To Muslim members of ATS: What do you think about Mali?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7
 


Would you risk that these get free to make up their own mind to figure out everything from zero, that would only increase disorder.

How do you think I would answer this?
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

agree with the logical!! :-)
you are free and "wild" to make up your own mind.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


They dont seem like the ones educating people about how right the ememy is in bombing them.
They have seen russian invasion and the taliban coming for the rescue. Then they see american invasion trying to hunt and kill their saviours who are local language speaking too by these hi-tech strange language speaking white skined "aliens". What side would you take?

Okay, this is really "out there" in terms of our discussion.

I could just as easily say, "Americans see pilots of Muslim belief flying into the World Trade Center, and thousands of people dying, with no warning and no explanation. Then they see their government going to call the 'perpetrators' to account for their behavior. Which side would you take?"

You see, the American people are AWARE of what's going on, at least to some degree!! If the populations of the countries in strife and war don't understand it, why are they not demanding AN EXPLANATION?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


you are free and "wild" to make up your own mind.

Yep, thanks, I am!
And I would say, "Yes, let's scrap all the old dogma and centuries-old bickering, because it doesn't work to create peace, and start from scratch. How about this: Treat other people the way you would like to be treated."



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
hey olincasino!
Remember me?
We had a talk about the same things you are posting now on some other thread, the same external excerpts, maps even same hadith, the same accusations too.
Its just gets boring you see!
Hope sc0rpi0n is able to answer them better than me and help you understand better.
Hey sc0rpi0n, all the best!


I'm glad that you refuse to take the Hadith where Muhammad ordered people burnt to death for not praying literally.

Incidentally, do you also not take it literally when Muhammad in Sunni Hadith (bukhari) and at least one Shia Hadith stated that the penalty for leaving Islam was death?

I know that many Muslims do not. I also know that many Muslims do take it literally.

How widespread is support for the death penalty in the Islamic world?


Turkey- 5%
Egypt- 84%
Jordan- 86%
Lebanon- 6%
Indonesia- 30%
Pakistan- 76%
Nigeria- 51%

PewGlobal


National laws also tend to reflect these beliefs. In Turkey there is no criminal law against leaving Islam. In Pakistan there is a death penalty for leaving Islam and blasphemy is also a capital offense. In Egypt, prosecutors, Muslim clerics and Muslim Brotherhood Politicians routinely call for Converts to Christianity to face the death penalty. It appears to be rarely, if ever, applied however.

In Nigeria it is illegal in 12 of 37 states and carries the death penalty.

The death penalty also exists for leaving Islam in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Mauritania, Iran and Afghanistan.

Wikipdedia







edit on 23-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





But, perhaps because men in the West are used to seeing scantily-dressed women and girls, and are taught early that they mustn't take advantage or expect to be "given sex", they aren't as susceptible to being overcome by lust.

come on wildtimes!
My point was that either no christian man has ever lusted or they dont pluck their eye if they do. What appears more likely.
So nobody takes it literally.
About your quote above, "men are men" always will be. Lusting with eyes and acting on it are two different things. However this is not a topic. Please dont disect my examples, they just prove a point. The point was nobody literally interprets plucking the eye out.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


So nobody takes it literally.

Okay, but if .01%, or .1% DID take it literally, someone (if it were happening here in the USA) would stop them. I don't claim to know what Christian fakers in Africa are doing...or why it is allowed, but there is uproar about it among MOST Christians, and Americans don't "pretend" it isn't happening.

What did you think about the books I sourced and suggested? Will you read them?
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7
 


you are free and "wild" to make up your own mind.

Yep, thanks, I am!
And I would say, "Yes, let's scrap all the old dogma and centuries-old bickering, because it doesn't work to create peace, and start from scratch. How about this: Treat other people the way you would like to be treated."

thats very idealistic and sorry but very impractical too.
Your idea of "treating others like self" is the basic of prophetic law as i said before, also sharia law is based on that foundation. Now that would be a shocker!!! Right?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Your idea of "treating others like self" is the basic of prophetic law as i said before, also sharia law is based on that foundation. Now that would be a shocker!!! Right?

It's in the Christian 'prophetic law', too. I'm talking about the inclusion in these old books of "parables" and "ambiguous rules" that are archaic, and that some people use to justify their atrocious behaviors.

Why is it 'unrealistic'? Well, for now, because people are too indoctrinated into their "faith" to just 'erase' it and start over.....from early childhood.

So, it would take a couple of generations, probably, given the fact that a life-long adherent to the prophecies is unlikely to simply say, "okay, forget that. That 'message' is not correct. Let's remove those words, to make it more directive and less prone to misinterpretation or exploitation, and reinvent this 'scripture' so that everyone understands it."

But if every child now alive was taught that 'this part of it is symbolic, not literal' it might make a difference.


edit on 23-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



thats very idealistic and sorry but very impractical too.

Plus, -- plus!! -- you said that the "fundamentals" are the common ground to start from, right?
Well, IF treating others as you would treat yourself is THE NUMBER ONE fundamental that they have in common, in terms of how to treat EACH OTHER, then why is it not acknowledged globally?

The basic, fundamental message is not:
"What is God's name?" or
"Who was Jesus?" or
"Was Mohammed the last prophet?"

How we treat each other is the fundamental bottom line!
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





Incidentally, do you also not take it literally when Muhammad in Sunni Hadith (bukhari) and at least one Shia Hadith stated that the penalty for leaving Islam was death?

no i dont.
Here's a hadith

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's
Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the
following three situations: (1)
A person who killed
somebody unjustly, was
killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married
person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a
man who fought against
Allah and His Apostle and
deserted Islam and became
an apostate."

do you see another clause that the apostate should also be at war.
Also, during the time in Medina, jews were respected as scholarly and educated. Some however planned to accept islam in the "morning" and leave in "evening" to plant doubts in the hearts of simple believers. That was tactical and propaganda war and damaging from the inside. It was necessary to discourage these tactics by commanding to kill anyone who does that. Islam was not surrounded by peaceful people of "live and let live" mentality. The pagans, the jew tribes had much superior armies. All the tactical brilliance was needed just to survive!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

come on wildtimes!
My point was that either no christian man has ever lusted or they dont pluck their eye if they do. What appears more likely.
So nobody takes it literally.


Christ spoke about cutting his own hand, foot, or eye off if it offended him, as a figure of speech.

I agree that when Muhammad ordered a man to burn hypocrites and their homes who had falsely converted to Islam, he could have been making a figure of speech.

On the other hand, he pronounced the death penalty for leaving Islam, stoning people for adulatory and was a violent warlord who led many successful jihads.

In fact, 24% of the Medinan Koran and 21% of the Hadith are about violent jihad. Center for the Study of Political Islam.

Was a man who pronounced the death penalty for leaving Islam also capable of ordering people burnt to death for falsely converting to Islam?

By the way, why do you assume that anyone who is Western is a Christian? Is it a Muslim thing.


Bukhari (11:626)

- "The Prophet said, 'No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the 'Isha' prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.'

The Prophet added, 'Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.'"



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by logical7
 


So nobody takes it literally.

Okay, but if .01%, or .1% DID take it literally, someone (if it were happening here in the USA) would stop them. I don't claim to know what Christian fakers in Africa are doing...or why it is allowed, but there is uproar about it among MOST Christians, and Americans don't "pretend" it isn't happening.

What did you think about the books I sourced and suggested? Will you read them?
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

neither muslims deny that the 0.1% should not be dealt strongly. Just it should be done without hurting/killing millions of muslims in the process.
Muslim countries deal with extremists strong enough. They dont have the liberty to intervene outside their country.
I would recommend an international force by OIC just like UN to tackle it. I hope it wouldnt be taken as threat to america.
I'l read the 1st one 1st by Karen Armstrong. read her, "History of islam" long back.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Muslim countries deal with extremists strong enough. They dont have the liberty to intervene outside their country.
I would recommend an international force by OIC just like UN to tackle it. I hope it wouldnt be taken as threat to america.
I'l read the 1st one 1st by Karen Armstrong. read her, "History of islam" long back.

Super!!
Thank you! Glad to know you've read her before.... I will look forward eagerly to discussing her book with you. It's a bit more "dry" and "lecture-like" than Wright's book.....
Wright's book is witty, and easier to read....and contains just as much historical info.....

I agree that in international force ought to tackle it;
but WAR SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION, no matter who tackles it.
Thanks, logical, I'm going to log off for now and go read.....



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Some (Jews) however planned to accept islam in the "morning" and leave in "evening" to plant doubts in the hearts of simple believers. That was tactical and propaganda war and damaging from the inside.

It was necessary to discourage these tactics by commanding to kill anyone who does that.

Islam was not surrounded by peaceful people of "live and let live" mentality. The pagans, the jew tribes had much superior armies. All the tactical brilliance was needed just to survive!


It was necessary to kill Jews who only pretended to convert to Islam?

You are scary man.

And you wonder why people criticize Islam.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





It was necessary to kill Jews who only pretended to convert to Islam? You are scary man. And you wonder why people criticize Islam.

no, not to kill but to scare enough not to try that again.
If you look at it with either a cold objective approach or by putting yourself emotionally in the warzone, it would make sense. If you judge it when sitting comfortably and securely and then say "thats scary" then its not objective.
Also a 7th century arabia is not 21st century world.
On second thought nothing much changed.
If you are surrounded by people who want you dead, and you catch an assassin and forgive him and declare by your actions that even assassins will be forgiven, you'l not be seeing the next sunrise! Better chance of survival if you hang his body out to discourage anymore attempts.
Logging off now.
edit on 23-1-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

no, not to kill but to scare enough not to try that again.

If you look at it with either a cold objective approach or by putting yourself emotionally in the warzone, it would make sense. If you judge it when sitting comfortably and securely and then say "thats scary" then its not objective.

If you are surrounded by people who want you dead, and you catch an assassin and forgive him and declare by your actions that even assassins will be forgiven, you'l not be seeing the next sunrise! Better chance of survival if you hang his body out to discourage anymore attempts.


It's funny you should talk about Muhammad executing assassins.

According to the first biography of his life, written by the Muslim Ibn Ishaq in 768AD, Muhammad authorized the assassination of a number of poets (male & female) who had mocked him. One poet was a mother sleeping with her young children. The Muslim assassin had to move the child aside before thrusting his dagger into her chest. Another victim was a male poet who was, according to Muslim sources, over 100 years old. Mohammed then absolved the Islamic murderers of any wrong doing.

Muhammad also apparently executed prisoners who had been political opponents in the past. One such man had fallen foul of Muhammad when Muhammad was in his early days due to being a better story teller than Muhammad,. "Who will look after my young daughter?" cried the man, moments before he was executed. Muhammad then cursed him.

The Life of Muhammad (768 AD) by Ibn Ishaq

It should be noted that The Life of Muhammad isn't a religious book. It is however the earliest historical source we have besides the Koran and Hadith and it was written by a devout Muslim.

None of this would matter but 1/2 of US Muslims think people should be prosecuted for criticizing Islam while 1/8 think they should be executed.

Poll: Nearly Half of U.S. Muslims Believe That Critics of Muhammad Should Be Criminally Prosecuted


edit on 23-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Also a 7th century arabia is not 21st century world.
On second thought nothing much changed.
If you are surrounded by people who want you dead, and you catch an assassin and forgive him and declare by your actions that even assassins will be forgiven, you'l not be seeing the next sunrise! Better chance of survival if you hang his body out to discourage anymore attempts.


WOW.


Just, wow.
I hope when you log on again that you've had a calming-down, and some time to process what you just typed here.

Time to bring arabia to the 21st century? Maybe?

"If you are surrounded by people who want you dead," .....erm, that is how people in America might justifiably view Muslims..... and is the reason (according to NPR again, this morning) that Guantanamo Bay is not closed.

We need to know whether these rogue killers -- even though extremists and acting in bad faith re the Qur'an -- are going to be "dealt with" by Muslims, or whether they will simply repeat their behavior as soon as they are let free......

Why would a community or society forgive and release a person who they believe "WANTS THEM ALL dead"? Well, the USA's president was planning to do so.... But when it came down to it, none of the continental states wanted these highly suspect and "known-to-want-us-all-dead" (allegedly!!!) inserted into their federal prisons.
And no other country seemed to want them either. They found no safe-haven alternative.....
and they, whether the most of you agree with their sentiments or not, still represent the horror of 9/11 to a lot of Americans.

Oh boy, do I have questions that arise now, but, I will leave it at that.
Talk to you tomorrow.


Can you begin to see??? I hope so.
If, instead, this is all about politics and disinformation from the MSM and our governments, and we have every real reason to trust in one another, shall we not do well to find that common ground, and then SPEAK UP?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




Why is the historical fact
(1) Muslims (including Muhammad) conquered non Muslims
incompatible with
(2) the historical fact that early Islamic conquerors discouraged the conquered people from converting to Islam (to reap the higher taxes paid by Jews & Christians)?



Not saying they are "incompatible", just that they happen to be 2 unrelated facts... which you are trying to blend together to portray Islam and Muslims in the way you normally do.

Regarding (1)
Muslim armies conquered non-muslims, but only as any empire conquers people. Its a part of history.

Regarding (2)
Then that historical fact negates the oft repeated canard that "islam spread by the sword". Its hard for it to "spread" by the sword, when Muslim rulers kept discouraging conversion to keep the taxes flowing in.




The Koranic and Hadith only concern them self with the life of Muhammad so it is somewhat ridiculous of you to demand them as sources to prove that subsequent Islamic Caliphs discouraged conversion to Islam by conquered people so that they continued paying higher taxes.


Its not ridiculous to ask you for a Hadith concerning Islamic conquest and Jizya... because you have a history of quoting from the Hadith / Koran to prove points (whenever convenient).

But its a good thing that you are differentiating between Mohammad and the practices of later rulers. Its obvious that Muslim leaders didn't always govern in accordance with the laws laid down by Mohammad. Regarding taxes / conversion, the later Muslim rulers were acting on their own by discouraging conversion for the sake of wealth.

So with that we can establish that the Muslim rulers who discouraged conversion did so out of their own. Muslim leaders had their own personalities and acted on their own, whether for good or bad.

Akbar actually abolished Jizya... and neither did he forcefully convert.
Shah Jahan was wine connoisseur, despite drinking being prohibited in Islam.
Jahangir was an opium addict.

So there's no need to cherry pick what later Muslim rulers did and say "Muslims did this or that".


edit on 24-1-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Its not ridiculous to ask you for a Hadith concerning Islamic conquest and Jizya... because you have a history of quoting from the Hadith / Koran to prove points (whenever convenient).


The Koran is both eternal and infallible, apparently, so why as a Muslim would you object to me quoting it?

By the way, it is ridiculous to ask me for Hadith concerning Islamic conquest and Jizya after Muhammad for the very simple fact that the Hadith all concern the life of Muhammad.


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Akbar actually abolished Jizya... and neither did he forcefully convert.
Shah Jahan was wine connoisseur, despite drinking being prohibited in Islam.
Jahangir was an opium addict.

So there's no need to cherry pick what later Muslim rulers did and say "Muslims did this or that".



No need to cherry pick at all. We are in agreement. Some Muslim rulers of India persecuted Hindus and others did not.

They weren't all bad after all. I'm sure you agree, as a good Muslim, that a man who enjoys a drink can't be all bad?



edit on 24-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Can you or Skorpion provide equally researched sources that make olln's sources fraudulent? What is incorrect in his data, please? I don't want to be misguided or misled by anyone, nor do I wish to mislead anyone.

This is what Karen Armstrong said in her book, History of Islam.globalwebpost.com...

He also had to deal with Mecca, where Abu Sufyan now directed the campaign against him, and had launched two major offensives against the Muslims in Medina. His object was not simply to defeat the ummah in battle, but to annihilate all the Muslims. The harsh ethic of the desert meant that there were no half- measures in warfare: if possible, a victorious chief was expected to exterminate the enemy, so the ummah faced the threat of total extinction. In 625 Mecca inflicted a severe defeat on the ummah at the Battle of Uhud, but two years later the Muslims trounced the Meccans at the Battle of the Trench, so called because Muhammad protected the settlement by digging a ditch around Medina, which threw the Quraysh, who still regarded war rather as a chivalric game and had never heard of such an unsporting trick, into confusion, and rendered their cavalry useless. Muhammad's second victory over the numerically superior Quraysh (there had been ten thousand Meccans to three thousand Muslims) was a turning point. It convinced the nomadic tribes that Muhammad was the coming man, and made the Quraysh look decidedly passe. The gods in whose name they fought were clearly not working on their behalf. Many of the tribes wanted to become the allies of the ummah, and Muhammad began to build a powerful tribal confederacy, whose members swore not to attack one another and to fight each other's enemies. Some of the Meccans also began to defect and made the hijrah to Medina; at last, after five years of deadly peril, Muhammad could be confident that the ummah would survive. In Medina, the chief casualties of this Muslim success were the three Jewish tribes of Qaynuqah, Nadir and Qurayzah, who were determined to destroy Muhammad and who all independently formed alliances with Mecca. They had powerful armies, and obviously posed a threat to the Muslims, since their territory was so situated that they could easily join a besieging Meccan army or attack the ummah from the rear. When the Qaynuqah staged an unsuccessful rebellion against Muhammad in 625, they were expelled from Medina, in accordance with Arab custom. Muhammad tried to reassure the Nadir, and made a special treaty with them, but when he discovered that they had been plotting to assassinate him they too were sent into exile, where they joined the nearby Jewish settlement of Khaybar, and drummed up support for Abu Sufyan among the northern Arab tribes. The Nadir proved to be even more of a danger outside Medina, so when the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah sided with Mecca during the Battle of the Trench, when for a time it seemed that the Muslims faced certain defeat, Muhammad showed no mercy. The seven hundred men of the Qurayzah were killed, and their women and children sold as slaves. The massacre of the Qurayzah was a horrible incident, but it would be a mistake to judge it by the standards of our own time. This was a very primitive society: the Muslims themselves had just narrowly escaped extermination, and had Muhammad simply exiled the Qurayzah they would have swelled the Jewish opposition in Khaybar and brought another war upon the ummah. In seventh-century Arabia an Arab chief was not expected to show mercy to traitors like the Qurayzah. The executions sent a grim message to Khaybar and helped to quell the pagan opposition in Medina, since the pagan leaders had been the allies of the rebellious Jews. This was a fight to the death, and everybody had always known that the stakes were high. The struggle did not indicate any hostility towards Jews in general, but only towards the three rebel tribes. The Quran continued to revere Jewish prophets and to urge Muslims to respect the People of the Book. Smaller Jewish groups continued to live in Medina, and later Jews, like Christians, enjoyed full religious liberty in the Islamic empires. Anti-semitism is a Christian vice. Hatred of the Jews became marked in the Muslim world only after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent loss of Arab Palestine.
edit on 24-1-2013 by logical7 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join