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

page: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



I don't see any reason, yet, to disbelieve olln's offered information. Can you or Skorpion provide equally researched sources that make olln's sources fraudulent?


Look, its not that difficult to look up maps and copy paste info found on the web. Its the way its used thats important.

What olln was doing was juxtapose certain verses and historical accounts of certain Muslim rulers (With regard to conversion/taxation) in order to portray Muslims in the way he usually does. (He later began to differentiate between Mohammad and the Muslim rulers who acted on their own.)

It would be like me quoting the war verses from the Bible and then citing the policies of certain Christian American presidents. By combining 2 unrelated well researched "facts"...I can easily portray American Christians as a barbaric and warmongering. .


Also if you are interested...
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


wildtimes!
When i give a hypothetical example, its just to prove a point.
Like here

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.

the point is, an act may seem cruel on its own but when the circumstances are specific, the same act is the RIGHT thing to do.
The example was completely hypothetical!!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

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".



A good point to make. Muslim leaders, in common with leaders of any kind, are but men, fallible, subject to the same passions that seize other men. Being Muslim doesn't give them any super powers to resist temptations any more than Christian leaders can resist temptations, or, for that matter, secular leaders.

People are people. All have their weaknesses, and will usually act upon them given opportunity. This is the one problem I have with even accepting leaders at all - those who would lead usually do so out of greed and desire for power over others. Some times, that can be a good thing - see "Akbar" above. Other times it can be a matter of indifference, indulging in personal vices like drink and drugs, without spilling over into misrule of the general population. Other times, however, the greed and lust for power extends to power over others, and that power can never be satisfied to merely be, it also craves exercise.

It's a rare man that can rule fairly. No institution, religious or secular, has a monopoly on good leaders, nor an immunity from bad ones.

That's why I think it's better to study and decide for yourself in matters of religion, as your God leads, rather than follow the lead of other, fallible, men. Some may lead well, and others may lead you astray just to exercise their OWN power over you, independent of the wishes of deity, and in an effort to gain more followers to exercise power over, merely for their own aggrandizement.

Your own mind, your own soul, the books you hold dear, and reasoned conversation with peers (as opposed to accepting the religious edicts of leaders) is far more likely to lead you to the path God would have you follow, and away from the one which some man seeks to lead you down, astray.

Extremists are an example - no one is born an extremist. Some guy with an agenda and an axe to grind against someone else seeks after power over others, in order to use them to accomplish his own goals. Soon, he will sway a group of converts, and then rather than "some guy", it becomes "a group of guys" who are preaching the peculiar brand of "power religion". The fact that it is now a group of guys preaching it lends it a degree of strength in convincing weak minds - how could so many be WRONG? - and the next thing you know, it grows to dangerous proportions, threatening to eclipse the real religion behind the political ploys. As it grows, it gains "legitimacy", and will in time come to replace the religion it once used as cover.

In the case of extremist brands of Islam - not just al Qaeda, but other, seemingly more benign manifestations of extremism or political maneuverings over religion, such as the Muslim Brotherhood - it is reaching a critical mass. Not strong enough yet to take over the main religion, but fast approaching it. AQ are but extreme extremists. A bad example to draw attention away from the other political extensions alleging themselves to be "Islamic" and allow them to flourish unnoticed while everyone focuses on a DIS-organization such as AQ.

Better to, as someone has already mentioned, let the OIC clean house with their own regional force, and keep us "foreigners" out of it. If that is delayed too long, however, then all will be lost, because extremism is taking hold in the middle east, even of governments, and we can never expect the OIC to take care of extremism after extremists are running the majority of the member nations.

Mali is but the most recent example of extremism thinking itself grown to proportions large enough to take the government of a nation. Better get it before it grows.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





If there is ONE religion that truly supports peace and unity with the Source, it's Buddhism.

Right!
www.huffingtonpost.com...

A Muslim minority situated along the
country's western coast, the
Rohingyas have been brutally
targeted for extinction by ethnic
Arakanese, aided at times by
government security officials. Satellite imagery released by Human Rights Watch earlier this month exposed destruction covering 348 acres and
involving at least 4,855 destroyed
structures. At least 200 people have
died in recent attacks, and more than
100,000 people have been displaced
in the violence. The Rohingya Muslims have faced a
campaign of terror simply because of
their faith and their ethnic identity.
Their plight has been largely
unnoticed in the international
community, and ignored by the government of Myanmar.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Okay, okay....
thanks for clarifying.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

the point is, an act may seem cruel on its own but when the circumstances are specific, the same act is the RIGHT thing to do.
The example was completely hypothetical!!


Absolutely. If Egypt had executed Zawahiri after the assassination of Sadat, rather than simply jailing him, we might not be having this conversation at all right now.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

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.


The massacre of the Jews by Muhammad is mentioned in the Koran


Koran

33:26 And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

33:27 And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.

Muslim Access


So there is no doubt that Muhammad killed some, took some prisoner and took their land and possessions. The above quoted historian quoted by Logical 7 appears to be in no doubt that Muhammad executed the males POWs and enslaved the women and children.

A much more comprehensive explanation is that by Ibn Ishaq.

Ibn Ishaq was a devout Muslim historian and was the author of the first biography about Muhammad - Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger" in 768 AD. He provided details about the episode mentioned in sura 33:26 & 33:27.

Sirat Rasul Allah - "Life of God's Messenger"



"The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the market-place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to his people and said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this massacre!’ Then he seated himself and his head was struck off...

...Now the apostle distributed the property of the Banu Qurayza, as well as their women and children, to the Muslims, reserving one-fifth for himself. Every horseman received three shares, one for himself and two for his steed, and every foot soldier one share. There were thirty-six horses present on the day of the Qurayza. The apostle dispatched an emissary to Najd with the prisoners, to barter them as slaves in exchange for horses and camels.

The apostle of Allah selected one of the Jewish women, Rayhana, for himself, and she remained with him as his slave until she died.
He had suggested marriage to her, that she should wear the veil (to separate her from all other persons, as his wives did), but she replied, 'Rather allow me to remain thy slave; it will be more easy for me, and for thee.'"


According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad chopped the heads of the men off of the six to seven hundred men of the Jewish tribe. He then enslaved the surviving women and children.

The really scary part of this story is that Muslims today think that the founder of the religion of 'peace' was justified in besieging and then executing the six to seven hundred men of the Jewish tribe. It really is frightening how supposedly some moderate Muslims actually think.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Okay, guys,
I'm not "deserting" the thread, but I'm out of my depth. I will continue to read your posts, however, and extend thanks to you all for contributing. Obviously you all know WAY more than I do about any of this stuff....

I realize that I am an idealist, and have a dreamer's vision.... and that in my life, things have been pretty rosy. Therefore, I acknowledge that my ability to engage in a conversation regarding much of these topics is really pretty lame, and that the strife in the world is far, far beyond my current knowledge -- and quite possibly beyond my ability to fully grasp.

Truly, it's overwhelming.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7
The Rohingya Muslims have faced a
campaign of terror simply because of
their faith and their ethnic identity.
Their plight has been largely
unnoticed in the international
community, and ignored by the government of Myanmar.


Isn't it strange that Buddhists can live peacefully alongside other religions except Islam?

What is it about the religion of 'peace' that makes it such a target of hostility that it is in engaged in either low or high level violence with every other group and religion it lives beside?

It's a puzzle.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


This morning I was reading more background information on the current situation in Mali. The Islamist extremists have imposed very harsh and brutal Sharia law to the area, which was far more relaxed and tolerant until they got there.

If anything, the victims of this invasion and the brutality (lopping off limbs, stoning people to death, imprisoning and raping women, forbidding sports, tv, music, smoking, drinking, conversation between men and women) show a much better light on Islam. I would like to assume that most of Islam is actually more like the displaced people in Mali;

moderate, joyful, peaceful.

Too bad it took these atrocities to help shed light on it for me.
uggh



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
What olln was doing was juxtapose certain verses and historical accounts of certain Muslim rulers (With regard to conversion/taxation) in order to portray Muslims in the way he usually does. (He later began to differentiate between Mohammad and the Muslim rulers who acted on their own.)

It would be like me quoting the war verses from the Bible and then citing the policies of certain Christian American presidents. By combining 2 unrelated well researched "facts"...I can easily portray American Christians as a barbaric and warmongering. .




The fact remains that the Koran and canonical Hadith reveal Muhammad to have been a man of violence who fought battles, raided caravan trains and besieged cities.

Such was the founder of the religion of 'peace'.

As a good Muslim I would think you would welcome the fact that I quote the Koran and canonical Hadith.

I may be wrong however, but I get the impression that quoting the passages from your own holy books that show that Muhammad was a violent warlord appear to offend you in some way.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 





According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad chopped the heads of the men off of the six to seven hundred men of the Jewish tribe. He then enslaved the surviving women and children. The really scary part of this story is that Muslims today think that the founder of the religion of 'peace' was justified in besieging and then executing the six to seven hundred men of the Jewish tribe. It really is frightening how supposedly some moderate Muslims actually think.

Ibn Ishaq was not a well researched historian or biographer. He was a story collector and guess who were the sources for the parts you mentioned, decendants of the same jewish tribes.
During his time, more stress was put on collecting authentic facts by jurists obviously as it would help form the laws. On the other hand, stories about prophet's life were not scrutinized, ibn ishaq collected these stories, and no jurist takes the biography by him as a basis to formulate any rulings.
.
Olin, you also tell a one sided story, could you tell me why was the tribe punished?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ollncasino
 


This morning I was reading more background information on the current situation in Mali. The Islamist extremists have imposed very harsh and brutal Sharia law to the area, which was far more relaxed and tolerant until they got there.

If anything, the victims of this invasion and the brutality (lopping off limbs, stoning people to death, imprisoning and raping women, forbidding sports, tv, music, smoking, drinking, conversation between men and women) show a much better light on Islam. I would like to assume that most of Islam is actually more like the displaced people in Mali;

moderate, joyful, peaceful.

Too bad it took these atrocities to help shed light on it for me.
uggh


I relayed that information to a Muslim a few minutes ago. The precise response was "Oh #! It's becoming Afghanistan East. The only way the people of Mali are going to have peace to worship is by killing the bastards."

Now, I mention this only because it has bearing on the ongoing debate concerning the Qurayzah Jews. This time, it's Islamic "moderates" vs. Islamic extremists, but still the same basic concept. When someone is bent on exterminating you or subjugating you, it's often that the only reasonable response is to exterminate them right back, regardless of the century. Otherwise, they will not stop, and you will forever have to watch your back.

Is that not what the US set out to do in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did they not go in with the stated intent of exterminating the Taliban and extremists in Iraq? It's hard to accept criticism of exterminations centuries ago from people who are doing the same thing right NOW.

It also illustrates the fact that some things are timeless. The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by logical7
The Rohingya Muslims have faced a
campaign of terror simply because of
their faith and their ethnic identity.
Their plight has been largely
unnoticed in the international
community, and ignored by the government of Myanmar.


Isn't it strange that Buddhists can live peacefully alongside other religions except Islam?

What is it about the religion of 'peace' that makes it such a target of hostility that it is in engaged in either low or high level violence with every other group and religion it lives beside?

It's a puzzle.

yes right! When some muslims are violent its islam's/muslims' fault. When muslims are persecuted, again it must be some fault in islam or the way they live.
You missed one point. "if muslims are peaceful then they are not really following islam as it should be"
its very clear why you care to bother so much to research(mostly anti islamic sites) to spread the "Reality" of islam. You are an ambassador of unity.
Also the link you posted before about political islam, they sell "Koran" and claim that their research is well grounded. The suspicious part it that they overdo it.
I dont think the layman will think much before buying it and believing it.
Does islam pose such a threat that there should be so much islamophobic propaganda using such questionable tactics?!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


Does islam pose such a threat that there should be so much islamophobic propaganda using such questionable tactics?!


Questionable tactics are wrong, I agree. But does Islam pose a real danger to the West? Will they invade, conquer, condemn and override our way of life, just on principle? Just as they are doing to their OWN PEOPLE in Mali? See, I don't know! Does the threat loom that large?

Some of us are trying to "get over it." I know I am, and you have helped me to do that. Still, as long a those rogue extremists are out there, there's a chance they will attack us again. It's hard to fathom how difficult it is to stop them; there aren't that many of them. But yeah, the OIC should do something; it's their image, after all, that's being ruined.

You say Islam doesn't pose a threat. OpinionatedB and Skorpion and lots and lots of others also say it doesn't. The propaganda is horrible, I agree. The actions of Al-Q are horrible as well; maiming and oppressing Muslims. The slick postcard I got in the mail before the elections had a list of Sharia laws (the extreme kind) that some politician mailed out to scare the bejeebers out of everyone in, presumably, the entire voting public's neighborhoods. Bad press, absolutely.

In every religion there will be violent, misguided rogues, I guess. And in every religion will be people spreading vicious lies and exaggerating things....another reason to drop dogma.

The media's coverage - whether it's West or Islamic - certainly does "spin" and "exaggerate" things. It's very hard to know what to believe. This points out how difficult it is to get to the truth; does it not? The general population of "the West" isn't nearly the demonic monster that much of Islam makes of it .... really, what's it to you if some people want to eat shellfish, allow their skin and hair to show in public, talk freely with others of either gender, etc.

Our military and government activities notwithstanding, and I think it's unfortunate that the US feels it has to have "interests" all over the damn place!! We have enough right here to live our lives; I hate the conflicts over resources. This country is HUGE. I don't see why we are trying to take other people's resources from them, or hoard them for our use and prevent others from access as well.

In my opinion, everybody should learn to live without "imports" and without "exporting" stuff. Each country has its particular strengths in resources, and those with excess ought to be sharing with those who are in need, I think.

Do the people of the West pose such a threat to Islam that we need to be eradicated?
Goes both ways.

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



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by ollncasino
 


This morning I was reading more background information on the current situation in Mali. The Islamist extremists have imposed very harsh and brutal Sharia law to the area, which was far more relaxed and tolerant until they got there.

If anything, the victims of this invasion and the brutality (lopping off limbs, stoning people to death, imprisoning and raping women, forbidding sports, tv, music, smoking, drinking, conversation between men and women) show a much better light on Islam. I would like to assume that most of Islam is actually more like the displaced people in Mali;

moderate, joyful, peaceful.

Too bad it took these atrocities to help shed light on it for me.
uggh

just adding what i found in news etc.
The anti islamist rebels/mali army(pro french) are conducting "summary executions" just killing anyone who doesnt have identification!
Heard a islamist spokeperson, they call themselves Ansare Deen(helpers of religion) thats ironic! He said they were not associated with AQ in anyway except in the faith they follow. He reported a lot of civilian deaths while admitted losing 5 fighters.
On the other side the rebels(anti islamists) in an interview warned against bringing french troops!
Its going to get messy!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





It's very hard to know what to believe. This points out how difficult it is to get to the truth; does it not?

it is.
Its also possible to get the truth by observing some facts.
After 9/11 more americans are converting to islam (60-70% women). The simple explanation is they were rational people who dint believe the MSM, rather did their own research, liked what they found and became muslims.
There are many factors in play simultaneously and each factor influences other factors and in turn affecting the greater picture.
Some of the factors are
1)christianity and islam pitted against each other, and any wrong done by people in it used to justify why that religion is bad(more biased against islam right now)
2)power struggle of super powers and selfish interests of all countries in general.
3)corporate profits, need for new resources, oil
these are some, go figure!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 




As a good Muslim I would think you would welcome the fact that I quote the Koran and canonical Hadith.

Depends on context.
Not when you combine it with the policies of questionable "muslim" leaders... and present it as a "muslim" thing.



I may be wrong however, but I get the impression that quoting the passages from your own holy books that show that Muhammad was a violent warlord appear to offend you in some way.

Are you sure?
At least, Mohammad laid down laws prohibiting his soldiers from killing women, children and old people.

Whereas the Bible ....

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
-Numbers 31:17-18


Yes....kill all the little males, kill the wives and keep the virgin women "children".
You seem to be very concerned about holy books that command violence. Can you direct me to any post of yours on ATS where you have condemned and criticized biblical violence? I'd like to read them.

Nothing personal, I'd just like to know more.



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



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 





Do the people of the West pose such a threat to Islam that we need to be eradicated? Goes both ways.

not really, how can the West with its superior military forces be eradicated?
If you are talking about western culture, then yes its sure is different from islamic culture.
I believe neither is superior than the other. I do see the advantages and faults in both.
Nothing should be forced rather it should be free choice, be it a hijab or a jeans n top with a pony tail.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


I believe neither is superior than the other. I do see the advantages and faults in both.
Nothing should be forced rather it should be free choice, be it a hijab or a jeans n top with a pony tail.

Perfect; I entirely agree.

btw, if you don't mind my asking...what is your age? I'm wondering if we're "cohorts" in terms of generations.





top topics
 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join