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.

 

How Shariah, an Intended Compass for Peace, Became a Tool of Oppression

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by BeaverTail
 


In my quotes, I was kind enough to use the different translations, all of them. If you look, you would see that.

I could just post the transliterations also. But you seem to be quasi-Islamic, are you leaning in that direction? And I did say that not all Muslims believe the Hadiths, and yet every Muslim source says the Qu'ran is based on the Hadiths. That is something they can't get around. And if we are to reject the Hadiths, then the Sunna should be as well, but Muslims still read the Sunna.

As I would comply with your request normally, if this were your thread, then I would gladly not mention them, but this OP wildtimes would prefer that I use it as a source as she is very interested in all references of sources. So for the sake of the OP, I must include them. I hope that is fair for you.

Which particular translation did you quote from? I used all of them. And those translations have been approved within Islam, by Islamic scholars, so we have to trust they know what they are doing.




posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I was always blown away by the clarity of Asteroid impact events in the Book of Revelations.

For him to describe them like that something extraordinary happened to him.

I wasn't directly referring to the star code in Revelations 20 before it describes the great war. Have you read about what date it was decoded to, or near??

Its a shame if it is....That would be the icing on the cake... The straw that....

 


When I was young, I met a man from Lebanon that fled(refugee) in one of the old Lebanese-Isreali Wars.

He was just sitting there being old talking about gardening and figs. When the other gentlemen left the room it was him and myself sitting there and he turns to me out of the blue and says "Jesus came for the whole World...The Jews and the Muslims". When he said it I was kinda taken back and turned my head like a curious dog. He said he wrote a book in his native language that was lost in the war.

I guess he wanted to pass on some kind of Sacred knowledge to a younger generation. I agreed with him before the gentlemen made it back into the room and that was it.

The other gentlemen were just other maintenance workers at the condominium complex we worked at and he was a resident visiting our shop.

The experience really got me thinking about things beyond other life experiences.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

WarminIndy
reply to post by BeaverTail
 


In my quotes, I was kind enough to use the different translations, all of them. If you look, you would see that.

I could just post the transliterations also. But you seem to be quasi-Islamic, are you leaning in that direction? And I did say that not all Muslims believe the Hadiths, and yet every Muslim source says the Qu'ran is based on the Hadiths. That is something they can't get around. And if we are to reject the Hadiths, then the Sunna should be as well, but Muslims still read the Sunna.

As I would comply with your request normally, if this were your thread, then I would gladly not mention them, but this OP wildtimes would prefer that I use it as a source as she is very interested in all references of sources. So for the sake of the OP, I must include them. I hope that is fair for you.

Which particular translation did you quote from? I used all of them. And those translations have been approved within Islam, by Islamic scholars, so we have to trust they know what they are doing.





I didn't mean any disrespect to you nor the op. I only meant that I myself can not resort to the hadiths since it contradicts the qu'ran. How can a large community follow extensively the way of the prophet and uphold him in this pedastole when God and mohammed asked the people not to distinguish between the messengers. Why create these sects surrounding one man and go against the word of god. Even certain hadiths/stories tend to cancel each other out. I personally believe the hadiths/sunna/sharia is what makes the muslim community deviate from the righteous and peaceful path.

The quran isnt based on the hadiths for they(hadiths) came 200 yrs after the quran.


Edip-Layth 53:5 He has been taught by One mighty in power.
The Monotheist Group 53:5 He has been taught by One mighty in power.
Muhammad Asad 53:5 something that a very mighty one3 has imparted to him:
Rashad Khalifa 53:5 Dictated by the Most Powerful.
Shabbir Ahmed 53:5 He has been taught by the One Mighty in Powers.
Transliteration 53:5 AAallamahu shadeedu alquwa

Thank you for being kind in expressing your point, I appreciate it.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

AbleEndangered
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I was always blown away by the clarity of Asteroid impact events in the Book of Revelations.

For him to describe them like that something extraordinary happened to him.

I wasn't directly referring to the star code in Revelations 20 before it describes the great war. Have you read about what date it was decoded to, or near??

Its a shame if it is....That would be the icing on the cake... The straw that....

 


When I was young, I met a man from Lebanon that fled(refugee) in one of the old Lebanese-Isreali Wars.

He was just sitting there being old talking about gardening and figs. When the other gentlemen left the room it was him and myself sitting there and he turns to me out of the blue and says "Jesus came for the whole World...The Jews and the Muslims". When he said it I was kinda taken back and turned my head like a curious dog. He said he wrote a book in his native language that was lost in the war.

I guess he wanted to pass on some kind of Sacred knowledge to a younger generation. I agreed with him before the gentlemen made it back into the room and that was it.

The other gentlemen were just other maintenance workers at the condominium complex we worked at and he was a resident visiting our shop.

The experience really got me thinking about things beyond other life experiences.


I do think the Bible does describe a nuclear war. It does say their skin would melt off while they were still standing. That's as about a powerful natural image that I can understand. And if man has that kind of destructive power, what greater power does God have?

As John was writing with what words he knew in his time and all the translators followed also didn't know what he was describing, compared to what we know now, makes me think it had to be a future event from John.

One of the things that really got me thinking was seeing the Pharaoh's helicopter inscription in the temple of Seti, those are clearly things we recognize today and I believe that was prophetic. So it made me think more, if that was prophetic, then God must have been speaking to them, and if God was speaking to them, who else was He speaking to?

Pharaoh's helicopter is describing a war scenario, and no matter how much they try to pass it off as a mistake or wind damage, then why was it only a mistake there and why wind damage only there?

That was a prophecy, and notice in that inscriptions, the war machines are coming from the same direction, from the West. But what was even more intriguing is that when I read of locust coming out of the earth and it was described very militarily, I watched a History Channel documentary of them calling helicopters Locusts of War. That's when I started to see that there would be future events that we recognize in our time.

I therefore, have to believe on virtue that prophecy comes from God, that the Egyptians had prophetic visions as well. It describes an event that Revelation does as well. Had I not seen the inscription on the temple of Seti, I might not have researched more.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Yeah the Eyes and tongue will rot while they are standing on their feet in Zechariah 14.

The flying scroll is also described in that book.

I found a great video about that. I don't agree with every speck of the video but a lot of it. Not sure if this is the original video, looks like a re-upload.

The Vision of Zechariah
www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_hEhpRi_X4
www.youtube.com...


Here is another:

NUCLEAR WAR PROPHECY REVEALED!!! - Will Blow Your Mind! Part 1 of 3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRCh54zN7hc
www.youtube.com...



 


Dr. Huwass tried to debunk that Seti inscription, I laughed at his explanation when I seen it. He knows his Egyptology its just there he was clearly hiding something.

 


In the Book of Revelations it describes a mountain ablaze that falls into the sea and events that surround that scale event. The stars will fall like ripe figs from a shaken tree. A great grinding/mill stone was hurled...

Really the amount of energy of that kind of event was hypothetical til:

Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact on Jupiter
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zNuT4dbdjU
www.youtube.com...


 


I wonder if there are any references to these events in the Quran, the Sunna, the Hadiths or Sharia.

The Ancient Hindu Texts are said to describe Advanced Technological Warfare as well.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BeaverTail
 


The Rashad Kahlifah translation make the point of who Mohammed received the vision from, most clearly.

And that's the one we would then have to assume, if the Qu'ran is saying here that Jibreel is the One, then it has to raise the question, why is Jibreel given that authoritative power, giving him a name that is applied to Allah?

There cannot be any other answer, if the text clearly says that this is the one whom Mohammed received revelation from, then this being which was a star, and also called Lord of Sirius, then would have to make you question why a star would be called Jibreel and the Lord of Sirius?

That's what this text clearly states.

And I am not familiar with your translations. Thank you for telling me about them.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


Oh...

This girl is on fire....

Could it be a prophecy about Rhianna?

That was interesting that the same word for woman was fire offering.....

The imagery is horrifying and it does sound like a nuclear war to me. That's what I have thought for a long time.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


It's no ones fault except for those who do not care for the freedom of others


When they control the smaller groups no one minds but when it gets huge and want to control EVERYONE then they care when it is too late.

In a way, it's karma...



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
@op.... Not quite sure what this thread is supposed to be about. You quote an article about shariah and then make references to terrorism and suicide vests,like as if shariah instructs muslims to blow themselves up. Connecting ''shariah'' with terroriam is as absurd as connecting ''democracy'' with bombings and invasions just because America, a democracy is guilty of it. ....................................................................................... Yes, its easy to score stars and flags with these kinds of threads on ATS, but next time at least make an effort to add some substance...instead of just going ''terrorism this'' and ''suicide bomb that'', which is what your OP is basically about.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
@warmindy...... Youre reading things into the fact that Mohammads first encounter with Gabriel was not exactly pleasant. Its the same logic people use to discredit christianity as well.... - ''how can a good God kill all those people'' ..... ''how can a good God ask a man to kill his own son''.... ''how can a good God kill his own ''son''... Etc. -..............................................................................................Mohammad is prophesied in Isaiah 42, he was the servant of God pertaining to kedar, sela and the wilderness... Who shamed the idolaters.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I was looking up your Noahide Law reference and it brought me back to Moses's early upbringing.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism
en.wikipedia.org...

Prohibition of idolatry: You shall not have any idols or false deities.
Prohibition of blasphemy: You shall not curse the name of YHWH.
Prohibition of murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
Prohibition of theft: You shall not steal.
Prohibition of adultery: You shall not commit adultery.
Prohibition of cruelty towards animals: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4, as interpreted in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a))
Requirement to have just laws: Set up a governing body of justice (e.g. courts)


Check out the Similarities between Mosaic Law and Maat Law from the Papyrus of Ani.

Wikipedia Reference:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_of_Ani
en.wikipedia.org...

42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)
I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men and women.
I have not stolen grain.
I have not purloined offerings.
I have not stolen the property of the god.
I have not uttered lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not uttered curses.
I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.
I have made none to weep.
I have not eaten the heart [i.e, I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse].
I have not attacked any man.
I am not a man of deceit.
I have not stolen cultivated land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have slandered [no man].
I have not been angry without just cause.
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. (repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god).
I have not polluted myself.
I have terrorised none.
I have not transgressed [the Law].
I have not been wroth.
I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.
I have not blasphemed.
I am not a man of violence.
I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace).
I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste.
I have not pried into matters.
I have not multiplied my words in speaking.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King).
I have never stopped [the flow of] water.
I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger).
I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God.
I have not acted with evil rage.
I have not stolen the bread of the gods.
I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead.
I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.[25]


The origins do go back even further.

The lawyers just keep adding more laws...

Ani, I wonder if that is any relation to Anu...

 


Check this book out.

The gods of the Egyptians
ia700301.us.archive.org/0/items/godsofegyptianso02budg/godsofegyptianso02budg.pdf
ia700301.us.archive.org...

 


If you thought those other videos were rough, have you seen Terminator 2?

Warning Graphic:

Warning its so graphic:

THE SARAH CONNOR DREAM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImLS9YrMcVo
www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Well, that may be, I don't know it all that well. But some Muslims claim it was. They say they are the "real" Muslims and that others don't understand it, and that the "fake Muslim" clergy is exploiting that ignorance/misunderstanding.

If you ask a muslim "Do you follow/believe/support Sharia?", they will undoubtedly say "Yes". This isn't some exposé of insidiousness of muslims. It'd be EXACTLY the same as if you asked a Christian "Do you accept Christian morals?" or a Jew "Do you accept Jewish morals/Halakha?".
A portion of those morals, as defined, may refer to things today that are under the legal sphere (for example, divorce for Christians, or certain crimes and punishments for Jews), but they aren't defined by those.

I generally refrain from calling anyone a "fake muslim" or "fake" anything. A person can be a devout muslim, and be ignorant about specific points of religion.


I don't know if you may have read a thread I made on this topic before, I remember linking it to you. You might find it an interesting read:
The Shariah Conspiracy

reply to post by WarminIndy
 


WarminIndy
What you have just presented is indeed from one side of Muslims claiming another side is not Muslim, that's what they mean by "fake" Muslims. It gets down to Sunni vs. Shi'ite.

I'm not sure it does. Major differences between Sunni and Shi'a in matters of shariah are relatively few. Shi'ites accept temporary marriage, sunnis do not. Shi'ites accept the concept of Taqiyya (the actual concept, not the one that detractors of Islam have tried to use as a stick to beat Islam with), while most sunni schools of thought do not.
The rest are minor things like whether to keep your hands bound while praying or not, or the correct method of mourning and so on. While today, one side may bring up a religious matter to use to denigrate the other side, the major difference is ONLY in the (now defunct) matter of succession- Shi'ites believe that only a descendant of Muhammad can be a Caliph, while Sunnis believe that it can be any elected muslim in good standing (although later even that ended up being hereditary).


WarminIndy
There are Muslims who are Quran only and there are Muslims who believe the Hadiths. If you really want to hear a tragic story, read the Hadiths, it talks about Aisha's feelings about being sexually abused from Mohammed. And she had very clear doubts about Mohammed and Allah.

I'd be interested in seeing these. I assume they're from authenticated Hadith?


WarminIndy
Are you referring to the 10 Commandments or the 635 Laws of Moses that include kosher diets? The last time I looked, there weren't any Jews forcing kosher onto the rest of us.

Having read much about Sharia and Islam, not only from the Qu'ran, the Hadiths, the Sunna and speaking with many Muslims, I can only arrive at the conclusion that Sharia is not Mosaic and does not depend upon the 10 commandments.

Would you prefer to have an halal diet under Sharia? Would you prefer that you may not drink alcohol, under Sharia?

And you having read the Quran, Hadith, Sunna, and spoken to many muslims, I find it amazing that you missed out the several dozen references to the commandments as a whole in Islamic scripture, as well as numerous counts of the individual commandments reiterated.
Last time I looked, there aren't any Muslims forcing halal food on anyone either. I've been to numerous Muslim majority countries with non-muslim minorities. None of them are forced to eat Halal. None of them are forced to not drink alcohol.


WarminIndy
But all Fatwas are Sharia based, the Sharia is Qu'ranic based. This is what they acknowledge.

If you don't mind, I have downloaded a copy of Sharia law, called Ftiq, it is jurisprudence of Islamic law and will use that to quote from on my posts. People don't want to do this, but it is necessary to know what they are thinking.

I'd very much contest the view (that you are trying to imply) that all Fatwas are Quranic based. That is up to the individual fatwa to prove- which they should, through references.
And I'm sorry, but again, your phrasing suggests you do not understand Shariah Law (or Fiqh, as the concept you are more accurately trying to explain would be described). It isn't some monolithic, set-in-stone construct that existed from the start of Islam till now. There is no "copy of Sharia law", because no two people would be able to sit down and agree on a fixed set of rulings. If the book you are talking about is (as you mentioned in your later post) "Reliance of the Traveller", then again, I'm sorry, but that was just the opinion of one scholar of one school of thought from the 14th century.

Reliance of the Traveller is in no sense part of Islamic scripture, in no sense obligatory following for muslims (even those of the Shafi school of thought). It was based off previous works that were based of previous works. It might be considered a classical work of the Shafi school of thought, and has been used as the basis of further research, but that doesn't in any way enshrine it in Islamic law as the "Book of Sharia".
For a hopefully helpful comparison: Thomas Aquinas is a well-regarded classical Christian theologian (of the 13th century), who's work has had a huge influence on Christianity and western philosophy, but only an idiot would take his works (including all the misogyny, king divineness and so on) and apply them verbatim today. Also, as a side note:
"And the first thing to understand is that Sharia intends to displace the Constitution." is the most ridiculous and absurd thing I've heard today.


WarminIndy
Christians Stoned in Dearborn

On American soil. So what is it about Sharia that you are having trouble understanding? Sharia is not about nationalism, it it not about respecting the laws of the land of the country they are in.

I'm sorry, but again, you've been fed a lie
Muslims Stoning Christians in Michigan? Not quite…


WarminIndy
And here is another case in Pennsylvania of Sharia being enforced by a Muslim judge disregarding American law...
Pennsylvania Judge

Another case of you being fed a lie.
"Zombie Mohammed" Judge Responds
I suggest, most humbly, that perhaps "atlasshrugged" is not the best source for you to get your information from. It has a long history of absurdist hate mongering.
edit on 9-11-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


@op.... Not quite sure what this thread is supposed to be about. You quote an article about shariah and then make references to terrorism and suicide vests,like as if shariah instructs muslims to blow themselves up. Connecting ''shariah'' with terroriam is as absurd as connecting ''democracy'' with bombings and invasions just because America, a democracy is guilty of it.

It's about the article I posted. Did you read it? It is from a muslim source; I presented it to get feedback from ATS about its veracity.

The article says that Muslim clergy are taking advantage of followers' sketchy understanding of the real depth and tenets of Islam. If you can prove it is untrue, and simply sensationalism, that would be awesome.

It has nothing to do with stars and flags, sk0rp. It's about what's keeping the world from being at peace. Current activities in the Middle East and other areas where Muslim refugees are now harbored DO INCLUDE horrible violence. LONG before my recent interest in learning about Islam, I have studied psychopathology. Since I was a LITTLE GIRL, looking at Time/Life books in my parents' library about behavior, madness, the mind, and human nature....to being an adult reading books about serial killers, by profilers and experts in psychology.

I'm trying to figure out how the people willing to commit those atrocities are driven to it. It's a psychological cause/effect study. Is it all right with you if I continue to explore the psychology of religion and its effects on poorly informed people? Or how child abuse leads to personality disorders? Or how crummy parenting results in failed kids? Or how society's laws and customs damage people?

My primary interest, which should be evident by my posts and thread topics, is the PSYCHOLOGY and SOCIOLOGY of the mess of a world we have right now. What's it to you if I continue to study in my chosen field?

If you disagree with the premise of the article (which I found doing a random surf), then please state WHY - and provide evidence that is equally weighted. Just making lame 'comparisons' (which is your usual technique) to the troubles of other cultures and religions doesn't work to negate what the world sees happening every bloody day. Do you really NOT understand that?




edit on 11/9/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



If you ask a muslim "Do you follow/believe/support Sharia?", they will undoubtedly say "Yes". This isn't some exposé of insidiousness of muslims. It'd be EXACTLY the same as if you asked a Christian "Do you accept Christian morals?" or a Jew "Do you accept Jewish morals/Halakha?".

Yes, babloyi. Please don't become defensive. I TOTALLY understand the varieties of ways in which people "act out" their beliefs, WHAT I'M DIGGING TO FIND IS HOW they ARRIVED at those beliefs.

People have to LEARN from somewhere or someone about a faith. My objective is to root out where the sick corruptions are COMING FROM. I want to make it clear that I started with my OWN 'learned faith'. I NOW understand how my view got skewed - how MY impression became what it was. My impression is now changing, as I go through middle age. I see that what I thought was being taught is NOT what was intended.... perhaps it's the bee in my bonnet that thinks everyone SHOULD examine their beliefs, compare their beliefs/understandings to what others of the same "faith" take away from the platform, and discern which is more appropriate.

Indy identifies as a Christian. So does Fred Phelps. They are polar opposites of belief. Where did they each get their 'information'? They both could say, "the Bible." But, clearly, one is a kind, compassionate, thoughtful person (such as yourself), and the other is a tyrannical maniac (such as the gunman who shot Malala in the head, and is now the new leader of the Taliban).

Two Christians with vastly different "product". Two Muslims with vastly different "product." We can do the same with Jews...but I'm not studying Judaism at the moment. I'm studying the "product" of Islam as it effects the quality of life in this world.

Can you show me a source that indicates the article in the OP is false? I would greatly appreciate being "disabused" of my negative impression. (YES, I WILL LOOK AGAIN AT YOUR THREAD -perhaps it's already been presented by you.)
Truly, I want to believe that Islam is not as toxic as its current "product." I know what Phelps' problem was - runaway Calvinism. Therefore, I think "Calvinism" is a dangerous platform. So - what is the Muslim equivalent of Calvinism, and from where/whom is it taught?

Perhaps the pro-violence Imams and teachers are the equivalent of Calvinist hell-fire preachers. That seems to be the case.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at????

Is it only Wahabbis? Or Ahmaddiya? Or Sunni? Or Shi'a? I know what the beef was between the latter two - about succession. How many Shi'ites and Sunnis KNOW WHY THEY HATE EACH OTHER? How many Muslims who hate others KNOW WHY - as in: could they answer this question: "Why do you hate Christians?" If they said "yes," I would ask them "why, what did you hear or learn, and where or from whom, and WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THEM?

THAT is the main question behind ALL of my threads and posts - the whys and wherefores of how the world manages to stay so unpleasant in its 'social dealings'. It isn't ALL due to religion, or ALL due to politics, or ALL due to economics, or tribal warfare, or etc. etc.

I'm trying to pinpoint the SOURCES of the problems. It's what I do - always have. It's how I think; and it's how I was trained. I regret that often my threads seem to be negative; but the only thing I'm trying to determine, in my fleeting, unimportant life on this planet, is:

WHY? HOW THE HELL DID THIS HAPPEN????

Hope you understand better now what my objectives are.
edit on 11/9/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


wildtimes
Yes, babloyi. Please don't become defensive. I TOTALLY understand the varieties of ways in which people "act out" their beliefs, WHAT I'M DIGGING TO FIND IS HOW they ARRIVED at those beliefs.

I don't think I was being defensive. Although...am I being defensive now, by saying that?

Thanks for the "kind, compassionate, thoughtful" bit, though. Not sure if I deserve it.


wildtimes
Can you show me a source the indicates the article in the OP is false? I would greatly appreciate being "disabused" of my negative impression. Truly. I know what Phelps' problem was - runaway Calvinism. Therefore, I think "Calvinism" is a dangerous platform. So - what is the Muslim equivalent of Calvinism, and from where/whom is it taught?

I didn't say the article is false (haven't read the pdf, though, just skimmed the main thing). I could certainly see the point of view the author is proposing.

Perhaps if I had to disagree, it'd be in a matter of phrasing and implication. If I said "Christianity has been a tool of great violence and oppression", Christians would disagree with me, and say that when that violence and oppression happened, it wasn't from "true Christianity". They are, in a sense, trying to reclaim the idea of "Christianity" and "Christian morals" back to an original and authentic source. In the same way, while I don't disagree that people have misused ignorance of the masses to push their own laws and restrictions and idealogies, I wouldn't call that "Shariah".

I don't think labelling an entire school of thought as the "bad one" and all the rest as the good one is helpful. I don't think Ahmadiyyas have any specific theology that supports violence or division. In fact, I'd say they've been more oppressed than oppressed anyone else. Same with the Shia. And I know many Salafists and Ahl-e-hadith (what you call Wahabists) who are averse to violence, and the fundamental motivation (if not some of the specific details) behind that school is not intrinsically "bad". Not that I am a Salafist/Wahabist/Ahl-e-Hadith follower, nor a follower of the Shafi/Hanafi/Hanbali or whatever school of thought, nor do I identify myself as a Sunni or Shia- I find problems with each school of thought and sect, and usually only refer to all the different scholars (and then analyse) in matters which I am myself not knowledgeable.

Most Sunnis and Shias don't hate each other. Most understand the fundamental difference between the two (as a matter of succession). Some portion of one group occasionally distorts some specific facet of ritual or faith by the other group in an attempt to denigrate them, and those without knowledge may even end up considering it true (sorta like what happens sometimes on these forums with Christians and Muslims
).

I usually try my best to bring balance to such threads. I don't think I attributed any specific negative intent of yours in this thread, but a thread is a form of discussion with many participants, and sometimes participants overly generalise or alienate or "otherise" entire groups (and sometimes they simply partake in flat-out hate-mongering).
My point being that muslims, "cultural muslims" or even devout practising muslims, simply through the virtue of BEING muslims, "cultural muslims" or even devout practising muslims are not out to get anyone. They don't have some insidious agenda. They're not planning to secretly take over your country or your planet. They are part of some secret, pre-planned plot to annihilate you. They're not "the other". They are YOU. They've shared your country, your planet, your existence for centuries now, and they will continue to do so.
edit on 9-11-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



I usually try my best to bring balance to such threads. I don't think I attributed any specific negative intent of yours in this thread, but a thread is a form of discussion with many participants, and sometimes participants overly generalise or alienate or "otherise" entire groups (and sometimes they simply partake in flat-out hate-mongering).

And you do bring balance and good sense. It was a 'pre-emptive' request that we continue discussion without becoming defensive on either side. Honestly, the last few days I have felt pretty pummeled, but then - what do I expect when I start these threads? I realize not all members are here to learn; some are here to troll, others to mock, and still others just to be oppositional in the face of "conspiracy theorists."

I understand that simply identifying as "Muslim" does not automatically mean someone is 'out to get anyone.'
Obviously.

I hope you understand my objective here; and would sincerely like your reaction to the article itself.
This is how I find balance - by checking, cross-checking, fact-checking, myth-checking, source-checking...

I fully realize I will not get any "straight answers" in this quest, any more than I do by talking to Christians of different denominations or reading their various 'sites' and 'articles.' In fact, I think I'm just about finished with probing Islam. I really don't care about Islam - what I care about, as I said, is the SOURCES that create hostility, oppression, violence, etc. My career as a social worker was NOT limited to simply counseling; that is micro-practice.

MACRO-PRACTICE is the examination of systems/organizations/populations/culture.

"Stay in school. Learn the system. Then change the system." (Implies: IF IT'S BROKEN AND NOT PRODUCING POSITIVE RESULTS.

Outcomes.

Btw, are you in America? For some reason I thought you were somewhere in the UK or Ireland.

edit on 11/9/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
Mohammad is prophesied in Isaiah 42,


42 “Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will bring justice to the nations.
2 He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.
3 A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice;
4 he will not falter or be discouraged
till he establishes justice on earth.
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.”

Muhammad????
'He wil not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets'
'A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.??
The guy murdered and lied and was a caravan thief. His followers murdered in his name
and he rewarded them with praise for doing so. This doesn't even come close to being
Muhammad. To say so is absurd. But believe whatever makes you happy ...



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


wildtimes
I hope you understand my objective here; and would sincerely like your reaction to the article itself.
This is how I find balance - by checking, cross-checking, fact-checking, myth-checking, source-checking...

I meant more about balance in temperament and tone. People can attempt to bring balance in opinion as well, and sometimes it makes sense, but personally, some opinions (e.g. bigoted ones) don't deserve to be there, balance or not, and others are too minute, and giving them a voice implies there to be balance in something where there really is none. Once you come into the realm of facts, of course, there is nothing about balance- a thing is true in some specific circumstance, or it is false, or it cannot be known.

As far as my reaction to the original article, I think I outlined it reasonably in my last post. If you have some specific point you wish to ask me about, feel free to do so.


wildtimes
Btw, are you in America? For some reason I thought you were somewhere in the UK or Ireland.

I travel a lot. I'm not in the USA right now (was there until the middle of this year). Why do you ask? The "Your planet, your country" thing wasn't specifically directed at you, nor specifically pertaining to me (I'm neither a citizen nor currently a resident of the US), was just a general statement.

edit on 9-11-2013 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 


LOL, I know it was just a general comment. I wondered just now when re-reading your thread about The Sharia Conspiracy. I got the impression in that one that you were in the US, not just referencing it; sorry. No big deal. Just curious. Knowing where someone lives and where they came from helps me to sort things out in my mind.

You said you hadn't read the article yet, so I thought if you read it, you might have more specific objections or affirmations of what it said. Honesty, I look to you Muslims (those of you who actually discuss the religion; not those who simply attack everyone who doesn't "trust" or "like" it) as "teachers" - lay teachers, who I assume understand your faith better than I.

I seek out people who have well-reasoned thinking, NOT APOLOGISTS. I can look up "apologetics" all day long - it doesn't make what they say "accurate" or "true." It's simply "defensiveness." I want the facts, not the "justifications."

Thanks for your contributions!



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


wildtimes
LOL, I know it was just a general comment. I wondered just now when re-reading your thread about The Sharia Conspiracy. I got the impression in that one that you were in the US, not just referencing it; sorry.

Heh...I really should get back to that thread at some point and perhaps put in the British and European perspective on it. It is quite different from the US one. Aside from some Daily Mailers and the EDL, I don't think anyone seriously suspects some sort of "Creeping Shariah" in the UK.

I had gone through the page you linked, just not the pdf that was linked from that page (perhaps to a more comprehensive article).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join