify killing of infidels.
There is no difference between eating Pork and Beef, either you do not eat both or you eat both, the reason for not eating should be cruelty towards animals. prohibition of Pork is started by Jews to separate themselves from surrounding Canaanites, once people stop sitting together at the same table it is easier to separate them. The tradition is simply continued in Islam, it is to separate themselves from the surrounding people and to prevent any intermingling.
Fornication, unless to another married person is again mostly to control the females.
Usury is the basis of modern society, without debt we would never have progressed much.
I didn't understand the "carrion" part.
The problem is you do not change the rules to fit the times.
Say divorce is not allowed for christians, but if it was followed now how much misery it would cause to couples who cannot get together?but everyone can have a connection in their own way. if you want it you will get it. its a matter of how bad you want it. The conquest of oneself is the route. take it if you like. Its not everyone's cup of tea.
Quran twisted to fit modern day beliefs is one angle to look at it. The interpretations corrected according to what we know today is another way to see it. As we understand things more in the world we interpret the Quran accordingly.
ISIS can try to justify according to the Quran but a decent scholar will soon clear their misconceptions and make them realize they are not following the Quran. if only they would listen. they are the hypocrites who use the worlds finest technologies in the kaaba (wahabi) yet refuse to move forward themselves.
Pork was not a common food at the time of Islam, therefore i don't think the intermingling issue you mention is applicable.
https://history.stackexchange.com/quest … 1862a6bb2d
The fornication rule is applied to both men and women. If it was only to control women then they could have used the cutting of the clitoris technique used by tribes in Africa today.
Usury : but we did progress before didn't we? it was stopped in the Greeks and Islamic era but we were moving towards progress without usury. contrary to your beliefs, i think usury is one of the greatest barriers to progress. Usury is still applied in the rural areas of Pakistan today, an example:
"A villager in Mithi town said “Last year I borrowed Rs15,000 from an NGO and purchased seed worth Rs5,000, fertiliser for Rs7,000, and two small goats for Rs3,000 each. Owing to the three-year-long drought, not only the seed was destroyed, but I also lost the goats due to some unknown disease. To repay my loan, I had to move to Badin, where I worked on a farm land and managed to pay back my debt in three years. But, by then the high interest on the principal amount of the loan had increased the debt to Rs38,000.”
You still think usury brings progress? It ruins the lives of people.
Carrion refers to the dead and decaying flesh of an animal. No issues about intermingling with people here.
As in Christianity, Islam divorce is not seen as a good thing either. In our previous generations, if a woman was divorced then she had almost no chance of getting re-married. this is culture stopping the people not religion.According to history Muhammad was reluctant. Except for the general ideas, no prophet/god man spoke the same thing and even excluded each other. The Kahins might have been talking to god, but Muhammad excluded them!
According to their interpretation you are the one who is misinterpreting. It is the very rare person who sees themselves as wrong.
It is a carry over of Jewish customs, Islam adopted most of the jewish customs didn't they? Like circumcision. Earlier the prayer too was directed to Jerusalem.
The difference here is men's testimony has a higher value than that of the women.
Without debt most people wouldn't be able to even live today, we do not call it "debt" but loan. American national debt is 18trillion dollars. It is through this debt many people start business and job opportunities are created. Uncontrolled debt can get people into problem, but banning the entire process is not the correct answer, he could have controlled the interest.
I asked why you mentioned it, what is the significance?
Not in every culture, not even in the entire history of Christianity.
I am glad you believe that no one has the right to push Islam down anyone's throat. And you are right, if a person only says they are a believer but in their heart they are not, God knows. So are you saying that these laws to kill the infidel do not apply at all today and that those Muslims who are killing in the name of Islam are wrong? Thanks for answering.
that is correct ... it does not apply today and those who think or claim to be following in the name of Islam are wrong.
you are twisting my words here ... The Quran is the same as it was 1400 years ago, not a word has changed.
You said Islam hasn't changed, but even if it is Quran, it too has changed.
1) In Quran it is not said that that verse is confined to Arabia, so there is change.
2) The translations change. "most say translation errors, others go a step further and say translations errors because "translations have been the exclusive domain of Muslim men" who could use the text as an excuse for domestic violence. "
3) Quran was first collected by Uthman or Mu'awiya (according to the tradition you follow), they destroyed all other versions. That means there were different qurans, so the present Quran is the version of Uthman or Mu'awiya.
4) The earlier manuscripts shows that the oldest Quran were in Arabic without vowels. So the same word may be interpreted differently. That again means the Quran have changed.
5) No language is a constant, as humans evolve language too as anyone who have read Shakespeare in original might know. Words changes, meaning of words changes and any given text need continuous interpretation and reinterpretation.Islam comes from the Quran ... it is not a separate thing.
interpretations can change according to the current knowledge but the original text is the same isn't it?There was no original text but only texts and that changed, by adding vowels.
"Exception proves the rule" when was first used by Hume meant exception "tests" the rule. Now it means exact opposite, so can we consider that the text is same?
It was a normal practice to memorise the Quran by heart as it is done today. If 1000 people have memorised it and passed it on then there is very little chance of change. And many to correct one another.
It was written on separate pages or date leaves as well at the time.Even written documents change, so oral transmission is more prone.
Exception proves rule is the same through out the century but the meaning changed drastically.
Without the diacritical marks. So it changed.I know the marks have a great significance.
I'll go along with your version of the story for now. So if it did change, do you think the first version is better than the second? Did it change from good to evil? In what ways do you think it has impacted the muslim community?We can't say whether it is better or worse as long as it is not completely available and its meaning deciphered. Even if one is available, we can have no hope of recovering the original meaning, as the meaning of the words have already changed. It impacted the muslim community by imposing the values of the latter Umayyads and Abassids and made it a static one. As the society changes, laws should naturally evolve to contain the changes that occurred, and laws should change to help in the process of societal transformation. The later imposed rigidity prevented it, didn't it?
I agree the rigidness of the people did not allow much social transformation. but again its the people. The link i shared on the other thread is the type of scholars or educators we need. I see no bias in his words ... he's always cursing (in a polite manner) the muslim community and some of the muslim establishments to make them realize how astray we have gone from what is truly in the Quran.
that is why i kept saying the correct education is the most important step to progress.
Don't Christians have many bibles? and the meaning has changed with each one because it's man translating it!?
There's no way you can know the history of another country's bible.
A couple of citizen's could've hidden a qur'an or two
Something to think about
The bible has a lot of violence, but are Christians violent? or is Christianity a violent religion? No
So why do people judge others, and their religion by what their bible saysYes christians have many bibles, and meaning change not only based on translation but also based on the so called original versions. We can know that is why we call it history either wise it would be prehistory.
The bible has violence and christianity is a violent religion. It is only when people turned away from christianity it became less violent.I disagree ... there are many Christians who follow their religion as best as possible and i have never ever noticed even a hint of violence or hatred in them. It was the Christians who gave refuge to Muslims in the days of our Prophet. I do not believe Christianity is violent at all.
You are forgetting the 2000 year history.
Yours is just a story.Religion has always been used as a tool to justify killings, even though the scriptures say nothing of the sort. If there is no religion, another tool will be used in which the masses believe. It is the people at fault, not religion.
you are choosing to blame religion for everything and do not see the difference between the teachings of the religion and the hunger of power of an individual or a group. This hunger for power still exist in every single country today, whether they follow a religion or not.That is just like saying AK 47 is harmless, the people are to blame. Yes other tools will be used, just like the myriad of other guns, say nationalism. But most others lack the emotional appeal of religion. Religion is also like alcohol, it cause an elation but destructive in the long term.
The teachings of religion are a later thing, the power is primary. Religion just co-opted the natural morality of humans. Even your own religion is no exception, religion was and is used to grab power.The Ak-47 terminology I can agree with.
The one about alcohol I disagree, because if followed correctly you become a good citizen of the world and I believe it does not lead to aggression or is destructive in any way. I Won't talk about the afterlife because you don't believe in it.
I'm glad you agree that power is a separate issue. You did not agree to it before.
Now I see many issues day-in and day-out where muslims practice the power they have been given wrongly. This does not mean Islam has taught them this... It is what they have seen throughout their lives and they just continue the same way without even thinking about it. So it is not the religion which is to blame it is the people.
My first impression was the same as yours ... Not wanting to be a part of a group of people who are wrong... Luckily I had read before-hand what my religion was all about and knew these people are doing wrong in their daily lives.I did agree with you earlier that power is the issue. I said religion and GOD are both different. What I said is that religion is a tool to grab and maintain power. People are good irrespective of religion. If religion is not responsible for people doing bad, it is not responsible for them doing good either. So what is the advantage of religion? Why should we keep it now?
Religion is not responsible for doing bad ... the people are responsible for doing bad. if we both agree that it is a power issue, then i think the question you should be asking is how to remove the hunger/greed of power in people?
they use religion, colour of skin, caste, skill and money as the tools but what is the source and who are the affected people? i think that should be the question here.
There are many advantages to religion and we have discussed them before. If you want me to repeat what i have already said then let me know and i'll re-write the answers.If religion do not make people do bad, it do not make people do good either. People do what they do and use religion to justify what they do.
But that does not change the fact that religion justify absolutism.
Can you?
For as far as I remember your point was it does some personal good(I might be wrong here, but that is what I remember). That was why I equated it to alcohol, good in short term bad in long term. It gives a false feeling of hope/good just like alcohol. Is there any other point?It is supposed to make people good... but people do not follow it completely therefore it doesn't work as well. As an example ... There is a Doctor in Texas, USA called Dr. Burzynski. He has been working on cancer for the past 20 years or so... his cure gives the people a 25% chance of survival (that means living beyond 5 years after the treatment) ... the current chemo method has a survival rate of 2.5% or so... After many court battles Dr. Burzynski got the FDA to approve clinical trials using his method but they did not follow the exact procedure he had written and the trials failed miserably. he was not even allowed to supervise the trials.
Anyways the point being even though his treatment works well ... if the correct procedures are not followed in the correct sequence then it will not work and will be labelled as a failure. Similarly if religion is not followed completely then you are not doing justice to the religion when you say it does not work... you are like the FDA in the example above. you need to give it a fair chance ... and to look at the religion itself and not basing your conclusions on the people. When you see it this way, you may say "yes, if followed completely it is a decent system which caters for the rich and the poor."
I will list out the benefits for you soon... will make it comprehensive so have to give it some thought. It has benefits on individuals as well as on society.If the trail failed, then it is his fault. Only a triple blind study can properly evaluate a drug.
Religion co-opted human morals that is why humans generally do not follow what religion teaches and has to adapt accordingly. Jesus was violently against divorce but later Christianity had to come to terms with it. Religion follow human morals and not the other way round.
Thank you, you only have to list the benefits in the present time. I think I will agree with you that religion had some positive uses in the past.It actually failed because people were paid to make it fail. And it is a true story, you can look it up.
i have to disagree here ... where do you think the initial morals came from?
it did have some positive benefits in the past, that we both agree on ... i will then highlight a few that may be of benefit today or in the future. gaining education being the first. questioning everything being second... will think of more soon.The same way all social mammals got morals, evolution. Those without morals won't survive in the wild.
I'll need specific examples ... your answer is too vague. explain the evolution of morals relating to racism and why it still exists today.
I will use a pride of lion as an example as that is more easy. A pride of lion helps each other and care for its young and ill ones. That way it has a survival advantage over those which do not do it. Those which do not do it dies out while that which do it survives and increases. Now suppose the number of lions in a group increase to an unsustainable level i n a particular area, they will split and be two groups and one group will move away. Now each keep out of others area because if one group move to another's the prey i that area will decrease and will be injuries to the health of that group. SO each group tries to protect its are fiercely. That will foster in group loyalty and out group hatred. Those groups who do not show such traits will die out compared to groups that show it.
Humans are no different, racism is simply in group loyalty and out group hatred. Evolution is a slow process and very few humans consciously try to change inbuilt habits, is the reason why it persists.because it is a slow and long process it is easy for those who use this theory to throw all the details in the "evolution" box. i have to disagree with this quoted comment ... children do not have racism built into them at birth. kids do not see the difference in colour until they are shown that difference. it is the attitude of their family members which make them racist.
I think i understand the comparison you're trying to make with groups of people for and against racism. The people "for" racism will die out with time (that is where evolution comes) ... but the laws of racism came out very recently in terms of evolution. So don't you think it is the laws of the land that matter more in the evolution of humans?You are seeing it as racism, it is not racism.. it is only how one group defines itself. Nationalism, religion, family all are groups. It is In group loyalty and out group hatred. Even children are loyal to one group, children automatically move away from strangers. children initially are more open because human beings grow after birth. What they are familiar with during childhood they take it as theirs.
It happens with all people who meet other people who are unlike themselves. Humans in his long history, the first response in seeing a stranger is flight or fight. It took much culture to change that behavior. But the still in built behavior get upper hand unless one think consciously.
I am still not sure whether I conveyed the meaning I want to, so please bear with me.
"The people "for" racism will die out with time (that is where evolution comes) ..."
That is not what I meant. If people with racism or without racism, not for. If people with racism has a survival advantage, they will survive because they will be ready to exterminate the other group or appropriate their resources. But if the other group is also equally ruthless then there is no advantage.so you mean they are born with racism? and its natural to be a racist? until evolution kicks them out if they turn out to be the weaker kind.
i'm just trying to understand.No they are not born into racism but born into "ism", whether it is racial, communal, national, religion , linguistic.... all depend on the time and place.
For them it is.. who will do unnatural things, that take effort?but that includes almost everyone ... that means we haven't gotten very far yet.
We have gotten very far.... how many wars you hear now compared to the earlier age?
People who express racism are scorned, at least in public.wars maybe fewer but the damages are much higher with all the technology being used. before it was just the people on the battle field ... now you're not safe in your own homes. i don't think we have advance much in the war sense. the same battle for supreme power which ruins the lives of millions.
I agree people are scorned in public for racism. it may go away in the next 500 years or so if things stay on track. but you see, the laws against racism came out in Islam and it was abolished within the Islamic community 1400 years ago. sure we have conflicting opinions about people of a certain country, but the "color of the skin" issue is unheard of today, and for us its sad that this still is an issue in the world today.When technology improves its striking power increases but the number of wars decreased in spite of population increase, that means we are changing.
Well the definition of racism is different, Islam do not consider non muslims and atheists as some one who deserve respect its a different type of "ism", just like any other religion.you may be right about the number of wars. I still can't see the point of war under any circumstance.
I think the "ism" you talk about is not an Islamic thing ... rather a cultural or human thing. we have examples of the prophet dealing with non-muslims and he was never against them... he always embraced them ... the widely known stories that float around in the Islamic community is how non-muslims converted to Islam because of the character of Muhammad. If he was bad to non-muslims then why would they willingly convert(talking about those that willingly accepted islam)? So i don't think its in the religion as much as it is in the people.War has many reasons but mostly it is just banditry.
Ism is a human thing. I was replying to your comment about racism not in islam, (racism(the modern version) is a relatively new phenomenon) that injection is applicable only inside islam.
The same reason people change to any religion, kinship, coercion, peer pressure, material benefits, superstition. ......
He embraced those who were willing to convert or acknowledge him as he demanded.not really ... otherwise people of other faiths would not exist in the islamic regions. i think you'r view is a little too harsh.
It is nothing to do with Islam but the circumstances and tenacity of others. How Isis is trying to exterminate yazdis and how they still live!
do they live as neighbors like Umar had Jews as neighbors?
here is the difference. ISIS would have killed them. Umar the Caliph did not.
ISIS are NOT Muslims. If they were then they wouldn't go around killing innocent people, never mind Muslim people in Mosques.
Weren't the Arabian tribes, Syrians or byzantines innocent?
that's what i'm trying to tell BuddiNsense ... we cannot declare them as non-muslims because we have no authority to judge. But ISIS is not following the rules of Islam, that is for certain.
According to you, according to ISIS you are the one who is not following the rules of Islam. Which is Islam is the correct one is simply a matter of opinion.
The following are the responses of average muslims, they do not respect other people's beliefs but are fanatical about theirs.
Quote: "Mirza died on the toilet in his own faeces. That's who Mirza Gulam is. He is no Messiah and no Mahdi. He is a Dajjal (Deceiver) of our time."
Quote: "Mirza Ghulam Qadiani was nothing but a liar. He was the pithu of British rulers. All his followers called Qadiyani or Ahmadi are declared as Infidels according to the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan"
Arksys you are an exception but the majority are like these and that is why Islam is a violent religion and hated by others.reminds me of a Qadiani friend i had here at university. I took him to a sunni mosque to pray with us in our neighborhood. he was scared of getting booted out of the place or even getting beaten up. lol ... i assured him no one needed to know he was a qadiani, unless i felt like screaming it out or something. we prayed and he was still in one piece at the end of the day.
I agree totally that the majority are like this. I personally don't believe in what the Qadiani believe because I think they have certain technical glitches. Having said that, once a person has testified to the fact that "there is one God and muhammad is the messenger", that person is under the umbrella of Islam whether we like it or not, or whether we accept it or not. As i've said before, we cannot be the judge in personal matters between that person and God. We need to relearn the boundaries that have been set for us.
I totally understand why Islam is seen as violent and hated by many and my sole purpose here is to create the awareness that the things you hate about Islam are not the teachings of Islam. If you stop blaming Islam and start blaming the people then i will agree with you every single time.
For example ... if the rules in the united states say that racism is a crime, yet there is still racism in the united states. I cannot say the united states is a racist nation. To be fair, I would say the people in the united states are racist even though it is seen as a crime by the government. Similar to the discussions on other forum topics, I always blame the officials of america for all the havoc created in this region and this is because i know the people of america are good people. The officials are wrong and this is what i tell the people in this country who hate america as a whole. We need to isolate things to understand them better. In my limited travels, I have never met a person who is rotten from the inside. Sure some are very hostile in the beginning and have strong opinions about certain things but opinions are like the variables we have in software programming... they change all the time.
To live for a year or two in different cultures is something i would encourage everyone to do, this simple act would resolve half the hate in the world. Go to the land you hate the most first and live with those people for a while.Our difference is, you attribute good to religion and bad to people. I either attribute both to religion or none.
Those people have no reason to insult the other except for religion and I think you will remain good in spite of.
So we comes back to our old question, what is religion good for, now?Its not only the good which i attribute to religion. The bad which you see such as chopping off a hand for stealing etc ... i see as necessary for a positive evolution, BUT the rules must be followed very very very strictly. Saudi is normally seen as the country which follows the Islamic laws. Pakistan does not... therefore a little comparison in terms of crime in the following link
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … ates/Crime
It gives its sources of information therefore i can assume it to be correct and verify it if i like. Some of the figures depend on population size and are therefore irrelevant, but others such as
Violent crime > Murder rate > (depends on total population)
Saudi : 265 Ranked 59th.
USA : 12,996 Ranked 9th. 49 times more than Saudi Arabia
Total crimes per 1000
Saudi : 3.88 Ranked 71st.
USA : 41.29 Ranked 22nd. 11 times more than Saudi Arabia
Murder rate
Saudi : 0.9
USA : 5
Total crimes (depends on total population)
Saudi : 84,599 Ranked 48th.
USA : 11.88 million Ranked 1st. 140 times more than Saudi Arabia
There is a huge difference, between the two systems. Does the system work? i'll leave that for you to decide. you also need to remember that saudi also doesn't follow the rules to the dot. as i said, the rules must be followed very strictly and in the correct order.
They do have more reasons ... at least in this region... there is a whole hierarchy of barriers people like to create. two of the most famous are religion and caste. Religion is mostly common, therefore it is not the greatest barrier (although it is a barrier). Caste is the predominant barrier in all aspects of ones life here (excluding the Karachi region). The first question is where are you from? Since my parents initially migrated from India, when give my answers to where i'm from I am labelled as an 'urdu speaking' person. Urdu speaking people are mainly considered as immigrants or refugees and rarely get a chance to go high up the ladder. My brother was told in 1995 when he was working for a bank in karachi that this is your last promotion... no matter what you do the upper seats are reserved.
This is just to give you a glimpse that even if you remove religion from the equation, people will remain people and will create barriers for each other one way or another. Religion is one thing that gives the people here one thing in common and if that is taken away then i don't see it being a better place at all. I see it as the string that's keeping everything together. At least for this region.The population density also has to be taken into account. Population density of Saudi is 13 while that of US is 35. Naturally there will be more crime. Then we have to take into account the freedom of press, more crimes will be reported. Another reason is Saudi is a tyrant, hence people are more like slaves while America is a free country. America is one of the most developed nation with high levels of living while saudi is a rich one where the same standards are denied to majority. Given a choice which country would you want to be a citizen of, US or Saudi?
Those two quotes(I provided) are specifically directed at a particular religion. I already admitted that religion is one, though major, but one mechanism of division.
I can't tell you where I am from except that I am from a region where a strong criticism of Islam can cause me my head or hand, sorry.That is why i added some of the figures which are calculated by the "per 1000" etc... those figures will be accurate.
I agree to an extent that many are denied better standards of living and i know many get trapped there too at the labour level. However i have friends who went to work in saudi and they have been there for many years now. they are much better off now than when they lived here. If you are educated you do get rewarded equally in both the states and saudi. if not, then the states is a better place.
Its not safe to criticize anyone in a foreign land if you want to live there for a while. many muslims are quiet abroad because they fear getting deported or locked up for unknown periods of time and maybe spending a month or two being locked in a box where you can't even move freely. This has happened to people i personally know so please don't say its fake. In the first world countries you will see no physical damage on the person. They torture you mentally. They say america is free ... canada is free... the uk is free... i don't agree with that at all. Sure they have better standards of living but keep your head down if you want to stay there.No no no, what I meant is the population DENSITY is more in US hence the crime rate is more, it has nothing to do with population size or rate. When more people live in a small area the crime rate naturally increases and you know US has one of the densest urban centers.,
They are much better, but that is not the case with average Saudi. Also Saudi is a very rich country but most of it goes to the elites not to common man.
I do not know why you say this, I live in my own country which is not safe.
What is this mental torture, some one can torture you physically if one is physically weak, similarly another can torture one only if that person is mentally weak.
The west look down upon the east, that has other reasons but if you are a citizen of that country (born to the same race) you are treated equally. I was not asking about migrating, what I asked was given a choice in which country you would have born? Again people can settle in US and most people who go their do. Saudi do not even allow anyone who is not born there, but not many will want to stay there if the special privileges of the outsider is withdrawn.you need to watch this 6 min video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM
this should have shown you that there is no equality in USA either.
ok ... i get the population density part and you do have a valid point. can't argue with that one, but the figures are still quite high.
Even mentally strong people break ... for example the soldiers who come back from war have gone through a lot and they do have difficulties in resuming normal life again.
You are right about the special privileges taken away in Saudi .. you cannot stay there forever unless you have a lot of money (millions of euro maybe). There are ways to purchase land there but its very expensive and not affordable by the majority. Yes the US/Canada/UK all definitely give more options for the average person. and yes i was given the option between saudi and the US i would choose the US only so i would have something permanent. In saudi you have to packup and leave, plus they also look down on pakistani ppl.When I said there is equality in America, what I said is there is equality before Law and there is opportunity equality that is not available in Saudi.
That is not because of a few verbal abuses. Religion has a big role play behind it too. You know the christian religion's teaching against killing and the soldiers have to do it. It is the death they cause and witness that cause the change.
That is all I meant. You who is a Muslim prefer a country with different laws to a country with Islamic laws. So it is not the religion but the equality in front of the law, the chance of a fair trial, the freedom and the opportunity that is available that is more important, which is not available in an Islamic nation. If you were a women who is educated, probably even in you wildest dreams, will never want to be in an Islamic one.
PS: Mind you, I am not saying that America is a paradise only that it is better than an Islamic one any day.Being locked up in a box where you can't move is not verbal abuse. Being in solitary confinement for extended periods of time takes a toll on every person. Don't make it sound like its a piece of cake.
Christian soldiers will fight only when absolutely necessary. They won't do it for fun. They have certain rules.
I'll share a video with you later about a religious historian who speaks about the positives of religion but also acknowledges the fact that the people are wrong not the faiths.
If they were true islamic nations then I would prefer them over America. The ones we have are fake. The proper rules are not in place and there is more personal interests involved. My main motivation for saying America was because I see an opportunity to do better for myself there. I don't care about the laws. They only thing I admire is that you have opportunities which pay better. A months pay in the USA for my line of work equals a years pay in this country. Equality and law are different things. I personally don't care about the law system because I know I will never have to encounter it they way I live my life. A way of life that Islam teaches.
But here again you are trying to prove your point by looking at the followers of Islam and not Islam itself. There is no country which follows its rules properly therefore cannot really be compared.
An quote/example was given by the lady in the video I mentioned earlier. "We don't have to love each other or agree with each other everytime, our ways can be different but our goal must be the same. The goal of peace in the world."
I believe you and I will not agree to many things... But our goal is the same.None of it are mental abuses as in a civilian life.
Please no, I don't have a good computer with speaker, it's very difficult. Can you list it?
And what I want is the positives of religion NOW, I can tell you what it WAS good for.
The same is true about Utopia too! And as there are no unambiguous "islamic rules" one can't say what it means.
I look at both your prophet and your laws, I don't find ether palatable like beating a women or treating them as inferiors (the quotes I already gave and like marrying four). Neither do I agree with the intolerance. I can't agree with th continuation of pagan pilgrimage either. I won't agree with tyranny or dictatorship.
I think there is a law against shaving the beard, you agree to that?
Any day I will prefer human beings behave without the pretension of religion which is false.Law against shaving is stupid .. Lol.
I'll list the video for you when get back to my computer. The one thing common in all religions was to bring out your compassionate side... No matter what religion it is... All carried the same goal. They have different rules but the target is the same in all of them. If we left the petty squabbles over whether to grow a beard or not then we can get to peace using religion.
What is your definition of mental abuse... Or mental torture? Soldiers from a battle have it, people who are pestered by unseen beings have it, a child who loses his mother or father (in case of a divorce or death) may have it, a physically abused child may have it for years to come. Anyone in severe depression has been through mental torture and you can see the scars of it on their face if you know how to read faces (thanks to the Chinese people)... That's my definition, what's yours.
The problem I have with your wish is that it's not realistic. You cannot eliminate religion just like that, so you have to find a way using religion because that is what the majority follows. If people can use it as a tool for war then maybe it can also be used as a tool for peace.The compassionate and sadistic human eide is there and religion brings out both, the negative side more. Humans are basically good to their own people and in this age of globalisation we ought to enlarge the group not restrict it by creating schisms like religion or nation.
The mental torture you were saying initially, belonged to the public domain not in a war zone. The little taunting one gets in the public domain is mostly nothing. Of course religion and race can get nasty because people identify themselves with it, but that is the problem of the victims as much as the taunters.
It is not by speaking the good about racism we nearly eliminated it, similarly we cannot eliminate religion by talking good about it or promoting it. Of course there is still subtle and overt racism but we manage to bring it almost under control, so by education religion too can be. The best countries in the world, for their citizens, Denmark and Sweden are atheistic.i'm not talking about taunts or the people in general... i'm talking about when the authorities put you in prison for something you have not done. on suspicion only. that's where the mental torture comes on those people who have to go through it.
how can you compare racism to religion ... you think of both of them as a disease which is wrong ... our religion abolished racism. the west very far behind in that matter.
Lutheran Christianity is officially the largest religion in Sweden, with 66% of the Swedish citizens being the members of the Church of Sweden.
~wiki
According to official statistics from January 2013, 79.1%[7][8] of the population of Denmark are members of the Church of Denmark (Den danske folkekirke), a Lutheran church that was made the Established Church and state religion by the Constitution. The second largest faith is Islam, due to immigration since 1980.
~wiki
I think your facts about Sweden and Denmark are wrong. They are examples of how people of different faiths CAN coexist in harmony.But they don't put their natural citizens in jail like the muslim countries do, do they? After 9/11 they have enough reason to be suspicious of outsiders.
Your religion simply made a different definition for racism that's all. It created a new one which is far more deadly. The American type of racism was not even in existence then
People identifying themselves with one religion and following it is different, isn't it? You were saying though isis identify with islam they don't follow it.
You might also know that the second largest faith is creating problems in Denmark by refusing to integrate.
And I should have used irreligion rather than use atheism, still atheists are a majority.
"While a vast majority of Danes are technically agnostic or atheist, few choose to identify as such."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_DenmarkHaving a reason for suspicion is fine ... locking them up for suspicion for upto 8-9 months is wrong. They let gangsters roll on the streets yet lock up innocent people on suspicion alone? the hate you have inside you for religion is making you biased here.
A new definition of racism created by Islam ... please explain how?
I have already told you numerous times that ISIS is not acting out what the Quran says... if you are pointing at 0.04% of our population and creating conclusions then i cannot help you. If you think killing infidels is our objective then why isn't the 1.6billion muslims always striving for it? we are going in circles and i don't think my earlier words clarified anything for you.
What are the sources to your claims for "creating problems in Denmark by refusing to integrate". The way i see it they are already integrated if they are the second largest community living there. what kind of problems are they creating? riots? wars maybe? killing the athiests in protest?
... rofl.
