It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Religion of peace update...

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Like I mentioned. It is stuff like "If Muhammad did not need the internet, people today don't either". Replace internet with TV, scientific achievement, technology, computers, etc. and you'll understand why they are known as extremists. Their attitude is "Whatever we need to succeed in life in this world is in the Quran and Hadith". This is especially funny if you see that the Quran tells people to study and learn from nature and their surroundings.




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Skadi;


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

You have never heard of Christians or Jews killing innocent people in the name of their gods? Boy, you need to actually get an education and read some HISTORY...


So, since other religions were excessively violent in the past does this mean that Islamists are entitled to be violent now? Regardless of the past I am concerned with what is happening NOW and what it means in the future for my kids.

I'm not an advocate for ANY religion and therefore don't apologize for the anti-social behavior in any god's name. Today, you don't see Christians/jews decapitating the innocent and teaching their children to hate/kill others for different beliefs. You don't see Christains/Jews blaming natural disasters on the lack of religious fortitude of those affected by the disaster (ie: tsunami). I challenge you to show an example of a film maker being killed by a Jew for making a film critical of Judaism. I challenge you to show an example of a Christian/Jewish entertainer who changes her religion and then is threatened with her life for her conversion.



I learned that msot Muslims do not like the mutawwa, the religous police, and do desire some sort of reform.


If Islam is such the benign religion you claim it is, why the need for reform?



I would suggest, instead of sitting in your house believing the dubious claims of some site called Jihad Watch...


If you bothered to read my posts in this thread you would realize I get my info from MANY different sources. Before you knock Jihadwatch.org maybe you should do your own research as to the qualifications of Robert Spencer and other contributors to that organization.



...stdying the religon from its source instead of contaminated biased "translations".


So translations of the Qur'an are contaminated? I wonder where the non-arab Muslims get their knowledge of the Qur'an. Or do you believe the translated Qur'an they read is contaminated?



...and while I certainly dont believe Islam as a whole is a religon of peace, it certainly isnt the great evil you are portraying it to be.


Then why don't you provide which parts you believe makes it un-peaceful--or peaceful for that matter, and discuss those.



Islamic extremism is a very real threat to peace and stability of the world, but Christian extremism, is alot more dangerous,


Please provide examples of violence from Christian extremism that is applicable today.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
The Wahabis are a group of muslims who attempt to live life EXACTLY as Muhammad did. The problem with this is that the world is not the same as when Muhammad was alive. The Hadith have to be taken and checked how they apply to today.


What about the Qur'an? Does that need "taken and checked" as well? I agree in principle with what you say. This is reform. The problem is that most Muslims believe that Islam is the one "true" and "perfect" religion in its present form (as it is written) and therefore I believe that they are unwilling to accept a "watered down" version even if it makes sense to put it in step with the modern global community.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I was not suggesting "watering down" and "reforming" religion the way you are suggesting. I was only talking about the Hadith because they involve the Prophet's solutions to problems that occured over a 1000 years ago. The situation is not the same now.
For example, during the Prophet's time, there was this thing how letting your clothes hang till underneath your ankles signified some sort of "boasting" or "self-importance" or "showing off" (I can't think of a modern day equivalent right now). There is a Hadith attributing the Prophet telling someone to pull his clothes up when he did this.
Letting your pants hang below your ankles now doesn't mean anything like this at all. However, the underlying message still applies.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
bab u say u r from uk of lighter skin and it does not feel safe/good in some areas
you stay in now, why do think this is ?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
sorry for double post but gotta say to, saint 4 god sorry man dont get a chance to reply that quickly cos nearly always out with diffrent types of people most of time



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by man_u_can_win
sorry for double post but gotta say to, saint 4 god sorry man dont get a chance to reply that quickly cos nearly always out with diffrent types of people most of time


No worries, we all have lives needing attending to which is why I think it's better than any chat.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Here is an interesting and in-depth article describing the historical background of how these "tiny communities of extremists" organizations infiltrated Europe and the west.

www.meforum.org...

Excerpt:

Four decades of teaching and cultivation have paid off. The student refugees who migrated from the Middle East forty years ago and their descendants now lead organizations that represent the local Muslim communities in their engagement with Europe's political elite. Funded by generous contributors from the Persian Gulf, they preside over a centralized network that spans nearly every European country.

These organizations represent themselves as mainstream, even as they continue to embrace the Brotherhood's radical views and maintain links to terrorists. With moderate rhetoric and well-spoken German, Dutch, and French, they have gained acceptance among European governments and media alike. Politicians across the political spectrum rush to engage them whenever an issue involving Muslims arises or, more parochially, when they seek the vote of the burgeoning Muslim community.

But, speaking Arabic or Turkish before their fellows Muslims, they drop their facade and embrace radicalism. While their representatives speak about interfaith dialogue and integration on television, their mosques preach hate and warn worshippers about the evils of Western society. While they publicly condemn the murder of commuters in Madrid and school children in Russia, they continue to raise money for Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Europeans, eager to create a dialogue with their increasingly disaffected Muslim minority, overlook this duplicity. The case is particularly visible in Germany, which retains a place of key importance in Europe, not only because of its location at the heart of Europe, but also because it played host to the first major wave of Muslim Brotherhood immigrants and is host to the best-organized Brotherhood presence. The German government's reaction is also instructive if only to show the dangers of accepting Muslim Brotherhood rhetoric at face value, without looking at the broader scope of its activities.

We in the US need to wake up! We also have a "Muslim Brotherhood" organization here called CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations).

Edited to post link



[edit on 8-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Despite moderates proclaiming the "There is no compulsion in religion" line from the Qur'an, we have this offical application of Sura 2-256:

www.saudiinstitute.org...

Non Muslims need not Apply, Saudis Say

Monday, 07 March 2005

Washington DC - The Saudi Government said today it won’t allow non Muslims to seek its citizenship, Al-Watan newspaper reported today.

Naser Al-Hanaya, Ministry of Interior Assistant for Civil Affairs, told Al-Watan that the citizenship law amended October 18 of last year won’t allow any non Muslims living in the country to seek Saudi nationality.

Al-Hanaya said “Islam is the religion and non Muslims won’t be allowed citizenship.” (Emphasis added)

The US has been involved in negotiation with the Saudi government for two years on admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The nationality law was amended as part of these negotiations.

The Saudi government bars all non Muslims including Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists from practicing their faith publicly in Saudi Arabia. It also bars them from celebrating all national and cultural holidays such as Independence Day, Christmas and New Year’s Day.


I find it interesting that whenever "moderate Muslims" quote Sura 2-256 they fail to read the whole thing or even read Sura 2-257.

2-256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

The statement "There is no compulsion in religion" when placed in context with the rest of Sura 2-256 and its statement "hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break" means that one need not be compelled in religion because the "firm hand hold" of Islam (the true religion) will guide you. All other beliefs, according to this passage, follow "false deities".

This is confirmed by 2-257:

2-257. Allah is the Protecting Friend of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

So much for their "no compulsion in religion" argument


Edited to correct Sura references

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
just a question, not attacking or defending anybody. Do you know any Muslims?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
just a question, not attacking or defending anybody. Do you know any Muslims?


Good question Saint! The answer: Yes. Up until a few years ago I had a best friend since high school (I'm now 40) who is a South American born Palestinian who immigrated to the US as a young child. But I think he was only Muslim because he was born into it--not practicing, as we both engaged in all kinds of "un-Islamic" behavior (drugs and such). We lost touch when he was busted selling stolen merchandise out of the store he owned and I think he was embarrased by that. Also, his dad recently died which I believe had a major impact on his life as he was vey close to him.

Saint, It wasn't until 911 that I started giving any consideration to what Islam was or what the Qur'an says. The attacks that day and others since compelled me to start learning how these "extremists" could justify their actions by their religion and in the name of "Allah". I often place the word "extremists" in quotes because this is the label that politicians and Islam aopogists like to place on them to make it appear that their's is an unusual interpretation of the Qur'an, the Hadith, and Sharia Law. What I have found is that the way they follow Islam is a very Literal interpretation; not extreme. Maybe we should call them "literalists" instead.

I don't mean to imply that ALL Muslims are dangerous "extremists". There are millions of peace-loving Muslims. My question is: Are peace-loving Muslims that way BECAUSE of Islam or IN SPITE of Islam.

I think it's interesting that despite being Muslim, "moderates" are considered by "literalists" as apostates and non-believers.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I've only known one in real life...at least I can only presume such because he didn't like to talk about religion out of respect while at work. My clue came from a tatoo he had (showed up late, putting his workshirt on) and talking with others who said they had out of work discussion. I can say he was a nice guy, a good teacher, and a strong disciplinarian with his son (though once you're a parent you don't recognized how severe you are with your children until others look at you funny) but had a falling out with the boss. I think it was about managing the place so I doubt it was religiously based. So for me, this is very far from my area of expertise. I did read the Qu'ran. My primary thought was that is was different than the Bible, so I don't think there's any dispute on that necessarily.

I appreciated the background. It makes sense now the reason for your posts and will be able to see them in a light other than a compiling reporter. I've learned a lot from this thread.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by saint4God]

[edit on 9-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Hello again Freedom. You seem to think you have invalidated the fact that the Quran says "There is no compulsion in religion". I have read the entire Surah Al-Baqarah (2).My point still stands.
You can't force someone into accepting Islam. "Truth stands clear from error". They have to see that for themselves, so that they can grasp "the most trustworthy handhold". A Muslims job is just to provide the information. Those who worship false deities and continue doing so may be destined for hell, that is up to God. It is not the business of a Muslim to force them, or hurt them for their beliefs. There IS no compulsion in religion. It must come from the heart, only THEN can you grab "the most trustworthy handhold".
You keep showing what the Saudi's have done, what Iran has done, what Pakistan has done, but you don't seem to get it.
Just because a country that claims to be muslim endorses certain actions, it doesn't mean that Islam endorses those actions.

I also have a question for you Freedom, if you don't mind. Why are you so adamant to disprove Islam, or prove it immoral or wrong? It seems your approach is that you have taken a certain viewpoint, and are looking for evidence to support it, when it should be the other way around.

What happened on 9/11 is in no way permitted by Islam. Islam absolutely forbids the killing of innocents. Al-Qaeeda had its own beef to pick. Extremists/Terrorists will always find ways to justify their actions. Muslims who are peace loving, whether they know it or not, are following Islam. Islam only allows fighting as a last resort, when the people in question are under oppression. Obviously not the case with Al-Qaeeda.
There is no denying that Islam does not enforce the "Turn the other cheek" mentality, but like I said, you are only allowed to fight if you are under oppression.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by babloyi]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Assalamualaikum all

I'm a muslim from Singapore, and from here, all around us (South east Asia) the countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, are all majority Muslim countries. From where i am, i hear of extremists fighting in sothern thailand, unrest in Indonesia, islamist seperatists in the Philipphiles, etc. and it seems that they are all not the extreme form (Wahabbism). Thus, a question for you babyloi, are they just misguided or is it for another reason??As a muslim i am very peace loving, with many Christian, Buddhists, Hindu, even jewish friends in my country and it is sad to see that there are so much trouble brewing because of ISLAM, and because of that, so many people hating Islam.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
walaikum salaam cheespie
(in case anyone missed it, cheespie said "Peace be with you" and I replied "And peace be with you also")

Like I mentioned, Wahabiism is just one form of extremism. One of the few that is actually named. I can't really tell why these people are misguided. Perhaps they actually think they are being oppressed. Perhaps they have not been educated enough to see that their extremism is not allowed in Islam.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
Hello again Freedom. You seem to think you have invalidated the fact that the Quran says "There is no compulsion in religion".


No I don't believe I've Invalidated that. That sentence does indeed exist. And when taken alone it certainly could mean what you're trying to convey. So let's break it down:

Compulsion (from dictionary.com)

The act of compelling. ( To necessitate or pressure by force; To exert a strong, irresistible force)

An irresistible impulse to act, regardless of the rationality of the motivation

2-256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm hand hold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

It says: [There is no impulse to act or force (by Islam itself).] Why? Because: ["Truth (Islam) stands clear (distinct from) from error".] and [He who believes only in Allah will (natuarally--no need for compulsion) follow Islam].


Originally posted by babloyi
You can't force someone into accepting Islam.


It doesn't say that. If it did the wording would be something like: "O, ye who believe! Compel not the disbelievers or idolators." (my words)


Originally posted by babloyi
Those who worship false deities and continue doing so may be destined for hell, that is up to God.


Actually, the Qur'an is clear in several passages: they WILL abide in hell, not may. Muslims are expected to behave as Allah wills. If Allah wills me punished because I'm an idolator then it's completely within the right of a Muslim to punish/kill me:

9-5. Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.


Originally posted by babloyi
It is not the business of a Muslim to force them, or hurt them for their beliefs.


...Unless they percieve hositlities or oppression against Muslims. Simply our presence in the Middle east is enough for literalists to engage the violence instructed by the Qur'an (from Surah 2. Al-Baqara):

190. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors. (We are perceived as a hostile force)

191. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (Vis-a-Vis our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan

192. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (We are still all over the middle east and will not be leaving any time soon)

193. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be nohostility except against wrongdoers. (We are not there to convert to Islam)


Originally posted by babloyi
You keep showing what the Saudi's have done, what Iran has done, what Pakistan has done, but you don't seem to get it. Just because a country that claims to be muslim endorses certain actions, it doesn't mean that Islam endorses those actions.


It's not just one country--it's several countries and 10's of millions of people; and as posted by cheesepie, a growing threat in southeast asia. Because Islamic governments intertwine civil law with Islam (Sharia) all those who live in Muslim nations (Muslim and non-Muslims alike) are subjected (forced) to Islamic beliefs. As the modern world gets smaller (internet, air travel, global economy etc) it will become gradually more apparent that mixing religion with the governing of people will only increase instability in those regions.

It seems the "moderates" such as yourself, are losing the battle of perception for a peaceful religion and if you want to preserve yours as a peaceful religion, moderates are going to have to stand up and defend it.


Originally posted by babloyi
I also have a question for you Freedom, if you don't mind. Why are you so adamant to disprove Islam, or prove it immoral or wrong? It seems your approach is that you have taken a certain viewpoint, and are looking for evidence to support it, when it should be the other way around.


I have no interest in "disproving" Islam, or any other religion for that matter. I see the actions of literalists all over the world and find the justification for their actions contained in Islamic teachings.


Originally posted by babloyi
What happened on 9/11 is in no way permitted by Islam. Islam absolutely forbids the killing of innocents.


Unfortunately, Islam is clear that only Muslims are the innocent ones. And given that we (the US) are perceived as aggresors/oppresors all limitations of violence are off. Please show me the reference(s) where 911 (or similar attacks) is not permitted.

Keep in mind that this thread, and others like it, would not exist if it these literalists were simply a tiny minority of disillusioned trouble-makers.


Originally posted by babloyi
Al-Qaeeda had its own beef to pick. Extremists/Terrorists will always find ways to justify their actions.


That is because it's so easy for them to justify their actions.


Originally posted by babloyi
Muslims who are peace loving, whether they know it or not, are following Islam. Islam only allows fighting as a last resort, when the people in question are under oppression.
There is no denying that Islam does not enforce the "Turn the other cheek" mentality, but like I said, you are only allowed to fight if you are under oppression


It would seem that for many Muslims the last resort is here.
Again, there are millions who perceive they are oppressed--whether by their own governments or by the US. Regardless; they are pissed. And it's not just Al Qiada.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Freedom_for_sum, it is clear that you have an agenda here.
You write a post, your own words, then incorporate random verses from Qur'an into your story, so it looks like YOUR story is what it is actually written in Qur'an.
If you were writing a book report, by all standards you would get an F


I was thinking about writing a lengthy reply, but I figured that would be a waste of time. Those verses have actually been debunked so many times in the last few years that it has become tiring to refute them. (By debunking I mean actually just quoting a sentence before and after that one in the SAME chapter, something you failed to do)

So yeah, I would advise you not to copy/paste single sentences of different Qur'an chapters from various websites, but to actually READ THE WHOLE BOOK yourself, and then write a "book report"



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
Freedom_for_sum, it is clear that you have an agenda here.


Yes I do. It is to post articles (of real events in the world) showing, at least in part, the intolerant/violent nature of Islam and its culture and, if applicable, quoting references of the Qur'an that support these events.


Originally posted by paperclip
You write a post, your own words, then incorporate random verses from Qur'an into your story, so it looks like YOUR story is what it is actually written in Qur'an.


The articles are not my words; although, I may provide an opinion of the article. And the passages in the Qur'an are certainly not my words.


Originally posted by paperclip
If you were writing a book report, by all standards you would get an F



Well, I'm not writing a book report. I am stating opinion and challenge anyone to effectively refute them. (Efectively means to back yourself up).


Originally posted by paperclip
I was thinking about writing a lengthy reply, but I figured that would be a waste of time. Those verses have actually been debunked so many times in the last few years that it has become tiring to refute them. (By debunking I mean actually just quoting a sentence before and after that one in the SAME chapter, something you failed to do)


Actually, if you've read through this thread you'd see that I've posted several Surahs from different sections, icluding in some cases those surahs before and after.

So how would you explain the growing threat of "extremists"? Are they misinterpreting the Qur'an/Hadith? Because if they are I must have the exact translation that they have.


Originally posted by paperclip
So yeah, I would advise you not to copy/paste single sentences of different Qur'an chapters from various websites, but to actually READ THE WHOLE BOOK yourself, and then write a "book report"



Actually I have my own copy of the Qur'an (Pikthal); I don't copy them from various websites.

If I have it so wrong how do you explain the millions of Muslims who also have it wrong?

Paprclip--Do you disagree with my explanation of Surah 2-256 ('No compulsion in religion")? If so--why? BTW: It was babloyi who initially used the ONE sentence in the SINGLE reference of Surah 2-256. I included for clarification the whole passage AND Surah 2-257 in a previous post.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Finally!! Some moderates starting to take a stand
My question: Why has it taken so long? And why have there been no Fatwas coming from Arab nations?

Spanish Muslims Issue Fatwa Against Usama

www.foxnews.com...

Excerpt:

MADRID, Spain — "Muslim clerics in Spain issued what they called the world's first fatwa, or Islamic edict, against Usama bin Laden on Thursday, the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, calling him an apostate and urging others of their faith to denounce the Al Qaeda (search) leader."



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Hey Freedom
About the compulsion in religion thing. What can I say. A while back you accused me of misinterpreting and distorting the Quran for making it seem "nicer" than it actually is. Now you are doing the same thing in the opposite way. It IS saying that you can't force anyone into accepting Islam. That is why it mentions that "The right direction is henceforth free from error". A person has to believe in Islam one his own. The verse means simply, that in matters of religion, there is no place for force. Here is another quote if you don't believe me:

18:29
Say: “The Truth is from your Lord” - Let him who will, believe, and let him who will, reject [it] …


About the 9:5 you quoted to show that muslims are meant to slay idolators. First of all, the word isn't necessarily "idolators". If you notice, in some translations it uses the word "Pagans" or "Unbelievers". Besides, you are doing once again what you accused me of doing. Quoting 1 line from the entire Surah to further your cause. Read the entire Surah. It is talking about a time when the muslims made a peace treaty with the Meccans. The Meccans did not honour the treaty, and ambushed and killed muslims who were on their pilgrimage. Hence these instructions came that when the sacred months (of pilgrimage) finished, the muslims would be free from the treaty. It even says afterwards that if any of the Meccans DID honour the treaty, they should not be attacked.

Yes, Muslims are only allowed to fight when they are under oppression. There is nothing about "Western Presence" in the Middle East warranting war. The conditions are very clear. You quoted some yourself. "Fight those who fight you". "Drive them out of the places whence they drove you out". There is also

2:217
"Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members."


22:40
(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah.. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).


And I am sorry, but it appears you are misinformed. There are no "10s of millions of people" who are "a growing threat". There are no "millions of people who believe they are oppressed". The extremists only make up a small amount of the Muslim population. If it appears that (what you call) "moderates" are failing to preserve their peaceful religion, it is because of the propaganda of the media. The story of Muslims killing and commiting acts of terror apparently sells more than the story of peaceful muslims, and muslims who condemn these acts. Search even the internet, and you will find hundreds of places like what you quoted, where the acts of these extremists are condemned by muslims.
And no, muslims are not the only "innocents". There were thousands who the "so-called" muslims killed, who had nothing against Islam, who had nothing to do with it, who might not even have known of it properly. NONE of these people had in any way oppressed these extremists.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 11-3-2005 by babloyi]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join