Log In | Register
I noted here that non-Muslims often do not fare well in debates with Muslims. Fortunately, liberated Muslims do much better. At this link is a recent debate on the subject "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" with participants Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Zeba Khan, and Maajid Nawaz. I invite you to watch the entire debate, and then to my comments as follows:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on npr : is Islam a religion of peace ?
Seeded on Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:18 PM EDT
Article Source: staring at the view- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (16)
1. One of the problems with debating Muslims about Muhammad and Islam is that they insist on talking about anything except Muhammad and Islam. Ask a Muslimah about the high rate of female illiteracy in the Muslim world (a subject that I discussed here and here). She will quote a Hadith about "seeking knowledge even if you have to go to China" and tell you how her parents came to America (to escape the craziness of living in the Muslim world) and sacrificed so she could go to Harvard. She won't tell you that the Middle East pays little attention to the education of women for the simple reason that Muhammad paid no attention to the education of women.
Ask her about Islam's relationship to the Jews. She will tell you a story about Muhammad's concern for the Jewish neighbor who threw garbage in his yard and inform you, as Zeba does, that her parents sent her to Hebrew school for nine years. She won't tell you (if she even knows) that Medina was a Jewish city when Muhammad first went there with Jewish tribes who had lived there in peace and prosperity for hundreds of years. Ten years later, they were all exiled or beheaded simply for refusing to accept him as a Prophet of God. Nine hunded males, including boys as young as 10 years old, were beheaded in one day. She won't tell you about the vicious murder of Asma bint Marwan, the Jewish mother of five, at the Prophet's command for writing poetry he found threatening. She certainly won't tell you about the rape of the Jewess Sofiyah bint Huyayy the night after Muhammad tortured and beheaded her husband for refusing to reveal the location of his treasure. Sofiyah was 17 and Muhammad was 62.
- 3 votes
#1 - Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:20 PM EDT"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Revisionism presented by Zeba Khan is rarely supported by the holy scriptures: In Sura 9:5,29,41 "Slay the idolaters [infidels] wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the last Day…. Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah!"
The reason we see so much of venom of hatred is due to the fact that people worry too much about 'life after' than 'life here.' Look at the genesis of all these hostilities and you will trace them to arguments involving the realm of God on earth. The inclusion of the 'Divine' in affairs of the world is at the root of many of these uprisings. The moment the 'license to kill' is sought in the name of God, the results become incredibly lethal.
911 epitomizes the sum total of the inherent weaknesses of political Islam, the 'dirty bunch' materialized the inherent contradictions and dichotomies of the holy scriptures. May be the believers of Toledo brand of Islam are lovely Medinaites and the believers of Qaeda brand are Meccan's who still believe in violence and resurgence of caliphate. They speak for 'real Islam' that causes innocent blood to spill, if 1 billon faithful condemn their actions after every Friday sermon perception of Islam would be different.
It is the holy contradictions that provides enough ammunition to both sides, the faithful are confused: Though Quran stipulates in Surah 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in Religion," yet in Al Bokhari a set of injunction is used by Taliban to do what they are doing: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57) It is right 7% are politically radicalised but the absence of 93% unequivocal condemnation is where the problem lies. Most likely the Islamic Renaissance that was about to be born 1000 years ago did not. We shall never know the extent of the harm that some celebrated religious zealots caused to mankind and civilization. We are once again at the crossroads; the only ways forward is to connect with the world and help make ours a true charitable society, the only way prosperity of mind can be ensured is through pluralism of ideas.
Death of the Islamic ''golden age''? was due to supremacy of dogma over rationalism , the lack of separation between faith and reason, the Muslim Arab world fell into scientific slumber just as the Christian world woke up. Internecine wars and death of rationalism were the main causes for the decline of Islam. Muslim conventional 'Puritanism' reawakening was led by Ghazali who championed revelation over reason, predestination over free will.
- 2 votes
That evil word, religious dogma, the manipulator of wars, and people`s minds. The main reason I really reject the islam philosophy is that it exists in the past, and exists for the domination of all. What puzzles me is why far left liberals embrace islam, and shiria, as something that will not happen to them.
- 2 votes
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Revisionism presented by Zeba Khan
is rarely supported by the holy scriptures:
you are my favorite writer on newsvine, and I hate to disagree with you,but in this case, I do.
I am most familiar with the four schools of Sunni Islam.I have read tafsir's from the Shafi school and the Maliki as well.Neither of the schools differ in any substantial way.As I understand it, the Shafi school of Islamic jurisprudence in not considered "radical" at all, it's "moderate Islam"
Then Allah (swt) revealed in Sarah Tauba (Bara 'a) (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) the obligations (covenants, etc.) and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Mushrikun
link from the tafsir of Ibn Kathir http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20750 verse of the sword
as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (a tax levied on the nonMuslims who do not embrace Islam and are under the protectionofanlslamicgovernment) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in the Verse 9:29).
So they (Muslims) were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and are able to fight against them (non Muslims).
As it is now obvious, at first "the fighting" was forbidden,
then it was permitted
and after that it was made obligatory-
( I ) against them who start "the fighting" against you (Muslims)...
(2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah... as mentioned in Surah AIBaqaraSl (II), Allmran (III) and Tauba (IX)... and other Sarah (Chapters of the Qur'an).
Allah (swt) made "the fighting' (Jihad) obligatory for the Muslims and gave importance to the subject matter of Jihad in all the Sarah (Chapters of the Qur'an) which were revealed (at AlMadina) as in Allah's Statement:
March forth whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive [ hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allah. This is better for you if you but knew. (V.9:41).
And He (Allah) said:
Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know. (V.2:216)
"The fighting", even though by its nature is disliked by the human soul because of the liability, of being killed, or being taken as a captive, or being injured, with the wasting of the wealth, the damaging of the industries, the destruction of the country, the spreading of fear and awe in the souls and the (possibility) of being exiled from one's homeland, Allah had made ready an immensely good reward that cannot be imagined by a human soul.
'Ikrima (a religious scholar) said: At first Muslims disliked it (Jihad), but later they loved it and said: "We listen and obey." And that is because the submission to the order to fight means hardship, but if the reward is made known it becomes to compare the hardship involved and its reward.
The Verses of the Qur'an and the Sunna (the Prophet's legal ways, orders etc.)
Source fact check, this is a link for a shorter Quranic commentary from Ibn Kathir www.qtafsir.com it is easier to use than the first link.
have exhorted greatly for Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised greatly those who perform Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honours which they will receive from their Lord (Allah swt). This is because they-Mudahidin are Allah's troops. Allah (swt) will establish His religion (Islam), with them (Mujahidin). He will repel the might of His enemies, and with them He will protect Islam and guard the religion safely.
And it is they, (Mujahidin) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (swt) (i.e. none has the right to be worshipped but Allah (swt) and His religion Islam) should be superior. Allah has made them (Mujahidin) partners in reward along with all those who guard Islam with their weapons, along with their good deeds which they performed even if they sleep in their homes.
And the Legislator (Allah) put the one who brings about a thing to happen equal in rank to its doer, both in reward (for the good deed) and in punishment (for a crime). So the inviter to a good deed and the inviter to an evil deed both will have a reward (good or bad) equal to the reward of the one who has done that deed.
And sufficient is Allah's Statement in this matter:
O you who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment? (V.61: 10)
After this Verse was revealed the souls became filled with the yearning for this profitable commerce which Allah (swt), the Lord of 'Alameen (mankind, jinns and all that exists), the All-Knower, the AllWise Himself directed the people towards. Allah (swt) said:
That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad pbuh) and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah (swt) with your wealth and your lives... (V.61:11 )
Allah (swt) further said:
That will be better for you if you but know (V.61:11 )
i.e. Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is better for you than your staying (back at home). Regarding the reward Allah said:
(If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow and pleasant dwellings in Gardens of Eternity ( 'Adn Paradise)-that is indeed the great success. (V.6 1 :12).
As I understand this last part, it was rejected by the "Ummah"as originating from the "pagan" Greek study of rationalism in natural law.http://videosift.com/video/Al-Ghazali-The-Alchemist-of-Happiness-Great-Documentary
I addmit,I dont know enough about this subject.
This Abu Haamid al-Ghazzali, despite his brilliance, his devotion to Allah, his knowledge of kalaamand philosophy, his asceticism and spiritualpractices and his Sufism ended up in a state of confusion and resorted to the path of those who claim to find out things through reams and spiritual methods."
[See Majmoo al-Fatawa, (4/66)]
[Majmoo al-Fatawa (4/71)]Ibn Taymiyah also said,
"Hence, even though Abu Haamid refuted the philosophers and classed them as kuffar (disbelievers), and expressed veneration of Prophethood [as opposed to philosophy], etc., and even though some of what he says is true and good, and indeed of great benefit, nevertheless some of his writings contain philosophical material and matters where he followed the corrupt principles of philosophy that contradict Prophethood and even contradict sound common sense."
Adh-Dhahabi narrated in his book, that Muhammad ibn al-Waleed al-Tartooshi said, "…he became a Sufi and forsook knowledge and its people, then he got involved with 'inspiration'- those who claim to have spiritual knowledge and the insinuating whispers of the Shaytan. Then he mixed that with the views of the philosophers and the symbolic phrases of al-Hallaaj. He started to criticize the fuqaha (jurists) and the scholars of Ilmul-Kalaam. He almost went astray from the religion altogether when he wrote al-Ihya [i.e., Ihya Uloom al-Deen]. He started to speak of the inspiration and symbolic words of the Sufis although he was not qualified to do that and had no deep knowledge of such atters. Hence he failed and filled his book with fabricated reports, "I (ad-Dhahabi) say, "as for al-Ihya, it contains many false ahadeethand it contains much that is good. I wish that it did not contain etiquette, rituals and asceticism that are in accordance with the ways of the philosophers and deviant Sufis. We ask Allah for beneficial knowledge.
Do you know what beneficial knowledge is? It is that which Allah revealed in the Qur'aan, which was explained by the Messenger in word and deed, and the type of knowledge which we are not forbidden to acquire. The Prophet said, "Whoever turns away from my Sunnah does not belong to me." So, my brother, you must ponder over the Words of Allah and persist in studying al-Saheehayn (Saheeh al-Bukharee and Saheeh Muslim), Sunan al-Nasa'ee, Riyadh an-Nawawi and al-Adhkaar by an-Nawawi, and then you will succeed and prosper. Beware of the opinions of the philosophers, the practice of spiritual exercises, the starvation of monks, and the nonsense talk of those who stay alone for long periods in their monasteries. All goodness is to be found in following the pure and tolerant way of the haneefs. And seek the help of Allah. O Allah, guide us to Your straight path.”
At the end of his life, al-Ghazzali (rahimahullah) returned to the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah. He focused on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah and condemned Ilmul-Kalaam and its proponents. He advised the Ummah to come back to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger , and to act in accordance with them as was the way of the Sahabah.
Shaikhul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said, "After that he (al-Ghazzali) came back to the path of the scholars of hadeeth and wrote Iljaam al-Awwaam an Ilm al-Kalaam."
[Siyar A'laam an-Nubula (19/340]
[Majmoo (4/72)]A glance at 'Iljaam al-Awwaam an Ilm al-Kalaam ' will prove to us that al-Ghazzali had indeed changed in many ways:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66295
Ghazali who championed revelation over reason, predestination over free will
I would be interested in a source for reading more about him, from a different perspective, as I am a "monotheistic" Irish "pagan" deeply rooted in Greek rationalism, as it relates with the concept of the"Logos"
- 2 votes
To adopt a rationalist, humanist and tolerant approach to life and allow all flowers to flourish is the essence of Renaissance and Reformation. In a patent symptom of dismissive generalization, noted clerics make sweeping statements like "Muslims could regain their lost place with the promotion of book reading culture, as distance from knowledge caused downfall of the Muslims in the world." Everyone seems to mourn the lost glory; however the real excruciating causes of decline are rarely argued. Rationalism was an essential inclination amid the Muslim thinkers during the Golden Age of Islam; it was toleration of ideas in which the so-called golden age of Islam flourished. Thinkers then were more led by their own conscience than any provincial dogma, a belief system they might have inherited from their ancestors.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/12/6893
These movements were at the threshold when Imam Ghazali wrote his Refutation of Philosophy. Later appearance of Ibn Rushd's Refutation of Refutation paved the way to rationalism and humanism flourishing into the movements of Renaissance and Reformation. The Muslim world was influenced by Imam Ghazali's Refutation of Philosophy whereas European thinkers were influenced by Ibn Rushd's philosophy Refutation of Refutation. The doors of Ijtihad were closed because of Imam Ghazali's writings. In a patent symptom of dismissive generalization, noted clerics make sweeping statements like "Muslims could regain their lost place with the promotion of book reading culture, as distance from knowledge caused downfall of the Muslims in the world." Everyone seems to mourn the lost glory; however the real excruciating causes of decline are rarely argued. Rationalism was an essential inclination amid the Muslim thinkers during the Golden Age of Islam; it was toleration of ideas in which the so-called golden age of Islam flourished. Thinkers then were more led by their own conscience than any provincial dogma, a belief system they might have inherited from their ancestors.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/12/6893
Let's start calling spade the spade, whenever, tolerance has been overtaken by bigotry, blinkeredness and singularity; nations and empires have just withered away. At heart of hatred, viciousness and venomous intensity lies intolerance, bigotry and inability to ever find the enemy within. Fanaticism is an evil of a society that corrodes the elegance of any culture. It is most amazing that most of the Muslims like to refer to the 'Golden age of Islam' but refuse to appreciate its underpinnings! Tolerant rulers –who saw knowledge without ownership of any creed and expand knowledge to new frontiers. The lack of intellectual progress within the Muslim world suggests something is terribly wrong, their inability to point out their own weaknesses and look at history objectively instead of subjectively they have not been able to learn any lessons from their past.
Pluralism of Ideas and the prosperity of any land are intertwined. Freedom of minds and skill of intellect to 'think the unthinkable' is how humanity has progressed; when minds are incarcerated nothing endures.
http://iqballatif.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/11/1219547-nation-of-islam-and-denial-of-its-killing-fields
''Iqbal Latif holds Al-Ghazali responsible for the decline of logic, reason and tolerance in the Islamic world.[31]. He continues "ignorance about Islam and calculated animosity with deep historic roots on the part of a minority in the West, as well as our failure to defend the true values of Islam, are the reason for the increasing wave of Islamophobia. Unfortunately, however the true values are rarely ever discussed freely, during the glorified 'Golden Age' there was particularly strong tradition of rationalists, the Mutazilites. They stressed a human being's inherent free will countering the predestinarians, who taught that everything was foreordained. The Mutazilites carefully cultivated an 'enlightened moderation' and allowed for the growth of knowledge and in their active promulgation and acceptance of Science as a part of the religion doctrine they brought to the Islamic world her Golden Age. This guidance to coexist was advanced by the renowned thinkers such as Avicenna, Al-Raazi, Al Ma'ari and Omar Khayyam; each of whom would later be remembered for the striking global contribution to the field of art, science and logic. The decline set in when the puritan Al-Ghazali began to undermine this rationalistic tradition and instead push for dogma over thought, obedience over free will and the primacy of doctrine. It was the beginning of the end as Al-Ghazali strove to put a stop to the tradition that had cultivated the greatest of the Islamic thinkers and instead stifle the unbridled creativity of the Islamic world."
Iqbal Latif believes that thus the civilization of Islam began to falter as 'Destiny' persevered over reason and logic-and Lenient ecclesiastical and priestly control once again tightened over the free Muslim people. With the will of Allah sufficing to explain everything risk no longer matter and Muslim commerce began to dramatically suffer. The banking and finance capitals that could have emerged in the coastal cities and regions of Alexandria, the Yemen and Sumatra, as rivals to Europe were stemmed in their infancy. Any belief that employs "guardians of truth'' on shaping of landscape of intellect will implode. It is said that 'Crutches of faith are introduced when reason sink exhausted.' It is an paradox that when curtain of dogma was descending within the Islamic lands killing free thinking it was slowly and steadily rising in Italy and northern Europe.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?" asks Dr Fadl. "That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11."
Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (Dr Fadl) -Ameer of Alqaeda ( 2008-2009)
Similar case argued fairly differently:
Trans-national violent players within the autonomous nation of Islam have robbed sovereignty of nations. The problem is that the 'definition of victory' in the bird-brained megalomaniacs is not to win a war, but how much beating one can take. The yardstick of 'Hezbollah' success is measured by the number of days they can absorb Israeli firepower after crying for 'ceasefire'. How senseless a strategy of war or winning can it be if it is purely based on the number of days one can take a beating? The more days they survive in the bunker, the merrier they are? Nasarullah and now Meshaal claims victory based on the conjecture that where the great Arab armies could not stand more than five days against Israeli forces, he and Gazans has withstood 26 days of shelling. The brunt of the actions of these trans-national free radicals is borne by the nation they are entrenched in. Afghanistan suffered heavily from the presence of Alqaeda and Taliban; these shackles of ideological tyranny have hijacked any chances of a nation's civil society to opt for anything else.
http://iqballatif.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/11/2420878-disproportionate-response-israel-exacts-a-disproportionate-pound-of-flesh
"Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers," writes Dr Fadl. He thinks 9/11 "a catastrophe for Muslims," because Al Qaeda's actions "caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims—Arabs, Afghans, Pakistanis and others."
The world will have to live in fear of the unknown and that is the biggest disservice to mankind. Unfortunately, doing this in the name of Islam is the biggest disservice to Islam. Islam is a religion of compassion, not destruction and death.
Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (Dr Fadl) -Ameer of Alqaeda ( 2008-2009)
It is sad today that we are at this juncture. Not only have the dynamics of terror been changed, but the fact that a fuel-laden bomb or biological-laden passenger bombs, the equation of threat against civilians has completely changed. It's New York today; it can be Cairo tomorrow. The same militants are as much against New York as they are against any other moderate Muslim government in the Middle east. Those who are gleefully dancing in the streets should realize that this is a common threat against mankind. We will never fly again the way we used to, and our profiles will be under more careful scrutiny. We who have darkened skins and darkened hair. Is this a fair price to pay for the whole Islamic nations that today one billion people are under suspicion? The act of few has clouded the prospects of billion. That is not acceptable.
Darkest day
Mankind's balance of terror has been most unfortunately changed
By Iqbal Latif
September 13, 2001
The Iranian
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/September/Death/index.html
He is equally unsparing about Muslims who move to the West and then take up terrorism. "If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum," writes Dr Fadl, then it is "not honourable" to "betray them, through killing and destruction". The murder of innocent people is both contrary to Islam and a strategic error.
Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (Dr Fadl) -Ameer of Alqaeda ( 2008-2009)
The war of ideas where Islamic clergy, for its own limited interests, has tried to introduce elements of bigotry and fanaticism in mainstream Islamic thought is not new to Muslim societies. It has made them weak and backward and if it continues in its most dangerous form, such a schism will fragment the country whose only reason to exist as a nation is theological unity of belief. Today, our Darul-Ulooms are a breeding ground for sectarian terminators. Unless our Darul-Ulooms become and are redesigned on the pattern of House of Wisdom, of Baghdad and, instead of producing human terminators, we produce men of letters who may recognize how to respect life, our prospect as a nation is bleak.
Rise and fall
Islamic apathy vs 400 years of forgotten renaissance
By Iqbal Latif, Paris
August 28, 2001
The Iranian
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/August/Islam/index.html
- 2 votes
Great debate. I was amazed how similar it was to many debates I see on the Vine. I was impressed with how much impact the debate had on the audience as well. That makes me hopeful that we can soon cut through the taqiyya and start working towards peace from a foundation of truth.
- 3 votes
#3 - Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:47 PM EDTThat makes me hopeful that we can soon cut through the taqiyya and start working towards peace from a foundation of truth.
a most read article (book review "the Qur'anic concept of war" ) for the concerned world citizen.
while we should always be friendly with our Muslim neighbours. Show Islam and it's Political nature, sharia law and it's theocratic principals, the well deserved contempt it's clear actions call for.
from the article
"Zia-Ul-Haq (1924-88), the former President of Pakistan and Pakistani Army Chief of Staff, opens the book by focusing on the concept of jihad within Islam and explaining it is not simply the domain of the military:"
Jehad fi sabilallah is not the exclusive domain of the professional
soldier, nor is it restricted to the application of military force
alone.
he understands the uses of terror to achieve political goals.The Jihadists further the "political-religious " ambitions of the "Ummah" (the global theocratic Islamic community)
This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the
Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the
context of the totality that is JEHAD. .
not just diricted toward India, this religious principal (jihad) was also ? responsible for the genocidal actions of the Pakistani military in Bangladesh. From one million, perhaps as high as three million died at the hands of their co-religionists. They ( Bangladesh ) stopped "SUBMITTING" to the Dominant nation(Pakistan) Islam (ideology of) is the religion of summition, not the religion of peace.
The professional soldier in
a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become
'professional' if in all his activities he does not take the 'colour
of Allah,' The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise,
be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and
the only pattern of war that his country's armed forces may wage.
(14)
General Zia states that all Muslims play a role in jihad, a mainstream concept of the Quran, that jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim ummah, and is not restricted to soldiers. General Zia emphasizes how the concept of Islamic military professionalism requires "godly character" in order to be fully achieved. Zia then endorses Malik's thesis as the "only pattern of war," or approach to war that an Islamic state may wage.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_4_36/ai_n18791174/pg_2/?tag=content;col1
please take the time to read this rather long article newsvine.you may get smarter here
and the ever popular http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/9/29/default.htm as justifacation
- 2 votes
Fine debate. I would ask the question, "could this debate have taken place in most Islamic countries?"
- 3 votes
#4 - Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:10 AM EDTKpr,
What did you think of the statement that no monotheistic religion could be considered a religion of peace?
- 2 votes
no monotheistic religion could be considered a religion of peace?
I'm not sure man as a species (humans), can be considered peaceful.
Let alone any ideology as powerful as religion. blind faith in the unknown, it's stupid as @!$%# when you stop to think about it. it's only the little voice inside (the human conscience ) that keeps it alive
Nothing in our (mankind's) collective history would suggest that we a capable of peaceful coexistence.
in my faith we have no doctrine of "turn the other cheek" clear distinctions are made between good and evil.
While non-aggressive in nature,I understand that thorough writing or action I am duty bound to oppose evil.
now the question, who defines evil.
in the eyes of any Islamist and many far,far leftists here on newsvine, what I do here is pure evil.
I disagree with that definition.Yet recognize there inherent right to be of that opinion. But,if they choose to come over my house, and attempt an action,any action what so ever, denying me,my thoughts and opinions my rather large bulldog will hopefully, keep them company while I load my 44 with hollow points. Thank G*d, allah, Danu for the second "@!$%#ing" amendment.
The rights in the US constitution,and the bill of rights are granted by G*d, not man if you read the documents.So the "secular" nature of American rights, stands in opposition to the Islamic rights of Mohammad (the messenger of allah) to define human rights, and obligations.Such as freedom of speech,women's rights,freedom of conscience.
thoughts and opinions are not evil,none of them are. Violence to advance your thoughts and opinions over mine are in fact evil. And in my understanding of my "pagan" faith,I can kill in such a case, and it is not murder. This killing would not be considered as a gift to my G*d or in advancement of paganism. It is only me, keeping my ass sorry alive.It has no religious component
man this is a tough question
my faith is opposed to organized religion. When the power to define evil is left to small groups of other humans,no good is likely to come of it. As absolute power corrupts absolutely. We see this with Islam,as it to some (large ) degree, has defined us, the west as evil.Hence the grand jihad.
if we in the west join then, we have a continuation of the crusades.not a good option.
However, what do we do with the millions of angry,often times violent delusional Islamists if we don't oppose them.
you can't fight fire with flowers
as fire destroys flowers in a short time. They do not mix well, one consumes the other.
so, to some up, were just @!$%#ed.
Perhaps we can think of something before the "nuclear" option is employed by Iran. cause when it is, all bets are off. welcome to the new dark ages, when only the fittest and most adaptable survive
- 3 votes
if we in the west join then, we have a continuation of the crusades.However, what do we do with the millions of angry,often times violent delusional Islamists if we don't oppose them.
Lovely
X^\
...plus like ya sad "it's stupid as @!$%# when you stop to think about it"; but of course it will be curtain A, the "Crusades". This has all the markings of a good fight and has been orchestrated to the teeth. You watched the interview and heard where Ayaan responds to the question "can Islam be a religion of peace?"; she answered in the affirmative "with conditions", basically defining what said "peace", might look like. We are talking about a "holy War" already and any who don't believe that we are in the foot hills of WWIII need to wake up---war doesn't need to be declared in order to take place-it has a funny way of ruining peoples plans.
~yea, Ayaan ( and I believe the other gentleman as well) where basically accused of having an Atheist agenda on the entire topic; their "verisimilitude" to answer basic human rights issues (peace), was then called into question.
Ppppppphhhhhhtttttttttt...............
So I do understand her statement; as well as the very real fact that as a debating tactic is was quite effective. By Making this broad categorization, it leaves their position flexible enough to evade claims of bias against one mono-theistic religion, more so, than any other. Beyond that though, I appreciate their honesty in their position: to claim any other position would not be genuine.
man this is a tough question
What I find intriguing is that even though we know that we are @!$%#ed, we still have aspirations enough to eek out a survival of the species. We've been trying to wipe each other out for so long,...... we don't even really know, for how long. You said yourself that as a species we may not be peaceful; yet, we still strive and desire. Why is that? We can dream but never achieve?
~nah...
...there is more to this story than we are fully aware of. I do fully believe that our technological and moral prowess are compatible, perhaps even efficient, when balanced. The older I get the more I think that maybe we have an innate sense of the indelible nature of consequences. That maybe we've been here before many, many times even. We still keep trying though; and that, right there, leads me to the conclusion that we are in the story but not completely aware of it. That perhaps our understanding will somehow, someday be complete...if I only keep striving.
Survival instinct ---perhaps
Perhaps we can think of something before the "nuclear" option is employed by Iran. cause when it is, all bets are off. welcome to the new dark ages, when only the fittest and most adaptable survive
Mt 5:5... something about the meek inheriting the earth.
Actually though we have a common friend who has already foreseen some of the possible consequences, He has delightful mountain view for those humble survivors looking for a place to hang out and stay to watch the post game wrap up. I'm not sure if things are going to get quite that bad; but I'm a pragmatist...I signed up just in case.
:~)
- 2 votes
Any one who thinks Islam is a religion of peace either has not read the Koran, Sunnah and Hadith or refuses to cast off childhood indoctrination in favor of logic and reason.
It is an archaic creed that thrives upon ignorance, not in spite of it.
- 4 votes
#5 - Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:23 AM EDTis Islam a religion of peace ?
no
- 3 votes
#6 - Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:49 AM EDTThe orgy of obliteration within crescent of Islam
http://iqballatif.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/16/785523-the-orgy-of-obliteration-within-crescent-of-islam
- 3 votes
We struggle to say something profound, something that will turn the light on and make people aware of their shortcomings, their unfounded biases, their illusions of superiority, the error of their ways or beliefs. Yet, with all the struggle we fall short. There are many religions and they share common ideologies among which are good will toward one another, peaceful co-existence, tolerance, charity, forgiveness and many more that promote love and respect and equality for our fellow humans and with these the promise of something greater as a reward after the physical being no longer exists. IMHO a religion ceases to be a religion and becomes a cult when ever it sets itself up as being superior and some how justifies itself as the only "true" religion and therefor has the right to impose itself upon others. That imposition if allowed to take evil or forceful means to accomplish its end is the point where the definition of religion ceases to apply and cultism takes over. The classic struggle between good and evil prevails between what can be considered a religion as opposed to a cult. Following this argument it becomes apparent that there are very few true religions out there and many cults. With this in mind it is easy for me to classify Islam as a cult and not a religion. Therefor the question of "Is Islam a religion of peace?" is clearly no for it is not a religion at all but a cult.
- 3 votes
#7 - Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:22 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
