|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is Islam really a menace?
Islam means submission. Submission totally to the will of god. As we have been seeing so many messages here on the forums on Islam, apart from the media coverage on Islamic terrorism, does anyone think that Islamic ideas and values are not really suited for the free and modern world? Do you think they belong to a totally different mindset, not capable of co-existing with people of other faiths?
I am also adding a poll too, but your comments will be great!
I am also adding a poll too, but your comments will be great!
Yes. I know there are those that say that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the fundamentalists are distorting it, but they are conveniently ignoring the passages that call for the destruction of the infidels.
The fundamentalists are holding true to the Koran. If it is true, then the fundamentalists are perfectly justified in killing infidels. The people who say Islam is peaceful and capable of co-existing amiably with other faiths are the ones that are distorting the religion.
Enough rant.
The fundamentalists are holding true to the Koran. If it is true, then the fundamentalists are perfectly justified in killing infidels. The people who say Islam is peaceful and capable of co-existing amiably with other faiths are the ones that are distorting the religion.
Enough rant.
I never heard a single Muslim speak up and denounce the fatwa on Salmon Rushdi as wrong.
ocal, has a very good point.
How can anyone believe anything any Muslim says.
The extremist would love for the world to make it easier to install sleeper cells.
ocal, has a very good point.
How can anyone believe anything any Muslim says.
The extremist would love for the world to make it easier to install sleeper cells.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Yes. I know there are those that say that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the fundamentalists are distorting it, but they are conveniently ignoring the passages that call for the destruction of the infidels.
The fundamentalists are holding true to the Koran. If it is true, then the fundamentalists are perfectly justified in killing infidels. The people who say Islam is peaceful and capable of co-existing amiably with other faiths are the ones that are distorting the religion. Enough rant. |
Exactly the same argument, however, can be made of the other Abrahamic religions - Christianity and Judaism.
The Torah or Old Testament has several passages which essentially call for the destruction of all non-believers. One Example would be Deuteronomy 13:5
| Quote: |
| And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. |
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
Exactly the same argument, however, can be made of the other Abrahamic religions - Christianity and Judaism. The Torah or Old Testament has several passages which essentially call for the destruction of all non-believers. One Example would be Deuteronomy 13:5
|
That versus is taking about false profits who intentionally lead God's people away towards evil things. It does not at all tak about "killing the infidels".
Lesson number 2: Context. You can't just take any passage and make it say what you want to say to make your point. Below is that entire passage versus 1-5 in the NKJV. This death that is referred to in versus 5 is a deservered death for tempting God's people astray.
| Quote: |
| "If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--'and let us serve them,' 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. 5 But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst. |
| socialoutcast wrote: |
| Lesson number 2: Context. You can't just take any passage and make it say what you want to say to make your point. Below is that entire passage versus 1-5 in the NKJV. This death that is referred to in versus 5 is a deservered death for tempting God's people astray. |
I didn't distort the meaning at all and I compared it to the Quran, I did not say (or didn't intend to) that it advocated killing everyone and I'm happy to accept the meaning you give above. It's similar to the message in the Quran as I'll show in a moment.
It changes not one whit the central message, however, which is - if someone suggests worshipping any other God, then that person shall be put to death. The partial quote I gave makes that just as clear as your extended quote and I don't honestly think it alters the meaning at all - the meaning is clear in both.
As regards the comparison with the Quran : An 'infidel' is one without faith who doubts the central message of Islam - in other words, a dreamer of dreams who says 'let us go after other Gods'.
In fact the Quran is arguably more reasonable in the passages that most people take out of context.
For example - the passage about 'slaying them all' actually reads :
| Quote: |
| Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors.And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevails justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression" (2:190-193). |
Which is actually saying only fight those who oppress you. I think it is actually slightly less unreasonable that the Deuteronomy passage. This only condones killing oppressors until they cease oppressing - it does not advocate killing all religious dissenters per se, which would seem to be the gist in Deuteronomy.
The same applies to the other oft-quoted verse from the Quran which includes the passage :
| Quote: |
| fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war). |
What nobody ever mentions is the context and the contents of the preceding and following verses.
When the passage is put into context the meaning is very different. It refers to a historical period when a Muslim community had several treaties with surrounding pagan, Christian and Jewish majorities. It speaks to a particular period when several of the pagan tribes had violated the treaty and secretly aided an attack against the Muslims. They are the subject of the 'slay them' injunction.
The preceding verse instructs the Muslims to continue to honour treaties with anyone who has not since betrayed them, because fulfilling agreements is considered a righteous action. The controversial passage is aimed at those who have violated the treaties and, thus, declared war.
The next verse continues
| Quote: |
| but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them... for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. |
I find that fairly similar to the passage from Deuteronomy I quoted. If you can see some huge difference then please explain.
PS - the original KJV is essentially an Anglican text, not a protestant translation, despite what many protestants think. It is a halfway house between the traditional Catholic bible (St Jerome) and the Lutheran revisionist Geneva Bible which the KJV was actually published to compete against.
My comparisons are with the Tanach/Tanakh, not the new testament which is (to my mind) a completely different can of worms, and although the KJV is reasonably accurate in many regards, it is undoubtedly deliberately inaccurate in others....
One can, for example, see the Christian imperative at work in Isaiah, quite clearly, with the introduction of the 'virgin' birth which doesn't appear in the Tanach:
| KJV wrote: |
| Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." |
Contrast with
| Hebrew translation from Tanakh wrote: |
| Isaiah 7:14, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanuel." |
The actual Hebrew word is "almah" meaning maiden or young woman as opposed to the Hebrew word for virgin - "betulah."
| Quote: |
| ...This only condones killing oppressors until they cease oppressing - it does not advocate killing all religious dissenters per se, which would seem to be the gist in Deuteronomy. |
The Deuteronomy passage does not "per se" seem to advocate killing "all" religions. But if you study that passage more carefully which I quoted, you can see that the killing is more specific to the profit or dreamer of dreams who lures God's people from Him. This is the point of the Deuteronomy passage.
I think it's interesting that the word infidel can be translated from latin to mean unfaithful. Well there is a price for unfaithfulness. This is a common theme that can be found in the Bible.
Just a side note, how does an atheist, like yourself justify the use Scripture to make a point if atheists say there is no truth in Scripture? From you point of view regarding the Bible, wouldn't the use of Scripture nullify your point? Just curious.
| Quote: |
| Is Islam an outdated religion, not capable of adjusting to the modern world? |
Is Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shintoism and so on? Yes! Yes, yes, yes.
Islam (and the rest) are based on ancient superstitions and ancient answers to questions we have answered with science.
| socialoutcast wrote: | ||
The Deuteronomy passage does not "per se" seem to advocate killing "all" religions. But if you study that passage more carefully which I quoted, you can see that the killing is more specific to the profit or dreamer of dreams who lures God's people from Him. This is the point of the Deuteronomy passage/ |
So which is more morally repugnant to you? Killing someone because they refuse to accept your beliefs and dare to speak against them? Or killing someone because they have conspired with enemies to attack you, as well as speaking/acting against your beliefs?
The original point was that Muslims are in some way more violent because their scripture is also violent in parts.
| Quote: |
| The fundamentalists are holding true to the Koran. If it is true, then the fundamentalists are perfectly justified in killing infidels. The people who say Islam is peaceful and capable of co-existing amiably with other faiths are the ones that are distorting the religion. |
I am simply pointing out that such judgement from Christian or Jewish believers runs the risk of being considered inconsistent at the very least, and very possible highly hypocritical, since exactly the same accusation can be justifiably made against similar Jewish/Christian scripture.
That was the point I made and, as yet, I see no serious attempt at rebuttal.
| Quote: |
| Just a side note, how does an atheist, like yourself justify the use Scripture to make a point if atheists say there is no truth in Scripture? From you point of view regarding the Bible, wouldn't the use of Scripture nullify your point? Just curious. |
That is a very strange argument. As I have previously said, it would be a mistake to confuse my atheism with ignorance of religion. I know Christian scripture as well as many believers and better than most. The Jesuits are, if nothing else, very skilled at 'educating' the young, and I was taught by them in a single-sex Catholic grammar until the age of 18. I studied Catechism before I reached puberty, and from 14 yrs onwards I had compulsory tuition for 3 hrs a week in basic theology and scriptural 'understanding'.
The statement that atheists 'say there is no truth in scripture' is a gross generalisation, and so incorrect it borders on caricature. Many atheists, myself included, see much that is probably true and much more that is interesting in many religious scriptures and writings. You do not have to be a member of the club to read the user-guide just as you do not have to be an expert in the Upanishads and an Ashtanga Master to feel the benefit of a bit of yoga.
I don't, of course, have to justify using scripture to make a point - the very notion is rather odd - but I will say that, unlike many who argue from the reverse perspective, I can at least claim to be fairly familiar with the material in question and I am not arguing from ignorance, distorted/partial understanding or malicious misrepresentation.
The particular use of scripture I made in this case is, in any case, not dependant on a particular theological understanding since it speaks to a much more basic principle and requires little theological interpretation.
Hello,
We say that todays world is free, global and advanced. What does that mean ?
Every coutry of world has criminal law, police, juditury, jails and punishments. Many countries have capital punishments as well. Israel keeps killing paletinians saying that they are working against thier country. US killed thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq including 100s of innocent children. What is the reason behind all this. Isn't this all terrorism. If yes, then it means that all countries of the world practice terrorism against thier own people and more over, todays world is not advanced, free and scientific but a terrorism oriented, brutal world.
On contrary to this, if you find reason in all of the above, then I think there is fairly strong reason for any such order in Quran that asks to kill someone as it is more a constituion rather then a simple religious book.
Points can be made here and we can discuss this further.
We say that todays world is free, global and advanced. What does that mean ?
Every coutry of world has criminal law, police, juditury, jails and punishments. Many countries have capital punishments as well. Israel keeps killing paletinians saying that they are working against thier country. US killed thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq including 100s of innocent children. What is the reason behind all this. Isn't this all terrorism. If yes, then it means that all countries of the world practice terrorism against thier own people and more over, todays world is not advanced, free and scientific but a terrorism oriented, brutal world.
On contrary to this, if you find reason in all of the above, then I think there is fairly strong reason for any such order in Quran that asks to kill someone as it is more a constituion rather then a simple religious book.
Points can be made here and we can discuss this further.
| burqe wrote: |
| Hello,
We say that todays world is free, global and advanced. What does that mean ? Every coutry of world has criminal law, police, juditury, jails and punishments. Many countries have capital punishments as well. Israel keeps killing paletinians saying that they are working against thier country. US killed thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq including 100s of innocent children. What is the reason behind all this. Isn't this all terrorism. If yes, then it means that all countries of the world practice terrorism against thier own people and more over, todays world is not advanced, free and scientific but a terrorism oriented, brutal world. |
Where is the bit in the bible, after thou shalt not kil that says in small print except if you want a job in the forces, or if you all agree and the victim is a criminal, or if you think there is a chance they might attack you...? I thought the message was more 'Judge not lest ye be judged' but apparently this is not applicable globally - to some criminals and foreigners, for example, in the beliefs of many fundamentalist Christians....OK - I can sort of accept - the world is not a simple place and decisions are sometimes difficult and require interpretation. Yet many of these same Christians also insist on the literal interpretation of scripture when it concerns, what is to me, an issue of lesser moral importance - creation.
| Quote: |
| On contrary to this, if you find reason in all of the above, then I think there is fairly strong reason for any such order in Quran that asks to kill someone as it is more a constituion rather then a simple religious book. |
It is not hard to find reasons - in fact there is only one reason to find. We find ways to justify the basic hypocrisy of much of our 'enlightened western' policies, of course, in the modern western world. Personally I prefer it when such hypocritical cant is left out. The motivation is always basically that of self-interest..
Sometimes this is portrayed as self defence - which is only rarely true in an immediate sense. The US and UK ridiculously attempted to make this case with 'Iraq' - remember the 45 minute Nukes, the WMD hype, the build up of the Kurdish massacres etc etc ?
Sometimes it is said to be 'for their own good' - and this is never true in my experience/memory. Once again this tactic was used by the US/UK early on with Iraq - we were informed that the Iraqis would be waving on the streets and welcoming our troops.
The truth is much simpler and always boils down to the same basic reason in such cases - self interest. This should surprise nobody and it would be much better if we could stop trying to pretend otherwise because the hypocrisy is even worse than the selfish brutality.
No, Islam is not a menace, only the extremists that use it as an excuse for terror. The same things (to a varying degree) occur in other religions. No religion is the menace, only the people that follow it.
Hello,
I enjoy reading your coments chris, even when it takes time to uderstand as your way is too philosiphical. There is one more thing here. Most of the intellectual people think that the best thing is what they beleive in. Some times, they have prejiduce about other ideas and they simply don't bother to think.
As we are people of wisdom, intellect and reason, we should, openly, positively argue that what is the real truth behind. Just for instance how do you think this all universe came into about. Scientists say BigBang, starting from a place with infinite mass and no volume, something that does not make sense. They are unable to explain is so they take the way. I beleive that it was created from nothingness and what they call infinite mass and zero volume is actually nothingness. This is one thing, there are many others, we should discuss them to find the truth. I beleive, the truth is one behind all this. A single explanation of the system.
Regards
Haris
I enjoy reading your coments chris, even when it takes time to uderstand as your way is too philosiphical. There is one more thing here. Most of the intellectual people think that the best thing is what they beleive in. Some times, they have prejiduce about other ideas and they simply don't bother to think.
As we are people of wisdom, intellect and reason, we should, openly, positively argue that what is the real truth behind. Just for instance how do you think this all universe came into about. Scientists say BigBang, starting from a place with infinite mass and no volume, something that does not make sense. They are unable to explain is so they take the way. I beleive that it was created from nothingness and what they call infinite mass and zero volume is actually nothingness. This is one thing, there are many others, we should discuss them to find the truth. I beleive, the truth is one behind all this. A single explanation of the system.
Regards
Haris
Islam itself is not bad, but I guess if you take the things written in the koran too serious it is kind of outdated.. but that is true with the bible as well..
Most religions based on religious books would logically appear to be outdated. They were written in times which are nothing like the times we live in now. They refer to ways of life and customs/traditions that are completely strange and unknown to us, and in lots of cases, are specific not only to that particular period but also to some particular place.
Islam as a religion is not a menace, depending on how you choose to look at it. As long as you believe religion is not a menace, Islam is not a menace. However, if you believe the world is better off without religion, then Islam is probably as much a menace as any other religion.
Finally, I'd say that Islam itself is not a menace. Terrorists are. It's a different issue that :
1. Most terrorists you hear about are Muslims.
2. The media likes to print more about Muslim terrorists than terrorists of other religion. It's a stereotype and it sells.
Islam as a religion is not a menace, depending on how you choose to look at it. As long as you believe religion is not a menace, Islam is not a menace. However, if you believe the world is better off without religion, then Islam is probably as much a menace as any other religion.
Finally, I'd say that Islam itself is not a menace. Terrorists are. It's a different issue that :
1. Most terrorists you hear about are Muslims.
2. The media likes to print more about Muslim terrorists than terrorists of other religion. It's a stereotype and it sells.
| tidruG wrote: |
|
2. The media likes to print more about Muslim terrorists than terrorists of other religion. It's a stereotype and it sells. |
I disagree with that. Can you site examples of other religious-based terrorist activity (or even non-religious based terrorist activity) that has happened but not been reported in the media?
Respectfully,
M
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
Is Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Shintoism and so on? Yes! Yes, yes, yes. Islam (and the rest) are based on ancient superstitions and ancient answers to questions we have answered with science. |
I really have to disagree with this. While the cosmologies of the various ancient religions have been totally disproven by science, providing a cosmology was only one of their functions. Religions and rituals also have psychological functions which can be very helpful at various points of transition in life (puberty, old age, any sort of major tragedy) or in adjusting to life in general. Of course, as the cosmologies those rituals are associated with are discredited, the rituals themselves can lose their impact. But science does little to prepare one for their adult lives or for their descent towards death.
| tidruG wrote: |
| Most religions based on religious books would logically appear to be outdated. They were written in times which are nothing like the times we live in now. They refer to ways of life and customs/traditions that are completely strange and unknown to us, and in lots of cases, are specific not only to that particular period but also to some particular place.
Islam as a religion is not a menace, depending on how you choose to look at it. As long as you believe religion is not a menace, Islam is not a menace. However, if you believe the world is better off without religion, then Islam is probably as much a menace as any other religion. Finally, I'd say that Islam itself is not a menace. Terrorists are. It's a different issue that : 1. Most terrorists you hear about are Muslims. 2. The media likes to print more about Muslim terrorists than terrorists of other religion. It's a stereotype and it sells. |
Yes, and several years ago, the only terrorists you heard about was Christians, even though they weren't called that at the time. It was called Crusades or Holy Wars, or some such thing to justify why it ws being done.
I don't think any religion is outdated. Each teach lessons that can be used today. If you don't understand the customs of that time, study up on it. Try and learn why it was relavent then, you just might find that it can apply to today as well.
| Coclus wrote: |
| Islam itself is not bad, but I guess if you take the things written in the koran too serious it is kind of outdated.. but that is true with the bible as well.. |
Hmm, are you saying this after really looking into it. How much of Koran have you seen? If you have given much time and this is your own opinion, then what did you feel was outdated ?
| Moonspider wrote: | ||
I disagree with that. Can you site examples of other religious-based terrorist activity (or even non-religious based terrorist activity) that has happened but not been reported in the media? Respectfully, M |
Serbia killed many thousand muslims in Bosnia and there were huge mass graves found. Still there was no reasonable action and they let them eat up 49% of bosnian land. The day, the peace treaty was signed, all sanctions were removed by US.
On the other hand, Iraq attacked Kuwait and then there was the gulf war and it ended, Iraq surrendered, peace treaty signed, every thing done. Now as in the case of serbia, the sanction should be removed but they were not. 10 years passed and Iraq was allowed to import a limited amount of food and medicine and the consequence was that more than half a million children died due to desease.
Terrorism is not neccessary just with guns and bullets, there are other more bitter ways.
2000 muslims were burnt alive by extreemist hindus in Gujrat in year 2002-2003. No word in world.
These are only a few examples. Hope you will think
| Quote: |
| I disagree with that. Can you site examples of other religious-based terrorist activity (or even non-religious based terrorist activity) that has happened but not been reported in the media? |
Here in India, I see and hear of riots and communal disruptions between all religions, more or less. Christians are a minority here, but I have many friends in the US telling me about Christian fundamentalists damaging abortion clinics, etc. Surely, these may not be on the same level as major bombings, etc, but it doesn't prevent them from being acts of terrorism nonetheless.
Here are also a couple of links. I didn't bother to verify the authenticity of the sources due to a lack of time I'm facing as well as the fact that all I'm trying to establish is that terrorism exists in the minds of the fundamentalists of all religions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/sikh.htm
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm
Also, there are plenty of armed political parties whose agenda/ideologies border along terrorism/violence. An example is the LTTE in Sri Lanka, which is basically a Hindu Organization.
This is a very interesting debate!
At the outset, I must clarify that I have quite a number of Muslim friends that I get along well with.
Despite that, after observing the happenings in the world and critically analyzing them within my abilities, I am forced to conclude that Islam is the religion most open to misinterpretation within its own flanks.
Take any terrorist organization in the world, and you are bound to find that if any of them fight under the cloak of religion (under the pretext of holding up their religion and its rights), in 99% of the cases, it turns out to be a Muslim organization.
If we trace this back in world history, we finally end up with the fact that all the trouble in the world started with the advent of religions of proselytizing nature (mainly, Christianity and Islam). In the medieval age, Christianity spread terror in the form of Crusades and more recently, Imperialism -- wherein the church was given as a reason / supported the massacre of natives in Africa and Asia for economic exploitation as well as adding to the count of its followers. Nowadays, Christianity has evolved to a stage wherein this conversion / proselytizing is done covertly (under the pretext of social service -- which, if seen in isolation, is good -- For more, you can refer to some articles by Francois Gautier ( www.francoisgautier.com ) ) and the advocation of force / terror has been done away with. Islam, on the other hand, was unable to expand beyond North Africa, Arab states and a few isolated areas like Indonesia and Malaysia because there was no central authority like the Vatican for Christians to oversee the expansion. Also, the religion failed to evolve with time and people brought up with a narrow outlook perceived other religions as a threat which must be completely eliminated either by terror or by conversion. If you consider religions like Hinduism / Budhism / Judaism, which are comparitively lesser in the news as terrorizing religions, you find that the main reason is that they are not proselytizing in nature. There is no direction in their holy books asking people to go forth and proclaim to other people that if their God is not followed, then they are bound to land up in 'hell'. These religions allow for people to co-exist peacefully. Note that I am not saying that there are no radical outfits in these non-proselytizing religions. Even if there are, they exist basically to defend themselves against the proselytizing religions activities.
A final note.. as a Tamilian, I have to correct a post mistakenly made above, which terms LTTE as a Hindu organization. The LTTE is fighting for a homeland just like the Basque people in Spain. They are an ethnic group and not a religious group. There are Hindus, Christians, Muslims and atheists who are members of the LTTE. It is misleading to suggest that LTTE uses Hinduism as a front / reason for its terror activities. LTTE and Hinduism are in no way bundled together like Al Queda and Islam.
At the outset, I must clarify that I have quite a number of Muslim friends that I get along well with.
Despite that, after observing the happenings in the world and critically analyzing them within my abilities, I am forced to conclude that Islam is the religion most open to misinterpretation within its own flanks.
Take any terrorist organization in the world, and you are bound to find that if any of them fight under the cloak of religion (under the pretext of holding up their religion and its rights), in 99% of the cases, it turns out to be a Muslim organization.
If we trace this back in world history, we finally end up with the fact that all the trouble in the world started with the advent of religions of proselytizing nature (mainly, Christianity and Islam). In the medieval age, Christianity spread terror in the form of Crusades and more recently, Imperialism -- wherein the church was given as a reason / supported the massacre of natives in Africa and Asia for economic exploitation as well as adding to the count of its followers. Nowadays, Christianity has evolved to a stage wherein this conversion / proselytizing is done covertly (under the pretext of social service -- which, if seen in isolation, is good -- For more, you can refer to some articles by Francois Gautier ( www.francoisgautier.com ) ) and the advocation of force / terror has been done away with. Islam, on the other hand, was unable to expand beyond North Africa, Arab states and a few isolated areas like Indonesia and Malaysia because there was no central authority like the Vatican for Christians to oversee the expansion. Also, the religion failed to evolve with time and people brought up with a narrow outlook perceived other religions as a threat which must be completely eliminated either by terror or by conversion. If you consider religions like Hinduism / Budhism / Judaism, which are comparitively lesser in the news as terrorizing religions, you find that the main reason is that they are not proselytizing in nature. There is no direction in their holy books asking people to go forth and proclaim to other people that if their God is not followed, then they are bound to land up in 'hell'. These religions allow for people to co-exist peacefully. Note that I am not saying that there are no radical outfits in these non-proselytizing religions. Even if there are, they exist basically to defend themselves against the proselytizing religions activities.
A final note.. as a Tamilian, I have to correct a post mistakenly made above, which terms LTTE as a Hindu organization. The LTTE is fighting for a homeland just like the Basque people in Spain. They are an ethnic group and not a religious group. There are Hindus, Christians, Muslims and atheists who are members of the LTTE. It is misleading to suggest that LTTE uses Hinduism as a front / reason for its terror activities. LTTE and Hinduism are in no way bundled together like Al Queda and Islam.
| jwellsy wrote: |
| I never heard a single Muslim speak up and denounce the fatwa on Salmon Rushdi as wrong. |
Hear it now. Any stupid Fatwa - be it on rushdie, be it on bush, be it on Sania - is stupid. And unacceptable.
PS: I'm a muslim. Period.
| Quote: |
| A final note.. as a Tamilian, I have to correct a post mistakenly made above, which terms LTTE as a Hindu organization. The LTTE is fighting for a homeland just like the Basque people in Spain. They are an ethnic group and not a religious group. There are Hindus, Christians, Muslims and atheists who are members of the LTTE. It is misleading to suggest that LTTE uses Hinduism as a front / reason for its terror activities. LTTE and Hinduism are in no way bundled together like Al Queda and Islam. |
Anyway, I agree with the rest of your post.
for the record, no religion are meant to be a menace.
| ganesh wrote: |
|
If we trace this back in world history, we finally end up with the fact that all the trouble in the world started with the advent of religions of proselytizing nature (mainly, Christianity and Islam). |
i beleive you say this because you have not gone much into history. some 5000 years ago, an egyptian king ordered killing of 70,000 children just because fortellers had said that one of them will remove him from thorne.
It is a very very old custom that young girls very killed in sacrifice or defence to natural disasters. If you go further in history, you will find unhuman behavior in every region of time. The reason you say that violence has become common after christianity and Islam arrived could be because history is more properly recorded for this period and that it is closer to our time and that population and some other factors have caused violent incidents to be more common.
Any call to terrorism, violence and baseless war is never motivated by a true religion, I beleive. If some people associate themselves to a religion and then make it a ground to start violence and terrorism, it is important to see if thier religian really orders what they are doing. Most of the people do not have direct knowledge of Islam and they have never studied it much. They no Islam through the media and the corrupt people who misrepresent it and start to beleive in it to be the real picture of the religion.
The original point was that hte life of humans was in time, even much much worse before Islam and christianity then after them. At other times, however, there were excellent political and govenrment systems as well. Similar to today and recent history.
| Quote: |
| Any call to terrorism, violence and baseless war is never motivated by a true religion, I beleive. |
Most religions, I believe, generally do not advocate violence against others. Sure enough, a lot of religions have violent phrases in them, and sometimes advocate the killing of certain 'categories' of people. Most of them, however, simply say that disbelievers go to hell. I suppose that extremists take it as an order to facilitate this transfer from earth to hell.
| desertwind wrote: | ||
Hear it now. Any stupid Fatwa - be it on rushdie, be it on bush, be it on Sania - is stupid. And unacceptable. PS: I'm a muslim. Period. |
Interesting choice of words.
Your against 'stupid fatwa's'.
Not all or any but stupid ones.
That implies that some could be justified.
What would qualify as a serious fatwa?
I'm sure it varies greatly among individuals.
If we go back all the way down the history of humans, you always find that violence and killing has existed. My impression was that, in this thread, we are more interested in finding out about violence and killing which has been instigated by the kindling of religious fervour.
As I had mentioned in my first post in this thread, I think Islam is the only religion in the whole world where 'madrasas' (religious schools) exist in order to teach Jihad and the path of violence to young impressionable minds, and in the process brainwash them. (I am reminded of the Red Mosque issue in Pakistan recently -- though I personally have no opinion on that incident, and am just commenting as a neutral observer).
If people want to fight for their land and rights, it is one thing, but fighting under the pretext of religion is something that doesn't sound correct. All this leads to one thing only - The people of the world should stop trying to convert other people to their faiths. Let people decide on their own (by birth or by study) whether they want to follow god or not, and if so, which faith to follow.
As I had mentioned in my first post in this thread, I think Islam is the only religion in the whole world where 'madrasas' (religious schools) exist in order to teach Jihad and the path of violence to young impressionable minds, and in the process brainwash them. (I am reminded of the Red Mosque issue in Pakistan recently -- though I personally have no opinion on that incident, and am just commenting as a neutral observer).
If people want to fight for their land and rights, it is one thing, but fighting under the pretext of religion is something that doesn't sound correct. All this leads to one thing only - The people of the world should stop trying to convert other people to their faiths. Let people decide on their own (by birth or by study) whether they want to follow god or not, and if so, which faith to follow.
| ganesh wrote: |
| All this leads to one thing only - The people of the world should stop trying to convert other people to their faiths. Let people decide on their own (by birth or by study) whether they want to follow god or not, and if so, which faith to follow. |
But if you believe your faith to be the only way to heaven, and that any who do not believe will be condemned for all eternity, would it not be immoral to keep that teaching to yourself? I am not speaking of forcibly converting people, but of missionaries and personal sharing of one's faith with others.
Would "letting people decide on their own" not be morally equivalent to watching someone about to die and saying to yourself, "Oh yeah! I know how to get out of that deadly situation. But I really shouldn't bother him with my knowledge. I'll let him figure it out for himself. Hopefully he'll get it in time."
If one truly believes in a spiritual reality where believers go to heaven and unbelievers go to hell (or any other paradise and punishment), how can one morally justify keeping his/her mouth shut?
Your statement is great, provided all religions are truly meaningless and no eternal consequences exist for anyone.
Respectfully,
M
| burqe wrote: | ||||
Serbia killed many thousand muslims in Bosnia and there were huge mass graves found. Still there was no reasonable action and they let them eat up 49% of bosnian land. The day, the peace treaty was signed, all sanctions were removed by US. On the other hand, Iraq attacked Kuwait and then there was the gulf war and it ended, Iraq surrendered, peace treaty signed, every thing done. Now as in the case of serbia, the sanction should be removed but they were not. 10 years passed and Iraq was allowed to import a limited amount of food and medicine and the consequence was that more than half a million children died due to desease. Terrorism is not neccessary just with guns and bullets, there are other more bitter ways. 2000 muslims were burnt alive by extreemist hindus in Gujrat in year 2002-2003. No word in world. These are only a few examples. Hope you will think |
I'll concede the latter, since I don't recall seeing anything concerning it in the major news outlets here in the U.S.
However Bosnia was in the press constantly. The United States and NATO intervened militarily, and there were criminal charges and arrests. The plight of the muslims in Bosnia was all over the media.
Regarding the peace treaty, every peace treaty is different. Germany and Japan were occupied for years (arguably still are). Germany was even split into four different occupied territories. The sanctions against Hussein, the no-fly zones, etc. were part of the conditions placed upon him after his defeat. Peace treaties do not mean that everything returns to the status quo. And one cannot compare one to the other, for they are all different and utterly dependent upon the war, and the politics of the parties involved.
Respectfully,
M
Last edited by Moonspider on Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:28 am; edited 1 time in total
Peace be upon all.
I've addressed quite a few people in this post, so just check i haven't addressed you.
------------------------------------------------------------
Islam can definitly co-exist with other faiths. People forget that Islam had a great age in between the 9th and 17/18th century. The Muslims grew very scientifically advanced and powerful. They were very tolerant of monotheistic faiths, especially the Jews. I'm not denying that there were times of no-tolerance like there is everywhere, but the Jews had a pretty nice time co-existing with Islam. The best example of this is Islamic/Muslim spain of course.
--------------
Islam is totally against terrorism
I will quote three verses:
1) No killing other humans:
Glorious Qur'an [6:151]: Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
2) No sucide bombing or other ways of killing yourself:
Glorious Qur'an [4:29]: O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.
3) Self-defence, and fight back only as much as you need to. Never more.
Glorious Qur'an [2:190]: You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
----------------------------
You will never ever say that again.
I denounce the fatwa on salmon rushi as wrong. No human has the right to order the death of another human. Salmon rushdi should not have a single hair on his head harmed. Fighting is only allowed in self-defence.
By the way, all Muslim countries except two condemned that fatwa. One was Iran; I think the other was saudi Arabia.
-----------------------------
You need to read this: http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/ShariahAndHumanity/articles/2006-06/01d.shtml
Correct. It's very reasonable. An example of where the verses would apply would be in stalin's russia, where people were not allowed to worship or have religion, but had/were encouraged to worship stalin.
-----------------------------
And that is what people fail to understand.
Well done, soulfire, for understanding!
--------------------------------
Please improve your arabic.
Madrasa is ANY type of school!
Once again, bad arabic.
Jihad is the struggle to make ones self better for God. How am i supposed to improve my relationship with God? By teaching children violence? No.
Let me give you an example of a Jihad: "I am going to make a Jihad to stop smoking"....(i do not smoke and never have.)
Jihad can only ever be applied to fighting terms, when you are making a Jihad to free oppressed people. Like in darthfur for example.
Wow, you comment as a "neutral" observer, and tell us at the same time, Muslims are brainwashing children. Wow...thanks for that.
The Qur'an agrees:
Glorious Qur'an [2:256]: There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
------------------------------
Peace to all. may God bless everyone.
I've addressed quite a few people in this post, so just check i haven't addressed you.
------------------------------------------------------------
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| Islam means submission. Submission totally to the will of god. As we have been seeing so many messages here on the forums on Islam, apart from the media coverage on Islamic terrorism, does anyone think that Islamic ideas and values are not really suited for the free and modern world? Do you think they belong to a totally different mindset, not capable of co-existing with people of other faiths?
|
Islam can definitly co-exist with other faiths. People forget that Islam had a great age in between the 9th and 17/18th century. The Muslims grew very scientifically advanced and powerful. They were very tolerant of monotheistic faiths, especially the Jews. I'm not denying that there were times of no-tolerance like there is everywhere, but the Jews had a pretty nice time co-existing with Islam. The best example of this is Islamic/Muslim spain of course.
--------------
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
Yes. I know there are those that say that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the fundamentalists are distorting it, but they are conveniently ignoring the passages that call for the destruction of the infidels. |
Islam is totally against terrorism
I will quote three verses:
1) No killing other humans:
Glorious Qur'an [6:151]: Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
2) No sucide bombing or other ways of killing yourself:
Glorious Qur'an [4:29]: O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.
3) Self-defence, and fight back only as much as you need to. Never more.
Glorious Qur'an [2:190]: You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.
----------------------------
| jwellsy wrote: |
|
I never heard a single Muslim speak up and denounce the fatwa on Salmon Rushdi as wrong. |
You will never ever say that again.
I denounce the fatwa on salmon rushi as wrong. No human has the right to order the death of another human. Salmon rushdi should not have a single hair on his head harmed. Fighting is only allowed in self-defence.
By the way, all Muslim countries except two condemned that fatwa. One was Iran; I think the other was saudi Arabia.
-----------------------------
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
As regards the comparison with the Quran : An 'infidel' is one without faith who doubts the central message of Islam - in other words, a dreamer of dreams who says 'let us go after other Gods'. |
You need to read this: http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/ShariahAndHumanity/articles/2006-06/01d.shtml
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
In fact the Quran is arguably more reasonable in the passages that most people take out of context. .... Which is actually saying only fight those who oppress you. |
Correct. It's very reasonable. An example of where the verses would apply would be in stalin's russia, where people were not allowed to worship or have religion, but had/were encouraged to worship stalin.
-----------------------------
| SoulFire wrote: |
|
No, Islam is not a menace, only the extremists that use it as an excuse for terror. The same things (to a varying degree) occur in other religions. No religion is the menace, only the people that follow it |
And that is what people fail to understand.
Well done, soulfire, for understanding!
--------------------------------
| ganesh wrote: |
|
...I think Islam is the only religion in the whole world where 'madrasas' (religious schools) |
Please improve your arabic.
Madrasa is ANY type of school!
| Quote: |
|
exist in order to teach Jihad and the path of violence to young impressionable minds |
Once again, bad arabic.
Jihad is the struggle to make ones self better for God. How am i supposed to improve my relationship with God? By teaching children violence? No.
Let me give you an example of a Jihad: "I am going to make a Jihad to stop smoking"....(i do not smoke and never have.)
Jihad can only ever be applied to fighting terms, when you are making a Jihad to free oppressed people. Like in darthfur for example.
| Quote: |
|
, and in the process brainwash them. (I am reminded of the Red Mosque issue in Pakistan recently -- though I personally have no opinion on that incident, and am just commenting as a neutral observer). |
Wow, you comment as a "neutral" observer, and tell us at the same time, Muslims are brainwashing children. Wow...thanks for that.
| Quote: |
|
If people want to fight for their land and rights, it is one thing, but fighting under the pretext of religion is something that doesn't sound correct. All this leads to one thing only - The people of the world should stop trying to convert other people to their faiths. Let people decide on their own (by birth or by study) whether they want to follow god or not, and if so, which faith to follow. |
The Qur'an agrees:
Glorious Qur'an [2:256]: There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
------------------------------
Peace to all. may God bless everyone.
No. Islam is not a menace. I agree with Soulfire's sentiments:
And with Loyal's example of Stalin's Russia, in which an anti-religious atheist state persecuted millions. No worldview is free from having followers who, being human, are prone to hatred and violence.
| Quote: |
| Islam is not a menace, only the extremists that use it as an excuse for terror. |
And with Loyal's example of Stalin's Russia, in which an anti-religious atheist state persecuted millions. No worldview is free from having followers who, being human, are prone to hatred and violence.
| Quote: |
| But if you believe your faith to be the only way to heaven, and that any who do not believe will be condemned for all eternity, would it not be immoral to keep that teaching to yourself? I am not speaking of forcibly converting people, but of missionaries and personal sharing of one's faith with others. |
It would be quite alright trying to save someone from what you believe to be eternal damnation. On the other hand, forcing it down someone's throat is ETHICALLY wrong. Remember, there is no evidence that faith is based on.
But if you believe your faith to be the only way to heaven, and that any who do not believe will be condemned for all eternity..
This is the whole point of all proselytizing religions right.. They believe that their path is the only way to heaven.. I am not sure what all religious books of various proselytizing religions teach, but if they don't teach tolerance for other's beliefs, then there must be something missing...
I am saying that religions should exist because they are a way to achieve spiritual solace for everyone, but, even if taught otherwise, people should recognize that there are multiple avenues to reach heaven. I am saying that conflict starts only when you try to force something on somebody who doesn't want it forced on them.
This is the whole point of all proselytizing religions right.. They believe that their path is the only way to heaven.. I am not sure what all religious books of various proselytizing religions teach, but if they don't teach tolerance for other's beliefs, then there must be something missing...
I am saying that religions should exist because they are a way to achieve spiritual solace for everyone, but, even if taught otherwise, people should recognize that there are multiple avenues to reach heaven. I am saying that conflict starts only when you try to force something on somebody who doesn't want it forced on them.
As I had said in my first post, I have many Muslim friends.
What I have been observing is that it is mainly Muslims who have taken the pretext of religion in order to take up violence on religious grounds.
I can't find a single Christian organization taking up the Bible or interpreting it in a way to justify carrying out terrorist tasks. Nor is there any Jewish organization hiding its violence under the garb of interpreting the Old Testament.. And so it goes on for the Hindu's Bhagwad Gita / Vedas and so on..
I still wonder why the Quran is open to so much misinterpretation within Muslims themselves?
As far as Madrasa interpretation goes.. I am not saying that all religious madrasas 'brainwash' people.. but I am left wondering where the terrorists who hide under the pretext of holding up the Quran come from...
What I have been observing is that it is mainly Muslims who have taken the pretext of religion in order to take up violence on religious grounds.
I can't find a single Christian organization taking up the Bible or interpreting it in a way to justify carrying out terrorist tasks. Nor is there any Jewish organization hiding its violence under the garb of interpreting the Old Testament.. And so it goes on for the Hindu's Bhagwad Gita / Vedas and so on..
I still wonder why the Quran is open to so much misinterpretation within Muslims themselves?
As far as Madrasa interpretation goes.. I am not saying that all religious madrasas 'brainwash' people.. but I am left wondering where the terrorists who hide under the pretext of holding up the Quran come from...
| tidruG wrote: | ||
It would be quite alright trying to save someone from what you believe to be eternal damnation. On the other hand, forcing it down someone's throat is ETHICALLY wrong. Remember, there is no evidence that faith is based on. |
Yes, forcing it is wrong (such as through conquest or law). In your example I'd assume at some point either party A or party B would write the other off and walk away.
Respectfully,
M
| ganesh wrote: |
| As I had said in my first post, I have many Muslim friends.
What I have been observing is that it is mainly Muslims who have taken the pretext of religion in order to take up violence on religious grounds. I can't find a single Christian organization taking up the Bible or interpreting it in a way to justify carrying out terrorist tasks. Nor is there any Jewish organization hiding its violence under the garb of interpreting the Old Testament.. And so it goes on for the Hindu's Bhagwad Gita / Vedas and so on.. I still wonder why the Quran is open to so much misinterpretation within Muslims themselves? As far as Madrasa interpretation goes.. I am not saying that all religious madrasas 'brainwash' people.. but I am left wondering where the terrorists who hide under the pretext of holding up the Quran come from... |
I think part of the issue derives from a fundamental difference between Islam and the other two Abrahamic faiths. Both Judaism and Christianity prophesy the coming of the Messiah (the first coming for Judaism, the second coming in Christianity) to innaugurate God's rule upon the earth. In Islam however (and anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong), God's rule will only come once the world has been converted to Islam. So whereas Jews and Christians both expect things to get worse in the world before the Messiah comes, Muslims have a responsibility to spread their faith in order to usher in the kingdom. Non-believers are therefore an obstacle to perfecting the earth in Islam, where in Christianity and Judaism they are not.
Respectfully,
M
| ganesh wrote: |
| I am saying that religions should exist because they are a way to achieve spiritual solace for everyone, but, even if taught otherwise, people should recognize that there are multiple avenues to reach heaven. I am saying that conflict starts only when you try to force something on somebody who doesn't want it forced on them. |
So people, if taught that their faith is the only way to God ("No man comes to the father but by me," to quote Christ for example), should refuse to believe what they are taught?
I do agree, as I said earlier, that religious belief should not be forced on anyone (conquest or law). Most faiths believe that it can't be, that one must choose.
Respectfully,
M
| ganesh wrote: |
| As I had said in my first post, I have many Muslim friends.
What I have been observing is that it is mainly Muslims who have taken the pretext of religion in order to take up violence on religious grounds. I can't find a single Christian organization taking up the Bible or interpreting it in a way to justify carrying out terrorist tasks. Nor is there any Jewish organization hiding its violence under the garb of interpreting the Old Testament.. And so it goes on for the Hindu's Bhagwad Gita / Vedas and so on.. |
Have you perhaps considered that the reason for the lack of visible terrorism, is that a) the media doesn't report it b) when the media DOES report it, the word terrorism isn't attached with it c) it sometimes happens hidden in non-western places e.g. when a group of hindu extremists tried to blow up a mosque, because it was in india far away, it was not reported in the west as "frontpage material".
| Quote: |
|
I still wonder why the Quran is open to so much misinterpretation within Muslims themselves? |
People can twist anything to justify their means.
But, "You shall not kill" in the verse i quoted earlier, isn't open to misinterpretation, is it?
| Quote: |
|
As far as Madrasa interpretation goes.. I am not saying that all religious madrasas 'brainwash' people.. but I am left wondering where the terrorists who hide under the pretext of holding up the Quran come from... |
The religious schools that brainwash people can only be found in saudi arabia. The terriosts come from saudi arabia and spread around. The reason is, saudi arabia has an extremist faith group in power known as the wahabbis. They are very intolerant.
Have a nice day. may God bless you.
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
I think part of the issue derives from a fundamental difference between Islam and the other two Abrahamic faiths. Both Judaism and Christianity prophesy the coming of the Messiah (the first coming for Judaism, the second coming in Christianity) to innaugurate God's rule upon the earth. In Islam however (and anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong), God's rule will only come once the world has been converted to Islam. So whereas Jews and Christians both expect things to get worse in the world before the Messiah comes, Muslims have a responsibility to spread their faith in order to usher in the kingdom. Non-believers are therefore an obstacle to perfecting the earth in Islam, where in Christianity and Judaism they are not. |
Not really, mate. The idea that everyone has to be converted to Islam comes from the Kharijites, early extremists. However, the real belief is that people can choose their own religions.
Glorious Qur'an [109:6]: "To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."
Glorious Qur'an [2:256]: There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
However, Islam maintains that there is one religion that is right: the religion of monotheism. So any religion that worships the One God is also right/partially right. (trinitarian Christianity is not included).
So that's why Jews, for example, can go to Heaven:
Glorious Qur'an [2:62]: Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the (unitarian-believing) Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
The end of the world will come, when the world will degrade into almost pure sin. Then the anti-christ will come and start converting everyone to the hellfire, until only the strongest truest believers in God remain, and when this group remains, Jesus will descend and lead this group to battle where he will kill the anti-christ and put peace forever on earth (but the earth will soon after end anyway due to Judgement Day).
Have a nice day. may God bless you.
I notice a lot of double-posting in this thread. The last 3 posters have done so. Instead of sending out individual warnings, I'm just making a general request to avoid doing so. All of you have been forum users for enough time now to know how you can incorporate several quotes in a single post, and how you can edit your posts to add/subtract to/from it.
Ideally, they would accept what they are taught, yet at the same time accept that others may have differing opinions, and it's best to offer them your point of view, but not force them to accept it as the final word. It's like a debate between heavy metal music fans whether Metallica is better or Slayer or Megadeth.
Also, I imagine you could say that choosing a better music band is not quite the same as choosing the ONE religion that saves you from eternal damnation. Yet again, I return to the question of fact/evidence. There is no evidence to support the existence of hell/heaven/eternal damnation. It's just basically a question of your beliefs in this life. For someone who is obsessed with any one (or more) of the bands I've mentioned, it's more important for him to accept that band as the best and to get everyone else to accept his opinion, than it is to think about supposed eternal damnation.
Last edited by tidruG on Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:25 am; edited 3 times in total
| Moonspider wrote: |
| So people, if taught that their faith is the only way to God ("No man comes to the father but by me," to quote Christ for example), should refuse to believe what they are taught? |
Also, I imagine you could say that choosing a better music band is not quite the same as choosing the ONE religion that saves you from eternal damnation. Yet again, I return to the question of fact/evidence. There is no evidence to support the existence of hell/heaven/eternal damnation. It's just basically a question of your beliefs in this life. For someone who is obsessed with any one (or more) of the bands I've mentioned, it's more important for him to accept that band as the best and to get everyone else to accept his opinion, than it is to think about supposed eternal damnation.
Last edited by tidruG on Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:25 am; edited 3 times in total
| tidruG wrote: |
| I notice a lot of double-posting in this thread. The last 3 posters have done so. Instead of sending out individual warnings, I'm just making a general request to avoid doing so. All of you have been forum users for enough time now to know how you can incorporate several quotes in a single post, and how you can edit your posts to add/subtract to/from it. |
Err...what's double posting? Is it where you reply to people's posts in seperate replies?
In others words, is the forum policy to put several replies in one post?
Thanks in advance.
| Quote: |
| Err...what's double posting? |
If you want to reply to various people, you can still do so by using the Quote tags to mention whose quote you are replying to:
| Code: |
| [quote="Name1"]<portion of Name1's post>[/quote]<your reply to this portion of Name1's post> |
| Code: |
| [quote="Name1"]<another portion of Name1's post>[/quote]<your reply to this portion> |
| Code: |
| [quote="Name2"]<portion of Name2's post>[/quote]<your reply> |
| Quote: |
|
I'll concede the latter, since I don't recall seeing anything concerning it in the major news outlets here in the U.S. However Bosnia was in the press constantly. The United States and NATO intervened militarily, and there were criminal charges and arrests. The plight of the muslims in Bosnia was all over the media. Regarding the peace treaty, every peace treaty is different. Germany and Japan were occupied for years (arguably still are). Germany was even split into four different occupied territories. The sanctions against Hussein, the no-fly zones, etc. were part of the conditions placed upon him after his defeat. Peace treaties do not mean that everything returns to the status quo. And one cannot compare one to the other, for they are all different and utterly dependent upon the war, and the politics of the parties involved. |
You approve one thing. you did not see the later in the news because it was not published. It was headings in the local news paper even in Pakistan but most of the world don't know (simply what I wanted to say).
Your later comment are similar to the comments of media, gevernments etc about the issue I raised. Every one escapes by saying such thing which have no reason, a game of word like "things were different", "you don't know" etc. Answer my question man! . You can let half a million kids die because things were different? You let more than a million die in Somalia because things were different ?
Many of you have mentioned that any religion per se cannot be a menace and how people interpret is the main problem.
I clearly don't agree with it. I live here in India and right from childhood and in midst of many Muslims. Islam conditions people and brainwashes them right from their childhood. Muslims, by nature are aggressive and violent. They are taught from their childhood that other religions are crap and only their religion is true. They are taught right from their childhood that the whole world belongs to them and everyone else is just a tresspasser. Under such situations, how can you expect any peace in the world? The problem is just increasing as with the increasing Muslim population.
Let's take an example of India. India is a secular state where the constitution guarantees freedom to pursue any religion of your choice without any fear. In fact, Muslims have been given so much freedom in this regard, whether educational institutions for them, their own marriage laws etc. In India, a Muslim can become the President of the country, A super star of Bollywood, A Chief Justice and many other things. The problem arises when these same Muslims, instead of respecting the equal status given to them by the nation, demands a better and special place for them with their own rules.
Then they start bombing cities, trains and kill thousands of innocents. All this made me believe that you can never trust a Muslim or a poisonous snake. Their agenda is simple and clear. Rule...by hook or crook.
I clearly don't agree with it. I live here in India and right from childhood and in midst of many Muslims. Islam conditions people and brainwashes them right from their childhood. Muslims, by nature are aggressive and violent. They are taught from their childhood that other religions are crap and only their religion is true. They are taught right from their childhood that the whole world belongs to them and everyone else is just a tresspasser. Under such situations, how can you expect any peace in the world? The problem is just increasing as with the increasing Muslim population.
Let's take an example of India. India is a secular state where the constitution guarantees freedom to pursue any religion of your choice without any fear. In fact, Muslims have been given so much freedom in this regard, whether educational institutions for them, their own marriage laws etc. In India, a Muslim can become the President of the country, A super star of Bollywood, A Chief Justice and many other things. The problem arises when these same Muslims, instead of respecting the equal status given to them by the nation, demands a better and special place for them with their own rules.
Then they start bombing cities, trains and kill thousands of innocents. All this made me believe that you can never trust a Muslim or a poisonous snake. Their agenda is simple and clear. Rule...by hook or crook.
| MadeInIndia wrote: |
| Let's take an example of India. India is a secular state where the constitution guarantees freedom to pursue any religion of your choice without any fear. In fact, Muslims have been given so much freedom in this regard, whether educational institutions for them, their own marriage laws etc. In India, a Muslim can become the President of the country, A super star of Bollywood, A Chief Justice and many other things. The problem arises when these same Muslims, instead of respecting the equal status given to them by the nation, demands a better and special place for them with their own rules. |
I live in India too, and I have had many Muslim friends. One of my dad's best friend is a Muslim (and a pretty devout one, too... he does namaaz several times a day. In fact, he has even done it in our house when he was here and it was time for namaaz). Over the course of my school and college life, I've had several Muslim friends as well, and have met several others outside of my educational institute. In no family have I seen any of the situations you have mentioned. All the Muslims I have met have been perfectly alright about treating me as an equal, irrespective of which God I believe in. Neither have I seen any of these Muslims friends of mine get any more aggressive or violent than others would have in the same situations they were in.
Muslims in India are not fighting for making this country any more Islamo-centric. Are you forgetting VHP and Bal Thackarey in Mumbai? There was also a case of a Hindu man who was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court. The Shiv Sena (I believe it was Shiv Sena, but I'm not sure) did not let him file an appeal for executive pardon from President Kalam because Kalam was a Muslim. NOW you tell me who's discriminating.
And one more thing. I'm not a Muslim, so don't think I'm posting this thread to try and defend my faith. I'm just pointing out that unless you have lived in very close proximity of Muslim families, or have read the Qu'ran or done enough research on their ways of life, you should not be making those general kind of statements which you just have. What proof do you have have, exactly, of their "agenda", for example?
As for Islam teaching that it alone is the only religion which leads to the true God, there are several religions which teach the same thing. Christianity, for example. Either you believe in Jesus and get salvation or go to hell (to put it bluntly... in more formal words, you could say "eternal damnation").
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| Many of you have mentioned that any religion per se cannot be a menace and how people interpret is the main problem.
I clearly don't agree with it. I live here in India and right from childhood and in midst of many Muslims. Islam conditions people and brainwashes them right from their childhood. |
Islam does not brainwash people. That's not a fact but a baseless accusation.
| Quote: |
|
Muslims, by nature are aggressive and violent. |
By nature? Lol. 1.5 billion people on earth from hundreds of different countries are Muslims. My DNA is radically different to an americans. And yet there are american Muslims. Are you claiming all Muslims across the globe are violent?
Cos scientifically, you're completely wrong.
| Quote: |
|
They are taught from their childhood that other religions are crap and only their religion is true. |
Not true.
Islam teaches that other religions can lead to Heaven (see Qur'an 2:62), but only if the other religions are monotheistic.
Islam also respects any religion, and anyone, regardless of belief, and tells Muslims to treat everyone with respect especially the elderly, children, and the disabled.
| Quote: |
|
They are taught right from their childhood that the whole world belongs to them and everyone else is just a tresspasser. |
I don't know where you think you're getting this from.
I was taught to respect people and that mankind is all equal. My parents are Muslim by the way.
All my friends were taught the same thing by their parents.
| Quote: |
|
Under such situations, how can you expect any peace in the world? The problem is just increasing as with the increasing Muslim population. |
So all of the world's problems are Muslims' faults? Didn't hitler blame all of germany's problems on the Jews?
See 17:36...it says "Do not kill any person for God has made life sacred"....Muslims are not violent and can only kill in self-defence or war (Which has to be self-defence). I'm not denying that there are hypocrites. There are hypocrites in every religion in all ways of thinking. I'm just saying stop hating Islam just because some of its followers are hypocrites.
may God bless you.
| burqe wrote: |
| Hello,
I enjoy reading your coments chris, even when it takes time to uderstand as your way is too philosiphical. There is one more thing here. Most of the intellectual people think that the best thing is what they beleive in. Some times, they have prejiduce about other ideas and they simply don't bother to think. |
I would argue that many, perhaps most, 'intellectual people' are probably like me - they do not have many strong 'core' beliefs outside their own moral/ethical understanding of right/wrong.
If they are also of the scientific/materialist inclination they will be, or should be, conscious that what they think is, at least to some extent, subjective - and that certainty (at least in a scientific sense) is not possible, so any talk of 'truth' is fraught with problems.
| Quote: |
| As we are people of wisdom, intellect and reason, we should, openly, positively argue thatwhat is the real truth behind. |
| Quote: |
| Just for instance how do you think this all universe came into about. Scientists say BigBang, starting from a place with infinite mass and no volume, something that does not make sense. |
| Quote: |
| They are unable to explain is so they take the way. |
| Quote: |
| I beleive that it was created from nothingness and what they call infinite mass and zero volume is actually nothingness. This is one thing, there are many others, we should discuss them to find the truth. I beleive, the truth is one behind all this. A single explanation of the system. |
There may well be 1 'truth' behind the universe - as in a formalised system which explains how and why the universe formed, how components interact and what it's future development will be. Such a theory would be a 'Grand Unified Theory' in Physics and is, I think, probable at some stage. It is very unlikely however, in my own opinion, to even touch on, let alone 'solve' issues of existence and the 'human condition', which are surely important in any deeper understanding of 'truth'.
| Quote: |
|
I clearly don't agree with it. I live here in India and right from childhood and in midst of many Muslims. Islam conditions people and brainwashes them right from their childhood. Muslims, by nature are aggressive and violent. They are taught from their childhood that other religions are crap and only their religion is true. They are taught right from their childhood that the whole world belongs to them and everyone else is just a tresspasser. Under such situations, how can you expect any peace in the world? The problem is just increasing as with the increasing Muslim population. Let's take an example of India. India is a secular state where the constitution guarantees freedom to pursue any religion of your choice without any fear. In fact, Muslims have been given so much freedom in this regard, whether educational institutions for them, their own marriage laws etc. In India, a Muslim can become the President of the country, A super star of Bollywood, A Chief Justice and many other things. The problem arises when these same Muslims, instead of respecting the equal status given to them by the nation, demands a better and special place for them with their own rules. |
Ok, this is the same story of india where Babari Masjid, that was an old muslim place of worship was demolished. Also, in 2002, more than 2000 muslims were burned alive. I think, these both actions were not performed by extreemist and cruel muslims as you say. Can you please bring up the reason behind these actions and the freedem and justice provided by the government in these regards.
I've seen threads like this since the first time I was on Frihost and you know what I think, threads like this serve no purpose. Detractors of Islam will forever oppose it and it supporters will forever swear by it. There is no middle path. Its not like in the end of this thread you'll find a post of someone achieving enlightenment and coming over to the other side. The detractors will always remain detractors, the followers will always remain followers.
So here is my question - where do we go from here?
So here is my question - where do we go from here?
ainieas, I don't quite agree.
Discussion is one of the ways of bringing about a change of opinion, especially when you are discussing things with someone who knows a lot more about the subject than you. While you may not convert a Muslim-hater to a Muslim-lover, you surely can put enough sense in him to be a lot less religiously discrimininative or intolerant.
Discussion is one of the ways of bringing about a change of opinion, especially when you are discussing things with someone who knows a lot more about the subject than you. While you may not convert a Muslim-hater to a Muslim-lover, you surely can put enough sense in him to be a lot less religiously discrimininative or intolerant.
Islam is a good religion
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
So which is more morally repugnant to you? Killing someone because they refuse to accept your beliefs and dare to speak against them? Or killing someone because they have conspired with enemies to attack you, as well as speaking/acting against your beliefs? The original point was that Muslims are in some way more violent because their scripture is also violent in parts. |
Good question, Bikerman.
As for those trying to say Islam is not a menace compared to other current religions, I believe you are wrong. I see no other religion with as much of a following (of extremists) as with Islam. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of extremists, conspiring and acting out world wide, in the name of Islam.
Whens the last time you heard a Christian screaming "Praise be to Jesus" just before they blew up their entire family?
If I have been blind and not seen this kind of behavior from other religions, please point them out to me so I can retract my statement.
Last edited by Billy Hill on Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Billy Hill wrote: |
| As for those trying to say Islam is not a menace compared to other current religions, you are wrong. I see no other religion with as much of a following (of extremists) as with Islam. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of extremists, conspiring and acting out world wide, in the name of Islam.
Whens the last time you heard a Christian screaming "Praise be to Jesus" just before they blew up their entire family? |
Woah, did you just learn how to format text with BBCode, buddy?
Yet again, it all comes down to individualism. Nobody has argued the fact that majority of the terrorists you hear of nowadays are Muslims. That doesn't mean, however, that Islam the religion itself is a menace. I have seen far more peaceful Muslims than terrorists. I would say without any reservations that not more than 10% of all Muslims in the world are violent. Even with such a liberal allowance of the percentage of terrorist Muslims, generalization would have you say that Islam is not a menace.
I repeat... Islam is not a menace, terrorists are.
Also, I see you get pretty excited about trying to prove that Muslims are a menace (big red writing). If you so strongly believe that Islam is a menace, what do you intend to do about it?
| tidruG wrote: |
|
Woah, did you just learn how to format text with BBCode, buddy? |
Yeah! Pretty ef'n cool, huh!?!?
Actually, it's a new writing technique, it's called emphasis. And I see it's too new because it didn't seem to work...
| Quote: |
| Nobody has argued the fact that majority of the terrorists you hear of nowadays are Muslims. That doesn't mean, however, that Islam the religion itself is a menace. |
Whoa, did you just ignore what I wrote, buddy?
What I said was
| Quote: |
| As for those trying to say Islam is not a menace compared to other current religions |
So by that logic, (and your own claim that all current terrorists are muslims, practicing islam,) islam is a MENNACE.
Much the same way that while pigs are good (and tasty), if you live near them, they're a menace. (The smell...) Much the same way that while ants typically don't hurt you, when they're in your house, they're, that's right... A MENNACE!.
| Quote: |
| If you so strongly believe that Islam is a menace, what do you intend to do about it? |
You mean BESIDES get a big ass can of Raid? Well, I plan to tell people about it.
| Quote: |
| You mean BESIDES get a big ass can of Raid? |
| Quote: |
| Much the same way that while pigs are good (and tasty), if you live near them, they're a menace. (The smell...) Much the same way that while ants typically don't hurt you, when they're in your house, they're, that's right... A MENNACE!. |
All pigs stink. All pigs live dirty, and consequently, all pigs are a menace. Now apply the same logic for Muslims.
And again, I repeat, the religion itself is not a menace. Some of the people who behave violently are.
Stop making your text all big and red. It reminds me of little kids when they get all excited when they fight with each other in school. The louder you shout, the stronger you appear.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Yes. I know there are those that say that Islam is a peaceful religion, and that the fundamentalists are distorting it, but they are conveniently ignoring the passages that call for the destruction of the infidels.
The fundamentalists are holding true to the Koran. If it is true, then the fundamentalists are perfectly justified in killing infidels. The people who say Islam is peaceful and capable of co-existing amiably with other faiths are the ones that are distorting the religion. Enough rant. |
you mean like the Christian genocide on the jues? or the the crusades?
The bomb blasts in Hyderabad where more than 40 innocent people were killed was horrible! What on earth is the matter with Muslims in the Indian sub-continent? And when one speaks of the sub-continent one includes under that rubric all three countries, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. One had hoped that once Pakistan was conceded Muslims who decided to stay on in India would learn to live in peace with the non-Muslim majority.
Any Muslim who felt that he was being oppressed had total freedom to leave India and migrate to Pakistan. Or, for that matter, to Bangladesh. But that is not happening. On the contrary, Pakistani and Bangladeshi jihadists are sneaking into India and are apparently being given shelter by Indian Muslims. Admittedly their number is minuscule. Admittedly the majority - and a substantial majority - of Muslims are totally opposed to any form of terrorism being practised against Indian targets. The tragedy is that because of an insignificantly small number of Muslims who are giving shelter to Pakistani and Bangladeshi terrorists, not only Muslims as a community, but also Islam as a religion are getting a bad name.
Any Muslim who felt that he was being oppressed had total freedom to leave India and migrate to Pakistan. Or, for that matter, to Bangladesh. But that is not happening. On the contrary, Pakistani and Bangladeshi jihadists are sneaking into India and are apparently being given shelter by Indian Muslims. Admittedly their number is minuscule. Admittedly the majority - and a substantial majority - of Muslims are totally opposed to any form of terrorism being practised against Indian targets. The tragedy is that because of an insignificantly small number of Muslims who are giving shelter to Pakistani and Bangladeshi terrorists, not only Muslims as a community, but also Islam as a religion are getting a bad name.
| tidruG wrote: |
| ainieas, I don't quite agree.
Discussion is one of the ways of bringing about a change of opinion, especially when you are discussing things with someone who knows a lot more about the subject than you. While you may not convert a Muslim-hater to a Muslim-lover, you surely can put enough sense in him to be a lot less religiously discrimininative or intolerant. |
I don't think that would work here. I mean to have a discussion like that you have to have an open mind. I don't see that in anyone. And not just in this discussion anythng else too - God/No God, Premarital sex, you name it. Any discussion can only be fruitful if the arguements are accepted by the other side. Not just the going arnd in circles that happens here!
| tidruG wrote: |
|
All pigs stink. All pigs live dirty, and consequently, all pigs are a menace. Now apply the same logic for Muslims. |
I can't. But I did apply it to islam, just like the thread said. Lets try not to change the subject to something you can manage better, mkay?
| Quote: |
| And again, I repeat, the religion itself is not a menace. Some of the people who behave violently are. |
And again, I repeat, if it weren't for that religion, there would not be the menace that there is. Same with most other religions I've ever studied.
| Quote: |
|
Stop making your text all big and red. It reminds me of little kids when they get all excited when they fight with each other in school. The louder you shout, the stronger you appear. |
Either take away the option to make the text big, or else don't try to tell me how to use the enhancements YOU provided for me.
(edit; so you don't get confused.... by YOU I mean frihost)
| Quote: |
| I can't. But I did apply it to islam, just like the thread said. Lets try not to change the subject to something you can manage better, mkay? |
You started generalizing, dude. I'm just taking the same concept and showing you how stupid your generalizations are.
I repeat : ALL pigs stink. ALL pigs live dirty, and consequently, ALL pigs are a menace. Now, try to prove that ALL Muslims are a menace, as in essence, a religion is basically all about how its practitioners practise it.
| Quote: |
| And again, I repeat, if it weren't for that religion, there would not be the menace that there is. Same with most other religions I've ever studied. |
| Quote: |
| Either take away the option to make the text big, or else don't try to tell me how to use the enhancements YOU provided for me. |
| tidruG wrote: |
|
You started generalizing, dude. |
Um. Wow.
The whole concept of a religion being a menace is pretty damned general, don't cha think??? Dude?
| Quote: |
| Funny how you only mentioned that for the first time here, while all this while you've been screaming only about how Islam is such a menace. |
Funny, but this thread was about... wait for it...
ISLAM!
You want to talk about a different subject, please take it to a new thread.
| Quote: |
| When someone doesn't know how to correctly use a feature here on Frihost, we show him how to use it. |
Oh, how funny. Because I don't recall seeing anything in the TOS, the FAQ or anyplace else, (except from an offended moderator) saying how and when I'm allowed to use it. But not to worry, I'll go back and re-read it, again, just to make sure.
Oh, and the lesson thing? Don't waste them on me, use them on yourself for some reading and comprehension classes. I think that's very important for a person of your, um, stature, because people DO notice when those skills are lacking.
Now, are you done? Can we get back to the topic? You know, the topic asking my OPINION about something? Thanks.
| Quote: |
| The whole concept of a religion being a menace is pretty damned general, don't cha think? |