Print Page | Close Window

The Embassy Attacks

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: General Discussion
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23872
Printed Date: 23 September 2014 at 9:26am


Topic: The Embassy Attacks
Posted By: abuayisha
Subject: The Embassy Attacks
Date Posted: 15 September 2012 at 6:57am
An Egyptian's Voice on the Embassy Attacks
Moez Masoud has been writing on Facebook ever since the attacks this week on the embassy in Libya. He is http://twitter.com/MoezMasoud -



Replies:
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 September 2012 at 1:34pm

I generally ignore links to streaming media (sorry, but I just don't have that kind of time); but I gave this one a try.  I got as far as about the 16 minute mark, where I heard this exchange:

Interviewer: "If one of the kids who reads your blog, follows you on Facebook, were to see you on the street, and say 'Okay, Moez, a bunch of my friends are down at the embassy, confronting the Egyptian police, and condemning this film; and I feel like I ought to be with them, but I'm not sure if I should.'  What would you say?"

Moez Masoud: "That's a very interesting question..."

Really?  Masoud then goes on to discuss this as if it is a tough moral dilemma.  No, it isn't!  The only correct answer is, "Not only should you stay away from the embassy, but you should probably stay away from those friends as well."

Quite apart from the criminal behaviour of many of the protesters and the wisdom of not associating with that, and apart from the absurdity of even wasting any time on this insignificant and amateurish film, what possible connection does the US embassy have to it?  It's like Christians protesting at mosques around the world because some Muslim somewhere committed a crime.  It is the height of anti-American prejudice and bigotry.

If Masoud is representative of a "moderate" influence on Muslim youth, then it's no wonder the Muslim world lurches from crisis to crisis. 



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 15 September 2012 at 2:28pm
Ron what I understood from Masoud's answer isn't that it is a "tough moral dilemma" but, as in any democratic society people have not only a right, but a duty to have their voices heard through protest.  Masoud's "dilemma" is that he doesn't believe the protest is likely to be carried out without trouble, thus how to appropriately advise a young facebook kid who is himself conflicted about joining the protesters.  Masoud ends by advising the kid not to join the protest in this hypothetical question posed to him by Dick Gordon.
 
http://thestory.org/ - http://thestory.org/
 


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 15 September 2012 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

If Masoud is representative of a "moderate" influence on Muslim youth, then it's no wonder the Muslim world lurches from crisis to crisis. 

 
Rhetoric has consequences and in today's world it is a dangerous precedence that individuals of your ilk seek to intentionally blur the line between violent radicalism and mainstream Islam.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 September 2012 at 6:04pm

Originally posted by abuayisha

Ron what I understood from Masoud's answer isn't that it is a "tough moral dilemma" but, as in any democratic society people have not only a right, but a duty to have their voices heard through protest.  Masoud's "dilemma" is that he doesn't believe the protest is likely to be carried out without trouble, thus how to appropriately advise a young facebook kid who is himself conflicted about joining the protesters.  Masoud ends by advising the kid not to join the protest in this hypothetical question posed to him by Dick Gordon.

Talking about a "duty to have their voices heard" gives more credit to this inconsequential trash than it warrants.  I can find much more offensive (and much better presented) anti-Muslim screeds on the Internet any day of the week.  Singling out this particular item for public protest only gives it a whole lot of richly undeserved publicity, which is exactly what this guy wants.  On that account alone the youth should be advised not to fall into that trap.

If you want to register your protest, then go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjoa3QazVy8 - Youtube and post your critiques there.  At least you will be directing your comments to the person who posted it, which is more effective than targetting embassies that had nothing to do with it.

Which brings me to the main point, and the one which both you and Masoud seem to be missing.  Here is Masoud's analysis as he presents it to this hypothetical youth:
"The part of you that wants to go is the part that wants to object, and it has every right to do so, in the same way that a Jewish person (say) would object to an improper citation of the Holocaust or something; and that is a good part in you, and I would like to see you nurture that. And the part of you that doesn't want to go is the part that does not approve of the way in which this objection is being expressed -- you don't think you should break laws, you don't think you should use curse words -- and I completely condone you in all of that.  And so I would say why don't we together ... come up with alternative suggestions with which we can have it our way?  Where we can object, and at the same time be civilized and actually be representative of the Prophet Muhammad, as we object to the improper characterization of the Prophet Muhammad?  We want to have his character while we 'defend him' and represent him."

So where is the part of him that recognizes and condemns the blatant anti-American prejudice and stereotyping?  Apparently it's okay with Masoud to direct his anger against the US Embassy, merely because the perpetrator happened to be American.  This is exactly like the enmity that peaceful Muslims constantly endure just because many terrorists happen to be Muslim.  One would think that Muslims of all people would be especially sensitive to the injustice of this guilt by association.  How can Masoud be so blind to it?  How can you?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 15 September 2012 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

  One would think that Muslims of all people would be especially sensitive to the injustice of this guilt by association. 

 
A rather safe and convenient oversimplification of events in the middle east and across the Muslim world - 'they hate us because of our freedom' screed.   


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 September 2012 at 7:12am

Originally posted by abuayisha

Rhetoric has consequences and in today's world it is a dangerous precedence that individuals of your ilk seek to intentionally blur the line between violent radicalism and mainstream Islam.

IMHO it is these protests that blur the line.  When I watch news reports that show thousands of angry Muslims rioting outside an embassy, especially over such a trivial issue, it certainly looks like extremism to me.  It is very worrying that a supposedly mainstream representative of Islam would want to "nurture" this inclination, even if ultimately he advises against it.

By the way, I understand what you mean by "blurring the line", but in fact there really is no line between mainstream and radical Islam (or any other faith).  There is a continuum of gradually increasing extremism: from mere attendance at these demonstrations, to joining in the chorus of slogans and chanting, to confronting and taunting the police, to picking up a stone and smashing a window, and so on.  Crowds like this tend to amplify hostility and suppress rational thinking, which is yet another reason to stay away.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 September 2012 at 9:32am
Originally posted by Ron Webb

 but in fact there really is no line between mainstream and radical Islam (or any other faith). 

Well Ron, you hold a very extreme position, and sadly your bigotry is exactly what radical groups use when recruiting.  This thread, ideally, is for comments on the interview I posted, and not entertaining your hatred of Islam (or any other faith).


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 16 September 2012 at 9:55am
Abuayisha,
Sorry to jump in(I know you don't like talking to me Wink), but, really what was wrong in the rationale of the last post made by Ron?
Extremism does increase by gradual steps.  It is going from simple curiosity and association to being drawn into a mob mentality.  What can also be termed mass hysteria.
I don't see bigotry in his comments, and I have seen you be more rational.Heart
Just my observation,
Caringheart

I personally think the young men in the mid east have too much time on their hands and no useful purpose.  Like someone else commented... who are all these men and what do they do for food?  Don't they have to be working?  The country needs to find ways of gearing them towards useful employment of their time and energies.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 September 2012 at 10:47am
Caringheart, do you have a comment on the interview with Moez Masoud, which is the topic of this thread?  There has been a recent spark which has ignited protest across the Arab middle east and Muslim world, that Masoud offers up his critical analysis of events.  Please have a listen and comment if you'd like.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 16 September 2012 at 3:21pm
Greetings Abuayisha,
I pretty much agree with what Ron has been saying.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 September 2012 at 3:41pm

Originally posted by abuayisha

Originally posted by Ron Webb

  but in fact there really is no line between mainstream and radical Islam (or any other faith).
Well Ron, you hold a very extreme position, and sadly your bigotry is exactly what radical groups use when recruiting.  This thread, ideally, is for comments on the interview I posted, and not entertaining your hatred of Islam (or any other faith).

Please note that I did not say there is no difference between mainstream and radical Islam.  I said that there is no line, i.e. no clear criterion, by which one can objectively or precisely distinguish the two groups.  What one person might consider "radical" might be viewed by another as too "moderate".  As for recruiting, IMHO that is the function of these riots.  Again, one more reason to steer clear of them.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 16 September 2012 at 6:48pm
Was that a clarification?  Interesting.  I really think any view other than your own is problematic, and specifically with respect to the Islamic community.  I invite you to finish the interview perhaps an epiphany may occur....


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 17 September 2012 at 8:08pm
actually, I too think Ron's view is pretty middly of the road. 


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 9:13am
Well the plaque of radicalism certainly by far impacts Muslims greater than others, therefore perhaps I shouldn't expect or be surprised at the "other" not having the care or willingness to partner with moderate - mainstream Muslims in isolating extremist. I only hope few views expressed on this forum are indeed as I've characterized them - extreme.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 9:43am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Well the plaque of radicalism certainly by far impacts Muslims greater than others, therefore perhaps I shouldn't expect or be surprised at the "other" not having the care or willingness to partner with moderate - mainstream Muslims in isolating extremist. I only hope few views expressed on this forum are indeed as I've characterized them - extreme.


I think that is exactly what "others" do want... but can Islam be reformed?  I think that is the question.  That is why I am studying the scriptures.

" I only hope few views expressed on this forum are indeed as I've characterized them - extreme."

Me too.  It is what I came on the forums to try and discover for myself, from talking to Muslims myself.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 11:32am
"sigh"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 3:51pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

"sigh"


Sigh?


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 5:11pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

"sigh"
 
Smile
 
Let me see if I can say it for you, abuayisha: Islam does not need to be reformed.

Of course, as an atheist I think that Islam should be discarded altogether, along with all the other ancient and modern superstitions.  Failing that, I have suggested before that the Quran-only interpretation of Islam (dropping the outdated hadith and sunnah, which IMHO Muhammad never intended to last forever) would enable it to join the twenty-first century.

But if the goal is simply to attain peace and harmony among cultures -- then no, Islam does not need to be reformed.

Originally posted by abuayisha

... perhaps I shouldn't expect or be surprised at the "other" not having the care or willingness to partner with moderate - mainstream Muslims in isolating extremist.

I agree, what it does need is "isolating extremists".  However, that needs to start within Islam.  Don't expect non-Muslims to partner with you in that enterprise when we don't see the Muslims themselves engaging in it.  And don't expect us to look at a mob of a thousand Muslims causing mayhem at an embassy and believe that it consists of 900 "moderate - mainstream Muslims" rubbing shoulders with a 100 "isolated" extremists.  That's not isolation.  That's solidarity.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 8:25pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

[Of course, as an atheist I think that Islam should be discarded altogether,
 

This is simply hate speech parading as atheism, what a disservice to fellow atheist. 



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 9:14pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

Originally posted by Ron Webb

[Of course, as an atheist I think that Islam should be discarded altogether,
 

This is simply hate speech parading as atheism, what a disservice to fellow atheist. 



Abuayisha,

It's not hate speech.  He believes all religion should be discarded.  It is his belief.  I don't see that there is any hate in it.  He just doesn't see any necessity for it.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 9:34pm

The comment has to be taken within the context of our discussion, therefore it's no more than bigotry hiding behind atheism.  What happened to the notion of pluralism?  Extremism, plain and simple is what it is.



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

The comment has to be taken within the context of our discussion, therefore it's no more than bigotry hiding behind atheism.  What happened to the notion of pluralism?  Extremism, plain and simple is what it is.



but he only expressed a personal opinion... not that he felt action needed to be taken.  He personally does not see the need for religion... does not believe in it... but he does not express to feel the need to rid the world of it either... just that that would be his preference.

This is called accepting people as they are.  He seems to be able to accept us as we are.  No bigotry... just personal opinion.  Bigotry would mean actively doing something about it.  Extremism would be killing to do something about it.
Salaam, peace, and blessings  Smile Heart


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 18 September 2012 at 10:34pm
Are you familiar with this by chance;
Blasphemous Movie “jesus of nazareth” ?

This is how other people deal with these things;
http://www.cftvc.org/121/

Attacks are made on religion all the time.  It's not like we weren't told this would be so. Unhappy


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 4:39am

<sigh>

In case you didn't notice, Abuayisha, I was defending your religion.  Even though I don't believe a word of it, even though IMHO the world would be better off without it, nonetheless it is not an obstacle to peace and harmony among cultures, as caringheart implied (or at least no more so than all the other religions) and does not need to be reformed on that account.

Tell me, would it be fair to say that you believe that Scientology should be discarded altogether?  How about Mormonism?  Or Humanism?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 5:21am
Originally posted by Caringheart



Are you familiar with this by chance;Blasphemous Movie “jesus of nazareth”                         
?This is how other people deal with these things;http://www.cftvc.org/121/Attacks are made on religion all the time.  It's not like we weren't told this would be so. [IMG]smileys/smiley6.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Unhappy" />


The whole purpose of making that video was to incite violence. II was made by a violent member of Christianity and he also knew it would put American lives at stake and yet he went ahead.

Quote from an American to an American Christian on another forum:

"Any christian who does not publicly condemn this film, is morally responsible for it.

You have not yet spoken against the Christians that made that vile video either.

Just can't bring yourself to admit that Christians started this and should be held responsible for the results. Especially because they certainly knew full well what the results would be."

If somebody made a movie (Muslims will never do that) showing Jesus making hot and wild love with Mary Magdalene and also with John, the Western Christians would not go ballistic and will show no uproar and rage.

However, if such a movie is made and shown to the backward Christians of backward countries in Africa, South America, the European backyard, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, it would be a rage that the West would not have ever seen.

This is what Westerners do not know and do not realize.





-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 6:44am

It would be fair to say that moderate - mainstream Islam seeks only to proselytize, in other words, make sure that mankind has an opportunity to hear the message of Islam. As long as an ideology does not cause harm, moderate - mainstream Islam has absolutely no problem co-existing along side. The ideology of extreme radical Islam isn't compatible with pluralism and must be confronted. Certainly, the "heavy lifting" the ideological arguments must be made from within Islam, because to suggest as you have, and as a complete outsider, that you will allow Quran - but Muslim should discard Hadith, will never address the ideological battle between moderates and extremist in Islam.

 

American Muslims to a much greater degree than European Muslims have assimilated and there exists very little troubles with extremism. What is needed is a greater recognition of those moderate Muslims who live peacefully in order to isolate extremist. If you continue to have the inability or unwillingness to differentiate between moderates and radicals it will result in legitimizing radicals and isolating moderates. In other words, as difficult and painful as it may seem, the West will need to win the hearts and minds of moderates, who are indeed the mainstream of Islam, as to not politically push them into the hands of radicals.  "sigh"



Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 7:04am
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=0010hfmqdrnvvQVE8XwhqHoIQNmeFnmBW87F2D7OYrdcsxEQ4htGFnaYtJXw_R6HUNxoJW1a8VSBvKZ7JJTIwaHjhOK7FBAOxjm1_l33spSj_p_-kvyE_-T7n5g-9hDyMfVAE58OwC3J_RonQFVRnnzDfBwKpc2lOBmlNUNitS5pkHgPOX-1MJ-nBOisxXmgfjPC3EIXYl-b8aEozufgmSeZtAru-FCowBIeoRWbXWUEjG6-nV-6RMri_1TEnpPBz_tt0TrhZBLQlr8L-xzCkCaxWxwE65J17TI9jcwg8K9tRs= -



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 12:56pm
Originally posted by BMZ




Greetings, BMZ,
I am confused about your position.
Did you check out the link?  People are outraged and taking action against this blasphemous movie about Jesus.  They are just not finding scapegoats to blame and are not killing innocent people over it.

Could we not say the same things about those making this blasphemous movie about Jesus... that they are deliberately inciting to riot and use that as an excuse for killing, and that whoever made the movie should then take the blame for people who go out and kill?

How did the western insulting movie about Muhammad get circulated to parts where it would incite to riot?  Who is it that goes looking for these things, and spreading them?  And you know what... that doesn't even matter... it still does not excuse killing over it.  Where does that mentality come from?  You say you think Christians in other backwards countries would behave this same way?


Posted By: Blake
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 6:07pm
To say Christians are responsible for the video is ridiculous. I'm sorry, but i didnt know about the video until I heard about embassies burning as most
people here in the US. .... so how does that make us responsible ?
  The video was obviously made by a hateful individual....  even the actors didnt know what the movie was going to be about untill the sound track was altered. They didnt know Prophet Muhammad was going to be brought up.
  But I think any excuse to blame the US in the Muslim world is very welcome there. So ..... hey go spead the video some more!... have more Muslims watch it !I refuse to watch it.... I don't like that kind of stuff.

Personally I think it should be REMOVED from the internet. Even in the US it is illegal to shout Fire in a crowded theatre.
 


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 September 2012 at 7:42pm

Originally posted by abuayisha

It would be fair to say that moderate - mainstream Islam seeks only to proselytize, in other words, make sure that mankind has an opportunity to hear the message of Islam. As long as an ideology does not cause harm, moderate - mainstream Islam has absolutely no problem co-existing along side. The ideology of extreme radical Islam isn't compatible with pluralism and must be confronted.

We can agree on that much.

Certainly, the "heavy lifting" the ideological arguments must be made from within Islam, because to suggest as you have, and as a complete outsider, that you will allow Quran - but Muslim should discard Hadith, will never address the ideological battle between moderates and extremist in Islam.

Well, just for the record, I didn't use the word "allow", which would be rather arrogant.  I arrived at the Quran-only interpretation on my own, just by reading the Quran and sampling the hadith; but you are surely aware that there is a http://www.islamrevolution.org/hadithstheshameofislam.htm - growing movement within the Muslim community in favour of that position.  I do think that ultimately it has to be the solution to the growing gap between ideology and modernity, but you're right that my opinions are probably not worth much.  I'm just sayin'.

American Muslims to a much greater degree than European Muslims have assimilated and there exists very little troubles with extremism. What is needed is a greater recognition of those moderate Muslims who live peacefully in order to isolate extremist. If you continue to have the inability or unwillingness to differentiate between moderates and radicals it will result in legitimizing radicals and isolating moderates. In other words, as difficult and painful as it may seem, the West will need to win the hearts and minds of moderates, who are indeed the mainstream of Islam, as to not politically push them into the hands of radicals.

I'm not sure why it's our job to win the hearts and minds of moderates, rather than vice versa.  I agree that recognition and differentiation is a challenge though, so help me out.  The thousands upon thousands of Muslims who participated in the riots -- are they mainstream, or are they extremists?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 12:47am
Originally posted by Caringheart


Originally posted by BMZ

Greetings, BMZ,I am confused about your position.Did you check out the link?  People are outraged and taking action against this blasphemous movie about Jesus.  They are just not finding scapegoats to blame and are not killing innocent people over it.Could we not say the same things about those making this blasphemous movie about Jesus... that they are deliberately inciting to riot and use that as an excuse for killing, and that whoever made the movie should then take the blame for people who go out and kill?How did the western insulting movie about Muhammad get circulated to parts where it would incite to riot?  Who is it that goes looking for these things, and spreading them?  And you know what... that doesn't even matter... it still does not excuse killing over it.  Where does that mentality come from?  You say you think Christians in other backwards countries would behave this same way?


Can you please first condemn the movie and the men, who made it?

I will then elaborate.

Thanks

-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 6:03am
Here's my view on the matter.

A religion that views insults as something worse than physical violence can't be the world's best religion.

A religion whose followers wish for the death of people of an entire country can't be the world's best religion.

A religion whose peaceful followers don't organize demonstrations against the behavior of their religion's violent followers can't be the world's best religion.

Where are the millions of peaceful Muslims participating in demonstrations, voicing their disapproval for the destruction of embassies and the attacks on policemen who were trying to protect the embassies?

An Egyptian-American Copt had become so upset about Muslims burning churches and killing Christians in Egypts, Nigeria and elsewhere that he was developing deeper and deeper hatred of Muslims (which is a very un-Christian thing). He created a silly, low-quality movie, deceiving the actors by changing the recorded dialogs. Before that he had committed other types of fraud and was convicted by American courts.

So why make such a big deal about this jerk and his immature behavior? Why would anyone take such a guy seriously? We should feel pity for him, not anger.

Hatred is never the answer. It is always the problem and one of the main causes of misery. Violence is not the answer. Peaceful dialog and mutual respect and the co-existence of different spiritual truths is.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 7:11am

Gosh Matt, notwithstanding the complete subjectivity of "the world's best religion" can it not be said that an institution is sound, however its adherent is flawed at times?  Can we also agree that media bias exists throughout the world, and often times distorts perspectives?  Indeed it is hoped that people of all faiths can join in mutual dialog, and respect for cultural differences, as well as historical injustices.



Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 8:19am
Originally posted by Matt Browne



Here's my view on the matter.A religion that views insults as something worse than physical violence can't be the world's best religion.A religion whose followers wish for the death of people of an entire country can't be the world's best religion.A religion whose peaceful followers don't organize demonstrations against the behavior of their religion's violent followers can't be the world's best religion.Where are the millions of peaceful Muslims participating in demonstrations, voicing their disapproval for the destruction of embassies and the attacks on policemen who were trying to protect the embassies?An Egyptian-American Copt had become so upset about Muslims burning churches and killing Christians in Egypts, Nigeria and elsewhere that he was developing deeper and deeper hatred of Muslims (which is a very un-Christian thing). He created a silly, low-quality movie, deceiving the actors by changing the recorded dialogs. Before that he had committed other types of fraud and was convicted by American courts.So why make such a big deal about this jerk and his immature behavior? Why would anyone take such a guy seriously? We should feel pity for him, not anger. Hatred is never the answer. It is always the problem and one of the main causes of misery. Violence is not the answer. Peaceful dialog and mutual respect and the co-existence of different spiritual truths is.



Here is something I wish to bring up.

The Western Christians think that the entire Christian world is like them. That is wrong.

The Copts in Egypt and the Christians in Africa, the European backyard (Serbia and others) India, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines and other Eastern countries are a different breed.

They are backward, most are illiterate and volatile, just like the backward Muslims.

Produce a movie on Jesus making love with Mary Magdalene, show it to them and see the rage.

Watching a few hundred or a few thousand protesting does not show that the entire Muslim world was on the streets.

The point is that movie was deliberately made and it was not a one man job. Many Western Christians were involved.

A religion, whose followers can stoop so low, cannot be a religion at all. It can only be a mad Cult!







-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: Blake
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 11:47am
I will agree with you on this, after having spent a short time in africa i could see.... in my opinion that the average Christian there seems to be much more
devout and has a great sense of modesty, respect for their elders in and out of their immediate family. I really admire those qualities.

But never the less, I can't speak for ALL of them, how could i possibly? And how can you label Western Christians as a group like that ? Perhaps you are just venting your hatred for the West.

If I was to point out actions of Islamic Terrorists in a conversation, I shure would not label the entire Islamic religion.

You say the followers of Western Christianity stooped so low to make this film ? how many ? five people? ten? twenty? fifty ? one hundred? would it take 100 to produce a Utube film of low grade?

So your saying this makes All Christians in the West a mad Cult?  I don't know how you ...personally have the ability to know what MILLIONS of people are thinking .

Do you really have that ability?....  you must have powers that none of us regular people possess.

If a few people making a film makes a entire religion a mad cult then One could also make the same arguement about Islam if they chose too. Many examples can be found of crimes being commited in the name of Islam.
Does some radicals persecuting Christians in Lebannon make Islam a Mad Cult? ... even though the government there is trying to prevent it?


I see that what really divides people is miscommunication and misconseptions .. leaders who feed their people with this stuff as well.

I might agree with you to a point about the culture in the US which has become a permissive one. But we also have millions of good ones as well
who are trying their best to raise their families in a good way, to repect others regardless of their different beliefs.
  If this wasn't so ...  If the anti Muslim feelings you think we have really persisted then why do we allow Mosques to be built here? There is more religious freedom in the US for all the countries of the world than any Muslim country would allow.



Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 3:14pm

Interesting fact:

  http://www.deliberation.info/ - http://www.deliberation.info/
 
In order to understand the real motives and goals of the makers of Innocence, it is necessary to take a good look at the people who have, so far, been identified as the film’s authors and promoters.

The central figure in all this is reported to be one Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 56-year-old Egyptian immigrant: although Nakoula presented himself in an interview with the Associated Press as “Sam Bacile,” a 56-year-old “Israeli-American” real estate developer, he is a Coptic Christian, a member of a persecuted minority in Egypt — and a convicted felon. Media reports portray him as the central figure in the making of Innocence: he denies this, and describes his job as arranging “logistics” for the film. Nakoula’s role seems to have been that of a facilitator — gofer — rather than “creative director,” and in any case he hardly seems the type to have originated the idea for the movie. Having been released from jail — where he was serving a sentence for bank fraud — barely a month before filming started, Nakoula was hardly in a position to undertake such a project. Chances are he was recruited by someone else, the real originator and driving force behind Innocence— but who is that someone?
 
Public records show a filming permit was taken out by “Media for Christ,” an outfit run by one Joseph Nasrallah Abdelmasih. His group sponsors Christian programming in Arabic, including “The Way,” a production that has featured such prominent Islamophobes as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The Geller-Spencer collaboration goes back to the protests against the New York City “Ground Zero” mosque in which the duo achieved national notoriety: Nasrallah was one of the speakers at their rally. The idea for just such a movie as Innocence showed up on Geller’s blog in February, in a post entitled “A Movie About Muhammad: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim and board member of Geller and Spencer’s “Stop the Islamization of Nations,” exhorted Geller’s readers to support his movie project:
 
... more
  http://www.deliberation.info/ - http://www.deliberation.info/
 
 


-------------
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 5:15pm

Originally posted by BMZ

The point is that movie was deliberately made and it was not a one man job. Many Western Christians were involved.

A religion, whose followers can stoop so low, cannot be a religion at all. It can only be a mad Cult!

The problem I have with your analysis is that it ignores the scale of the provocation, and the scale of the response.

There were probably only a couple of dozen people involved in making this video.  ("Movie" gives it more credit than it deserves.)  It was certainly offensive, but it harmed no one.

Now, compare that with the response, which involved tens of thousands of people and has resulted in more than thirty dead so far (and we're probably not done yet).
 
Or compare it even to the 9/11 attack, which was surely the ultimate provocation against the West.  It was directly carried out by nineteen people, but with the direct support and assistance of thousands, probably including the Afghan government.  It killed thousands of Americans and caused hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage.
 
So what was the response?  Yes, there was outrage among non-Muslims, and not a little Islamophobia; and yes, the American government retaliated with open warfare, which IMHO was misguided but surely not surprising.   But on an individual level, do you recall a single riot at an Afghan or Saudi embassy?  I don't.  Certainly nobody died in any anti-Muslim demonstrations that I heard about.

When the Muslim world is provoked, the response always far, far exceeds the provocation.  I can think of nothing that could generate the level of mindless anarchy in the streets of the Western world that we routinely see in the Muslim world over utter nonsense.  And if you don't believe this video is utter nonsense, then you haven't watched it.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 5:24pm
To address a few of the comments;

How come Muslims keep missing the point...
If Muslims want to defend the religion of Islam then they need to stand up and denounce loudly and clearly when this type of violence in the name of Islam occurs.
Until they can do that no one is going to have confidence int the religion of Islam as a religion of peace.
If it is a religion of peace then it needs to demonstrate that it is a religion of peace.  Lip service means nothing.  You can't just keep saying it is a religion of peace... you have to make it a religion of peace.  The leaders and clerics of the religion have the duty to make it so.

I'm pretty sure I have heard the Pope denounce the actions of the film maker.
I'm positive that the American president, and secretary of state Clinton, have both denounced the film and the actions of those committing violence over it.
And yet, which is the greater offense... the making of an insulting film... or the killing because of it?  Both are misguided actions but really which is worse?

And recent evidence seems to show that the violence on the embassies had nothing to do with this film anyway... it is only used as a cover.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 20 September 2012 at 5:31pm
Originally posted by BMZ



Produce a movie on Jesus making love with Mary Magdalene, show it to them and see the rage.


Again BMZ,
There is a movie just like that being made... blasphemous against Jesus...
however is anyone going to use it to cause violence?


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 21 September 2012 at 2:18am
Originally posted by Caringheart


Originally posted by BMZ


Produce a movie on Jesus making love with Mary Magdalene, show it to them and see the rage.

Again BMZ,There is a movie just like that being made... blasphemous against Jesus... however is anyone going to use it to cause violence?


Hello,

I write mostly on a forum, which is extremely hostile to Islam and the Muslims.

My point is simple. Make a movie of Jesus making love with Mary Magdalene.

And then watch the reaction and the fierce rage from the backward Christians of the backward Christian countries.

I do not write here frequently. So, if you do not hear from me, please know that I am very active somewhere else.

Thanks

-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 September 2012 at 3:51pm

It looks like there may be hope for Libya:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGlXl-Ba01Ta6mwlgqWK1FtLX5ew?docId=370a5089bce94f218ba2643bcf700f29 - Attack on US in Libya fuels anti-militia backlash

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGlXl-Ba01Ta6mwlgqWK1FtLX5ew?docId=370a5089bce94f218ba2643bcf700f29 - By MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press – 1 hour ago 
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — Tens of thousands of Libyans marched to the gates of one of the country's strongest armed Islamic extremist groups Friday, demanding it disband, as the attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and four other Americans sparked a public backlash against militias that run rampant in the country and defy the country's new, post-Moammar Gadhafi leadership.

...
The militias, a legacy of the rag-tag popular forces that fought Gadhafi's regime, tout themselves as protectors of Libya's revolution, providing security where police cannot. But many say they act like gangs, detaining and intimidating rivals and carrying out killings. Militias made up of Islamic radicals are notorious for attacks on Muslims who don't abide by their hardline ideology. Officials and witnesses say fighters from one Islamic militia, Ansar al-Shariah, led the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate.

...
The march was the biggest seen in Benghazi, Libya's second largest city and home to 1 million people, since the fall of Gadhafi in August 2011. The unprecedented public backlash comes in part in frustration with the interim government, which has been unable to rein in the armed factions. Many say that officials' attempts to co-opt fighters by paying them have only fueled the growth of militias without bringing them under state control or integrating them into the regular forces.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 September 2012 at 3:53pm

I wish I could say the same for Pakistan, however:


http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-21/pakistan-blocks-cell-phones-on-prophet-protest-day - Pakistan hit by deadly riots over anti-Muslim film

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-21/pakistan-blocks-cell-phones-on-prophet-protest-day - By Sebastian Abbot on September 21, 2012

ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan's "Day of Love for the Prophet" turned into a deadly day of gunfire, tear gas and arson.

Thousands angered by an anti-Muslim film ignored pleas for peaceful rallies and rampaged in several Pakistani cities Friday in battles with police that killed 19 people and touched off criticism of a government decision to declare a national holiday to proclaim devotion for the Prophet Muhammad.

...
Analysts accused the Pakistani government of pandering to these extremists by declaring Friday to be an official holiday — calling it a "Day of Love for the Prophet." Officials urged peaceful protests, but critics said the move helped unleash the worst violence yet caused by the film, titled "Innocence of Muslims."

Well, what did they expect?  Ermm Was this just sheer government incompetence, or were they trying to trigger further violence?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 21 September 2012 at 10:41pm
Assalamu alaikum.
 
Well, there will never be an end to slaughter and destruction in the world once the West failed to understand what Islam is actually all about. The West refused to understand the illiteracy level of the followers of Muhammad. It is just like a physician giving toxic drugs to a patient with incurable liver disease. Each disease has its remedy is a well known expression by early Muslim scholars.  Is the teaching of Jesus son of Maryam not part of the way and means we can live with one another? Muhammad was principally sent to settle the dispute between the followers of what Moses truely taught practised and what was distorted twisted and changed. There is nothing called Islam other than that.
But no one listens and believes in that.
It is good that Ron and others read to understand G-d, but they must rely on what the messengers say and not introduce ideas that are outside the realm and spirit of revelation. Freedom of speech and right of expression should be limited to improoving the lots of the citizenry. I do not have to repeat the speech of Ja'afar ibn Abi Talib to the chrisyian king of Abysssinia.
We have enough lessons in the Torah and the Injeel on the constant destruction of Jerusalem as a result of its debauchery and idolatroy.  If there is only One G-d as proclaimed by the Jews, they will never expect any good from the Muslims without a caliph. Let us stop fooling one another.
 
Friendship.
 


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 22 September 2012 at 6:22am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Gosh Matt, notwithstanding the complete subjectivity of "the world's best religion" can it not be said that an institution is sound, however its adherent is flawed at times?  Can we also agree that media bias exists throughout the world, and often times distorts perspectives?  Indeed it is hoped that people of all faiths can join in mutual dialog, and respect for cultural differences, as well as historical injustices.



Yes, which is best is indeed a subjective view. It is my observation that too many devout Muslims are obsessed with being the best religion, which means other religions are worse. This makes dialog difficult and self-criticism of Islam almost impossible. Yes, there is a media bias towards bad news. The good things that happen in the world are often overlooked. Cultural differences are fine as long as our secular countries' laws are not broken. We will defend our right to freedom of expression. If anyone threatens one of our citizens with violence, because he or she insulted Islam this won't be tolerated. Muslims can disagree and they can also say that they are insulted. They can demonstrate peacefully. But that's it. No threats of violence whatsoever. As for historical injustices: the time between 732 CE and 1529 CE was one huge injustice against Christians and other religions as a result of Islamic imperialism. But instead of playing the poor victim Christians went on to create the Age of Enlightenment with the advance of science and technology. It's time for the people in former colonies to stop blaming the past and work towards a better future.

Yes, there's a small sign of hope. A large group of Muslims in Libya demonstrated against violent Muslims.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 22 September 2012 at 6:35am
BMZ, the book Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown was sold about 80 million times with its claim that Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene fathering a child. How many people committed crimes in the name of Christianity because of that? Or let me ask you a more general question: Over the last 50 years how many Christians have killed other people in the name of Christianity? You won't find many. Abortion doctors were killed, but that's about it. Show me some verses in the New Testament that ask Christians to become violent.

When a Christian converts to Islam, the other Christians might be disappointed. When a Muslim converts to Christianity he has committed a crime for which the death penalty applies.

Backward Christians might also become enraged. But they don't kill or injure people.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 22 September 2012 at 6:45am
Friendship, are you promoting having a caliph and a caliphate? That would be the ultimate totalitarian theocracy with the complete set of all the harsh sharia laws. I can't imagine that you support this.

Well, and the educated Muslims have to speak out and organize demonstration and deal with the illiterate mob and denounce their violent actions.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 22 September 2012 at 6:49am
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Cultural differences are fine as long as laws in our secular countries are not broken. We will defend our right to freedom of expression. If anyone threatens one of our citizens with violence, because he or she insulted Islam this won't be tolerated. Muslims can disagree and they can also say that they are insulted. They can demonstrate peacefully. But that's it. No threats of violence whatsoever. 
 
Matt you sound angry, and have every right to be disturbed by what is taking place.  As a family man myself,  I was also extremely upset to see photos of our Ambassador dead in Libya, and the sadness his loved ones must have felt.  I just hope that you can empathize with the "other" who are suffering from political injustices brought about by our "right to freedom" in the west, that often times for economic and geopolitical endeavors, creates a great deal of anger, disenfranchisement and animosity among the cultural other in the world.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 22 September 2012 at 8:40am
Assalamu alaika Matt.
 
There is no solution to our problem without establishing the caliph and caliphate. Its is not total theocracy, but rather the only way the world will enjoy stability and peace. This is not a theory for obeying G-d's rule in its totality is the emphasis in the Torah. G-d does not approve for injustice and tyranny. Imagine the incident during the battle of Ai. This is similar to what happened during the battle of Uhud. Allah has Right and His Right must be given to him. No one is usurp the right of his brother. In Islam every living thing has its right that must be given to it. This is what the shari'a is about.
Matt, a woman committted adultery during the time of the second Caliph Umar. On close examination he found her not to understood that specific injunction. He told her to repent and that her case is with Allah. He let her free. The property of a jew was stolen in madina. He came to Umar and  lodged complain that since he is unable to protect his property, he has to pay for the loss. Umar complied and compensated him.
Matt! The west is dealing with illiterate scholars and leaders! Look at the islamic adviser of Obama not saying anything about the illiteracy level and condemming the illiterate Muslim leaders. Are the lessons in Torah not enough? Do you want Moses and Jesus to come back and tell you what I am telling you?
 
Friendship.
 


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 23 September 2012 at 1:12am
"They" Hate Us Because We Bomb Them | Weapons of Mass Destraction
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R_3PaVyYes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R_3PaVyYes
 
Abbie Martin is an American living in Oakland and works for RT America. She uses "our" to refer to your's, mine and her's; therefore our way of life. She worked as a correspondent and writer for an Internet news show where she conducted investigative citizen journalism and is now a contributing writer for numerous publications. Abby pioneered the creation of Media Roots to help inform and connect the community.


-------------
Salam/Peace,
Semar
The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"
"1/3 of your stomach for food 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 23 September 2012 at 6:32am
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/22-Sep-2012/tears-of-gaza -


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 23 September 2012 at 10:31am
Originally posted by abuayisha


 
Matt you sound angry, and have every right to be disturbed by what is taking place.  As a family man myself,  I was also extremely upset to see photos of our Ambassador dead in Libya, and the sadness his loved ones must have felt.  I just hope that you can empathize with the "other" who are suffering from political injustices brought about by our "right to freedom" in the west, that often times for economic and geopolitical endeavors, creates a great deal of anger, disenfranchisement and animosity among the cultural other in the world.


'Very concerned' might be a better description when reflecting current events. The violent reaction is nothing new. The Danish cartoons controversy in 2005 opened the eyes of many people in the West. I had always hoped that Samuel P. Huntington was wrong, but what we see is indeed a clash of civilizations: the Western civilization based on the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Islamic civilization. Freedom of expression and Sharia blasphemy laws are incompatible. Secular countries and caliphate-style countries are incompatible. And no one has a clue on how to deal with this in a globalized interconnected world.

Part of the Judeo-Christian tradition is being concerned about the welfare of every human being on planet Earth. People in the West don't divide people into an Ummah and the rest of people. We are human beings first and our concern encompasses all humans. This is why the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders and Greenpeace and Amnesty International and all the other hundreds of NGOs try to help people no matter where they live or whether they are polytheists or atheists or monotheists. You can see that we empathize with all people who are suffering from political injustices or as a result of natural disasters. Yes, there are greedy corporate exploiters who care about quarterly results and million dollar bonuses and they create a lot of damage in both the developed and less developed world. You will find these kind of people everywhere, not just in the West. Just take China and their geopolitical endeavors in Africa as an example. Or Saudi princes buying one Rolex after another instead of doing something about the poor people in their country.

But it is totally wrong blaming the West for all of the misery. A lot of it is home made. And the current mainstream Islam is part of the problem. It is the only religion that has serious conflicts with people from every other religion in the world. Every year more people become afraid of the Islam we see on television and read about in the newspaper. Secular Muslims in German become more and more afraid of the strict Islam funded by Saudi oil money. In fact, I am more and more convinced that Islam is the fastest shrinking religion in the world. For every new convert to Islam you will have 10 Muslims who secretly no longer support their religion because they are disgusted by the deeds of the 9/11 hijackers, the London bombers, the Beslan child killers, the Chechen terrorists, the Algerian terrorists, the Hamas terrorists, the Madrid terrorists, the Darfur killers, and many others.

And now, like in 2005, people get injured and killed because of a silly video. And the peaceful Muslims choose stay at home. The silent majority is too scared to openly say no to their violent brothers.

In 1992 a terrible hate crime shocked Germany and the world. Two Turkish immigrant families burned to death in their houses when neo-Nazis committed arson. Five more Turkish people were killed by neo-Nazis in 1993. In the aftermath several hundred thousand Germans organized demonstrations in all major cities against these heinous acts. My wife, my children and I were part of one demonstration, all holding one candle, like everyone else. It made news around the world.

If you want to save Islam from barbarism and if you want to change the perception of Islam in the West, something very big needs to happen, like a million Muslims demonstrating in numerous cities against violence committed in the name of Islam.

Posting statements like 'Islam is a religion of peace' in Internet forums won't help, because people find that harder and harder to believe. Now it's about walking the talk. The silent majority can't be silent anymore. Peaceful Muslims need to organize something very big to convince the rest of the world. All of this is entirely possible in the age of the Internet. The Egyptians who ended Mubarak's totalitarian regime are a good example. Saying no to violent Islam is a worthy cause as well. It can be done.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 23 September 2012 at 10:42am
Friendship, are the voters and elections in a caliphate? Can people change laws? What kind of political system are you talking about?



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 23 September 2012 at 12:55pm
Assalamu alaika Matt Browne.
 
There are four ways to select a caliph:
1. For the leader to choose one in his life and the populace to endorse it. Muhammad choose Abubakar and was endorsed in this mosque before he died.
2. For the leader to choose one in hislife and the populace to endorse it without the leader endorsing. Abubakar choose Umar but he did not lead Abubakar during prayers.
3. For the leader to appoint a committee to elect a leader from them. This was done by Umar.
The criteria are;
1. Education. In Islam it is the one with the most knowledge of the practice of Muhammad. Emperical education according to the teaching of the Bible is of secondary importance. I am referring here to the training bethelel and Oholiob received after the Exodus. Note that the Levis were the sole authorities in the reading of the Torah. However, according to my understanding of the Torah the messengers were from the Levi tribes.
2. Age. definitely the elders are supposed to be more knowledgeable in the Sunna.
3. Certainly, we must never forget one's integrity, behavior and acceptabce by the society. For example, Umar ibn Khattab disqualified his son from the caaliphate because he divorced his wife unintentionally. Yet, Umar considered it a crime.
The political system is that of equal opportunity based on knowledge. The problem posed by the Muslim world is due to accepting of illigetimacy and illiteracy, fear and prejudice.
 
Friendship.
 
 


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 23 September 2012 at 1:04pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

I had always hoped that Samuel P. Huntington was wrong, but what we see is indeed a clash of civilizations: the Western civilization based on the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Islamic civilization.
 
But it is totally wrong blaming the West for all of the misery.
 
Matt, I think you're projecting your own cultural insecurities and ethnocentrism.  Islam during its dominance in Spain proved that it could work with Jews and Christians, and as a matter of fact both groups thrived during that period in history. Prior to the 1948 British mandate, Muslims and Jews lived peacefully together in Palestine and throughout the Middle East.  If simply asking you to set aside your apparent myopia just long enough to have empathy, elicits such a 'Henny-penny; the sky's a-going to fall - defensive response, that Muslim troubles and intransigences are so enormous, as if no historical record exists for Western civilization/Judeo-Christian, only proves your own personal intolerance and Islamophobia. Need I remind you of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq?  Does your hubris not allow for reflection?


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 24 September 2012 at 6:55am
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_4_g_5_0_spl&gid=CSG&bvm=section&usg=AFQjCNExEJalw0AC53FtMFipCfjDEb5Wdw&did=2043879967619864068&cid=0&ei=nmVgUIiVBsnniAKEVQ&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&authuser=0&url=http%3A%2F%2Freligion.blogs.cnn.com%2F2012%2F09%2F15%2Fmy-take-its-time-for-islamophobic-evangelicals-to-choose%2F - -


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 September 2012 at 5:04pm

Originally posted by Friendship

There is no solution to our problem without establishing the caliph and caliphate. Its is not total theocracy, but rather the only way the world will enjoy stability and peace.

And by "peace", you mean submission to Muslim rule.  No thanks.

The solution to our problem is to stop thinking in terms of one side subjugating the other.  Peace will come to those who concentrate on controlling their own thoughts and behaviours, without trying to control others.  That is the greater jihad.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 5:45am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Matt, I think you're projecting your own cultural insecurities and ethnocentrism.  Islam during its dominance in Spain proved that it could work with Jews and Christians, and as a matter of fact both groups thrived during that period in history. Prior to the 1948 British mandate, Muslims and Jews lived peacefully together in Palestine and throughout the Middle East.  If simply asking you to set aside your apparent myopia just long enough to have empathy, elicits such a 'Henny-penny; the sky's a-going to fall - defensive response, that Muslim troubles and intransigences are so enormous, as if no historical record exists for Western civilization/Judeo-Christian, only proves your own personal intolerance and Islamophobia. Need I remind you of "Shock and Awe" in Iraq?  Does your hubris not allow for reflection?


I was describing the situation of Islam today. I am asking peaceful Muslims today to stand up and speak out. If good examples from the past help fuel this process, that's fine. Islam during its dominance in Spain indeed proved that it could work with Jews and Christians (Dhimmis), but it was only Muslims who could rule (like in Friendship's proposed political system) and the Dhimmis had to pay the Jizyah, a special tax, or rather a fine for not being Muslim.

A phobia is a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous. Islam is an ideology and likewise, the rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents, but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobes or Hindus calling theirs Hinduphobes. The term Islamophobia is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading. According to the definition of phobia given above, the neologism Islamophobia implies that Islam is not dangerous and the fear of it is irrational. Yet the danger from political Islam and Islamism exists and the fear is a consequence of rational thinking. This fear is shared by many liberals and conservatives who are familiar with Islamic teachings. Islamophobia was invented as a supposedly politically correct buzzword used to stigmatize criticism of Islam. As is the way with such terms, it is often used interchangeably with others such as racism and xenophobia in order to silence opposition. A few examples of real phobias are insectophobia (fear of all insects), isolophobia (fear of being alone), chiraptophobia (fear of being touched), and claustrophobia (fear of confined spaces).

I am not afraid of Islam as such. But I am very afraid of Islam used as a political ideology, especially when the secular principle is rejected. I know that between 1.3 and 1.35 billion Muslims are peaceful and in favor of democracy and freedom. But the remaining 150-200 million Muslims are still a force we have to take seriously. Most of them are non-militant, but they are still dangerous. They want to take us back to the dark ages. They are against human rights and democracy and laws made by the people for the people. They also don't tolerate followers of other religions. And they think that when a Muslim becomes an apostate he has committed a serious crime that needs to be punished. Most would not be able to actually kill an apostate, but if someone does, they would not object. It's these people who make the headlines every other day. And it's the 1.3 billion Muslims who silently disagree but do practically nothing about it. A silent majority who decides to remain silent is also scary. This is why so many people in the West are afraid. This would all change if Muslims managed to organize worldwide demonstrations. Imagine CNN and BBC and hundreds of other networks reporting that 1 million Muslims took to the streets to demonstrate against the sharia and violent Islam, demanding modern interpretations of the Quran and Hadith in agreement with human rights and enlightenment.

You mentioned Iraq. I was always against the war in Iraq. The German government was against it. Bush ridiculed Germans for this. Millions of Americans and Brits and Italian and Spaniards were also against this war. Now count the number of demonstrators in various countries against the war in Iraq. There were demonstrations again and again. In 2008 the Americans elected Obama who was in fact against this war.

A Pakistani minister offered $100,000 to anyone who kills the maker of an online video which insults Islam, as sporadic protests rumbled on across parts of the Muslim world. “I announce today that this blasphemer, this sinner who has spoken nonsense about the holy Prophet, anyone who murders him, I will reward him with $100,000,” Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour told a news conference, to applause. There were at least 30 people in the room. All literate, not some illiterate mob. They all applauded. Hard to believe, but it's true. Abuayisha, you accused me of being mentally ill, because I'm afraid of such conduct. Are we really talking about a phobia here? Have you ever checked the dictionary about the meaning of the word phobia? Probably not, otherwise you might be more careful before making serious accusations.




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 7:07am
Well, anyway....am I now to believe it's all about semantics? Matt you have made yourself perfectly clear.  No need to rehash.


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 11:47am
Assalamu alaika Matt.

We are all delighted by your sincere observations. However, governance by the followers of Muhammad Rasulullah is meant to establish justice for all and was never meant for them alone as exemplified by the life of Muhammad Rasulullah. I am not saying that in Germany or any Western country a caliph must rule. No. Never! Islam is the greatest and ever practiced tool of democracy in the world. This has its root in the example given in the Qur'an when Joshua advised Moses, Moses choose 12 people to spy the land, the incident between King David and his son Solomon and Solomon with the Queen of Sheba.
Take note that  Jizya is a protection money by those living under the protectorate of the caliph and not by those living outside. Once the Caliph is unable to protect them they are to be reimbursed. Equally a Muslim has no say in the territory of those believing in one G-d but not following the practice of Muhammad. He is allowed to pass through that territory and seek refuge ( transit visa) for only 3 days. If that territory is in alliance with a caliphate, then that territory must protect the right of that follower of Muhammad according to the agreement between them.
Matt,  it is possible for such Muslim to creep, but provided you and your folks will support him to establish the caliphate.  It calls for same education, same right. I think the West hates the caliphate because they do not understand the preventive strength of the Shari'a of Muhammad. The West in reality is doing a lot to uphold the Shari'a of Muhammad like in providing housing, job and protection of life etc.  The only thing the West is doing against the Shari'a is not covering the part of a woman not to be exposed. Matt! Your beautiful President Angela is following the Sunna of Muhammad. I have never seeing her partially naked. She does not even use make up. Also the US Secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Peace means only that practiced and advocated by Muhammad and not what is practiced in Muslim countries today!  The positive examples in previous prophets as told in the Qur'an were applied by Muhammad. For example giving due measures and weights and looking for your neighbors, speaking kind words to all, not following charity with injustice and equal justice. 
Look at the ridiculousness of Western ideology and double standards! Abu Hamza has been deported to USA to face charges against threats etc. Why was he allowed to stay in North London and not deported to his native land the very moment the British Government heard him preaching against the Sunna?  Peace is not specific to Muhammad for he came to spread it. If it were specific to him he would never migrated to Madina and wage war against injustice and oppression. He could have been reduced by the mighty onslaught  of the Persian and Roman empires. 
So, we shall seek for your assistance and support when the time comes by that Muslim who can bring peace to the world. He is not an Arab. he can be a German like you, a Briton, Italian, Swiss etc. Muhammad did not spread racism. He looked for practical ability skill and knowledge.

Friendship.



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 8:47pm
Greetings all,

Let me just ask....
Would you want or support a government system that you knew would make you a second class citizen, unless you agreed to give up your beliefs?
When black people were made second class citizens in America was it right?
When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus because she deserved it as much as anyone else, was she wrong?
Would it ever be right then, for any group of persons to do this to any other group of persons?

Is it right that the testimony of one man is accepted, but for a woman to be believed it takes the testimony of two?
Is it right that a woman is blamed for rape and that she, not the rapist, must be killed?

These are the things people object to.
Would you?


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 10:04pm
Assaalamu alaika Caringheart.

Please let us be specific and support our claim with solid and concrete examples. The teaching of Muhammad is different from what those who distorted the teachings of Jesus son of Maryam practiced. How can one nation behave as such? If they behaved then the reason behind it must be told plainly.
Listen to us! We know our art. We can catch a bird by just smelling in the air. We are insiders and know our problems very well. You can't solve it without us. We are honest merchants and we cannot afford scandal.
Please stop reading the Qur'an! Read the history of Muhammad Rasulullah and prove to us that he ever segregated between a Jew, a Christian and his immediate relations.


Friendship


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 12:49pm
Originally posted by Friendship

Assaalamu alaika Caringheart.

Please let us be specific and support our claim with solid and concrete examples. The teaching of Muhammad is different from what those who distorted the teachings of Jesus son of Maryam practiced. How can one nation behave as such? If they behaved then the reason behind it must be told plainly.
Listen to us! We know our art. We can catch a bird by just smelling in the air. We are insiders and know our problems very well. You can't solve it without us. We are honest merchants and we cannot afford scandal.
Please stop reading the Qur'an! Read the history of Muhammad Rasulullah and prove to us that he ever segregated between a Jew, a Christian and his immediate relations.


Friendship


Greetings Friendship,

Where would I go to read an accurate, unbiased, history of Muhammad?
I would like to read what the Jews and Christians wrote about their time living under his rule.
I have read many conflicting reports about the reign of Islam, but most of this history refers to the time after Muhammad's death when his followers did as they pleased, and what suited them, and according to their interpretation of their time with Muhammad.  This is all I have to judge Muhammad with... the behavior of his followers... who presumably lived under his teaching and went out to do according to what they understood he taught.  These are the ones who had Muhammad as an example... so tell me what happened when Muhammad died if he set the example?

Sorry, I got argumentative.  I really just want to know where I can get truth.  Usually actions speak louder... more clearly... more truthfully, than words.  The actions of Muhammad's followers speak volumes more than anything written by those who of course wanted to present him in his best light. 
If I were to be able to read reports written by those categorized as second class because of their differing beliefs, that would help.

Salaam,
Caringheart


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 2:34pm
Assalamu alaika Caringheart.

May Allah the G-d of Abraham bless you! It is people like you who wants to give an ear to the truth that we are looking for. Incidentally I met an Australian in London close to London  school of economics. He thought I was an Arab. He said, "I am confused and I wan to learn about Islam." A bookshop was close (I have forgotten its name). We went to the bookshop and he wanted to buy the Qur'an. I advised him to buy the translation of the Qur'an by Maududi and not Yusuf Ali, because the former is more detailed. I  offered him a present but he refused and insisted on buying the three available volumes with his money. We departed and I gave him my address. Likewise in all conferences and seminars I attended the Westerners show interest in Islam.
To understand Muhammad you must understand the Torah. Indeed the teaching of Muhammad has been distorted by his followers. But Allah has promised to make it everlasting and that no one on earth can extinguish it. You cannot understand in a day. It takes time. The gateway is for you to convince yourself that Allah never commanded one to cheat, be dishonest, hate his neighbor, commit adultery and fornication and all abominations that you personally hate.
The democracy is for one to read available literature and then to simmer down. Believe you me I love reading books telling lies about Muhammad. They increased my love to him.
What do you want to know about that orphan who as a speck conquered and subdued his tribe. You must listen then an expert with an unbiased mind with a summary.
You can read the following books I told you to read and then ask questions. Visit: http://108.167.148.69/OB_WD/384598/excerpt.htm - http://108.167.148.69/OB_WD/384598/excerpt.htm         and http:www.yutube.com/watch?v=S1NaCq-Zqu0 .

Friendship.




Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 8:08am
Friendship, the modern world has evolved beyond political systems that solely rely on the views and thoughts of a single human being. Suppose Muhammad Rasulullah is the ideal human being that you greatly admire. I would still argue that he can't be the founding principle of a new political system. Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to approve or reject the views of Muhammad Rasulullah. Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to believe in God or not believe in God.

"Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. Secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief.

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus; medieval Muslim polymaths such as Ibn Rushd; Enlightenment thinkers such as Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and more recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell."

Do you think Muhammad Rasulullah should be on this list? If yes, how did he contribute to secularism?



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 9:23am
Assalamu alaika Matt Browne.

You said: Do you think Muhammad Rasulullah should be on this list? If yes, how did he contribute to secularism?

Response. I have read about secularism and I am one of those believers in the activity of Muhammad with a different idea of secularism. I am averse to using Greek terminology in place of what Allah revealed to His messengers as an absolute and solid way of peace and enjoyment. I prefer the use of the word 'Islam' to 'religion'. Therefore your: Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. Secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, is not the same as :Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from Islamic institutions and Islamic dignitaries. Secularism may assert the right to be free from Islamic rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of Islam upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. I am sure you know that Islam means submission to that G-d who rescued the Children of Israel our revered cousins  from the pangs and hardships in Egypt and worked those miracles never seen by you and me. Anyway I visited the Cairo museum 3 times and saw the body of Pharaoh mentioned in the Qur'an.
Can you then explain how the Greek intellectuals coined that name and why it is accepted by you the 'Christians,? My understanding of secularism is the acceptance of mankind to anything that is beneficial to them and rejecting anything that is harmful to them.  Before my retirement, I treated a severe burns using honey after every treatment seemed to be failing. I read this in the teaching of Muhammad. Muhammad said one is not allowed to be impoverished or to sleep with an empty stomach. Allah will punish in the Hereafter the Islamic leader who does that! Incidentally, are you saying that Muhammad will not give stipends to those Jews and Christians living under his Islamic state today? Muhammad gave them priority over his companions!  Please note that Islamic State is not concomitant to what is going on in Saudi Arabia or any so called Arab Muslim countries.
If Muhammad and his companions were alive today, I am sure they will travel to Tabuk by air, to Makka by air. I am sure he will never manufacture cluster bombs or his actions and behavior be a cause of unemployment and recession.

Friendship.
 


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaika Matt Browne.

are you saying that Muhammad will not give stipends to those Jews and Christians living under his Islamic state today?
Friendship.
 


Greetings Friendship,

Look up and read about Janissaries

Salaam,
Caringheart Smile


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 2:06pm
Salaam Caringheaart.

How do I look at janissaries? What is it?

Friendship


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 2:43pm
Originally posted by Friendship

Salaam Caringheaart.

How do I look at janissaries? What is it?

Friendship


Hi Friendship,

Google the word janissaries.

It is an outcropping of Islam present in the Ottoman empire.

Blessings in peace to you as well,
Caringheart


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 12:20pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Friendship, the modern world has evolved beyond political systems that solely rely on the views and thoughts of a single human being. Suppose Muhammad Rasulullah is the ideal human being that you greatly admire. I would still argue that he can't be the founding principle of a new political system. Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to approve or reject the views of Muhammad Rasulullah. Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to believe in God or not believe in God."Secularism is the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. Secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief.Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus; medieval Muslim polymaths such as Ibn Rushd; Enlightenment thinkers such as Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine; and more recent freethinkers, agnostics, and atheists such as Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell."Do you think Muhammad Rasulullah should be on this list? If yes, how did he contribute to secularism?

Matt,
you wrote:
"Friendship, the modern world has evolved beyond political systems that solely rely on the views and thoughts of a single human being. Suppose Muhammad Rasulullah is the ideal human being that you greatly admire. I would still argue that he can't be the founding principle of a new political system. Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to approve or reject the views of Muhammad Rasulullah. Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to believe in God or not believe in God."
That is how it was in the Prophet's time. No one was forced to believe him. Those (many) who believed him did so out of their free will,and those (many) who did not believe in him to be the prophet did so out of their free will. He established a system, where each one has the right to choose after the warning from God has reached. He warned of the consequences in the hereafter as we do today to those who reject God.
So, it is not true that the current political system was the first one to give a person to decide for themselves what they wanted to believe. What people do out of their own understanding and actions is another story liek with any other belief or system, but the Quran is clear on this matter.

2:256 (Y. Ali) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 12:26pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by Friendship

There is no solution to our problem without establishing the caliph and caliphate. Its is not total theocracy, but rather the only way the world will enjoy stability and peace.


And by "peace", you mean submission to Muslim rule.  No thanks.


The solution to our problem is to stop thinking in terms of one side subjugating the other.  Peace will come to those who concentrate on controlling their own thoughts and behaviours, without trying to control others.  That is the greater jihad.



Ron,
wrong, it will come by controlling those who try to control others, occupy their land to steal and subjugate and enslave like we have seen in the past few centuries.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 October 2012 at 7:57pm

Originally posted by honeto

wrong, it will come by controlling those who try to control others, occupy their land to steal and subjugate and enslave like we have seen in the past few centuries.

I'm not sure I understand you, Hasan.  Do you approve of people trying to control others, or do you oppose it?  Or does it depend on who is doing the controlling, i.e. do you hold others to a different moral standard than yourself?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 22 October 2012 at 3:34pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

wrong, it will come by controlling those who try to control others, occupy their land to steal and subjugate and enslave like we have seen in the past few centuries.


I'm not sure I understand you, Hasan.  Do you approve of people trying to control others, or do you oppose it?  Or does it depend on who is doing the controlling, i.e. do you hold others to a different moral standard than yourself?



Ron,
I oppose oppression of anyone by anyone.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 6:33am
Friendship, in a secular country you have the right to believe that Allah revealed to His messengers an absolute and solid way of peace and enjoyment, and other people have the right not to believe that Allah revealed to His messengers an absolute and solid way of peace and enjoyment. In secular countries different religions and atheism co-exist. The people are in charge, not God. All can vote and the elected representatives create or change laws for the people. There is also a constitution and a 51% majority cannot change it. You need 66% or more. There is division of powers with checks and balances. God and holy texts can inspire Christian and Muslim voters and this gets reflected in the elections.




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 6:46am
Originally posted by honeto

"Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to believe in God or not believe in God."

That is how it was in the Prophet's time. No one was forced to believe him. Those (many) who believed him did so out of their free will,and those (many) who did not believe in him to be the prophet did so out of their free will. He established a system, where each one has the right to choose after the warning from God has reached. He warned of the consequences in the hereafter as we do today to those who reject God.
So, it is not true that the current political system was the first one to give a person to decide for themselves what they wanted to believe. What people do out of their own understanding and actions is another story like with any other belief or system, but the Quran is clear on this matter.

2:256 (Y. Ali) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Hasan


Unfortunately, the 'no compulsion in religion' principle often gets overruled in the Quran and Sunnah. Muslims here on Islamicity told me that female Muslims must wear the hijab. I thought Allah gave them a choice. But it goes far beyond this. Right after Muhammad died in 632 CE Muslim apostates were killed in the name of Islam. What followed was Islamic imperialism for more than 800 years. Many of those who believed in the Prophet did not so out of their free will. If Jews and Christians wanted to avoid paying the fine, they had no choice. Polytheists and other nonbelievers had no choice: either convert to Islam or be killed.

In March 2006, the Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds (insanity) by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai. He was released and left the country to find refuge in Italy.

So much for making free choices in Islam.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 7:57am
Assalamu alaikum. Matt Browne.

Let us start going by specifics. It is the West who introduced banning smoking in public and not any Muslim ruler or scholar. Islam says anything that is harmful to the body is prohibited. It is the West who introduced the law allowing a minimum concentration of alcohol for drivers to have in their body. The time to open bars and parlors have been reduced. I do not know any Muslim country standing on that. Does it mean now that no 1Muslim country could implement it simply it is a Western rule?
In the Torah, no one should delay justice. So when Muhammad came he introduced delaying of war crimes such that when the punishment is passed it does not sound as a lesson to others.
Nakedness- Muhammad gave certain areas of the body to be covered. Who is walking naked despite the apparent nudity in some countries. Whatever you are advocating or calling for rights of individuals was practiced in the time of Muhammad and after his death. Some commanders disobeyed Muhammad on the basis of the prevailing situation. Muhammad would tell them that he did not command them, and that compensation must be given to the injured.
The question of majority to change the constitution is your problem. Look at how women are not given the right of priesthood. All such trivialities are not part of the Shari'a of Muhammad. Look at how psodomy and prostitution is legalized. Islam prohibits them openly, but gives one the right to do whatever he likes secretly. Islam protects the right and interest of the majority. In the manner Moses refused to join those who rebelled against Aaron, Muhammad also disallows one joining those who rebel against him.

Friendship.
  


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 8:22am
Assalamu alaikum. Matt Browne

You said: Unfortunately, the 'no compulsion in religion' principle often gets overruled in the Quran and Sunnah.
Response: Let us be wise please! How can Qur'an and the Sunna overrule an injunction in the Qur'an. Let us straighten the wheel please. In other words you are saying that Allah contradicted himself.
You said: Muslims here on Islamicity told me that female Muslims must wear the hijab.
Answer. Please leave that argument alone. I think in one of my posts I explained the position of hijab and the veil. It is better you rely on what I explain rather than relying on what is not the meaning of a verse. The minimum protection given to uphold the dignity of women is for them to wear the veil. This is the meaning. If they feel that they will be dignified by not wearing the veil, they are free. To concur to that Muhammad allowed one to gaze at a woman twice. The fornication through the eyes, ears and sound is forgiven by Allah and not through physical contact.
You said:  Right after Muhammad died in 632 CE Muslim apostates were killed in the name of Islam.
Response: You will never understand this incident. They refused to give the right to protect the welfare of the poor and those non-muslims living under the Islamic State. Those who participated in the battles including non-muslims.
You said:  If Jews and Christians wanted to avoid paying the fine, they had no choice. Polytheists and other nonbelievers had no choice: either convert to Islam or be killed.
Response: There is no iota of truth. Read about the Battle of Emisa. You seem to contradict yourself and what honest sincere Christians wrote on the conquest of the Arabs.
My conclusion is: The West is afraid of giving hand and support in establishing the Caliphate because it is the system that will bring common understand and development to mankind. The West prefers dealing with apostates  milking the innocent ones and indirect profiteering. The wave of protests in Europe is enough indicator that the promise of Allah is real. This He reminds us in Qur'an 16:76; Allah puts  forward (another) example of two men, one of them dumb and has no power over anything, and he is a burden on his master; whichever way he directs him, he brings no good. Is such a man equal to one who commands justice, and is himself on the Straight Path?  

Friend.


In March 2006, the Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds (insanity) by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai. He was released and left the country to find refuge in Italy.

So much for making free choices in Islam.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 9:39am
Friendship, I read your first two specific examples. "It is the West who introduced banning smoking in public and not any Muslim ruler or scholar. Islam says anything that is harmful to the body is prohibited. It is the West who introduced the law allowing a minimum concentration of alcohol for drivers to have in their body."  I think you are confused.  These laws are not to protect the smoker or the driver that drinks.  They are to protect the person subject to second hand smoke and innocents put in danger by an impaired driver.  You can smoke or drink to your hearts content as long as you don't infringe on anyone else's rights (in most cases).


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 10:00am
Assalamu alaikum.  schmikbob


I think it is rather you than me. Why do you not listen to what Islam says but distorts reporting and observations?
I was walking in a London street and found someone drunk and lying down. I stopped and called the police. This is part of the Shari'a.
Is it not for the protection of both that limits the level of alcohol in the blood system? One is protected directly and the other indirectly. On who was the research done? There are two or more medical morbidity: heart failure, obesity, cancer of the liver stomach and the lungs. Please retract your statement.

Friendship


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 1:23pm

Friendship, your anecdotal story about finding a drunk is nice.  Not sure what it has to do with Shari'a law.  I wasn't aware that the UK adhered to Shari'a. 

To the point, the laws that limit alcohol and tobacco in the US are not for the benefit of both although they have that effect.  Here we try to limit government's intrusiveness into what is a personal decision.  
 
What research are you referring to?  What should I retract? 
 


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 2:39pm


I do not like to associate with the Wild West- I want him dead or alive!


Friendship.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 6:04pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne



Originally posted by honeto

"Every citizen in a modern political system has the right to believe in God or not believe in God."
That is how it was in the Prophet's time. No one was forced to believe him. Those (many) who believed him did so out of their free will,and those (many) who did not believe in him to be the prophet did so out of their free will. He established a system, where each one has the right to choose after the warning from God has reached. He warned of the consequences in the hereafter as we do today to those who reject God.
So, it is not true that the current political system was the first one to give a person to decide for themselves what they wanted to believe. What people do out of their own understanding and actions is another story like with any other belief or system, but the Quran is clear on this matter.

2:256 (Y. Ali) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

Hasan
Unfortunately, the 'no compulsion in religion' principle often gets overruled in the Quran and Sunnah. Muslims here on Islamicity told me that female Muslims must wear the hijab. I thought Allah gave them a choice. But it goes far beyond this. Right after Muhammad died in 632 CE Muslim apostates were killed in the name of Islam. What followed was Islamic imperialism for more than 800 years. Many of those who believed in the Prophet did not so out of their free will. If Jews and Christians wanted to avoid paying the fine, they had no choice. Polytheists and other nonbelievers had no choice: either convert to Islam or be killed. In March 2006, the Afghan citizen Abdul Rahman was charged with apostasy and could have faced the death penalty for converting to Christianity. His case attracted much international attention with Western countries condemning Afghanistan for persecuting a convert. Charges against Abdul Rahman were dismissed on technical grounds (insanity) by the Afghan court after intervention by the president Hamid Karzai. He was released and left the country to find refuge in Italy. So much for making free choices in Islam.



Matt,
you seem biased toward history, Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years. They did not force people into their belief
otherwise Spain, Portugal and some other parts of Europe and all Latin America would have been Muslim. That is in contrast to what Catholics did. The Catholics when took over Spain made a black mark on history by giving two choice to Muslims and Jews living there for centuries, be Baptized or be killed. There are true stories that Muslims went underground to keep their faith from the terror with which the Popes ruled and imposed their belief upon people for five centuries.
In the Americas the Catholicism made way through the same tactics. Either eliminate a people if they resisted, or subjugate them through any means in order to be Baptized. So that's the reason you see natives either exterminated or Baptized with no choice of their own. It is written in history, if you care to read. I am not making this up. It continued to very recent times.

As far as you problem with hijab, it is simple, just like Allah gave us a choice to worship Him as our creator, or worship a man or a cow or fire or a statue of a living thing while guiding us that the only right worship is the worship of our maker our God. Everything else if we worship we will be wrong, and that He will punish us for our such wrong doing. (Worshiping anything other than Allah is a great wrong doing.) Similarly, if we see what Allah asks us to do in order to be a complete believer, yes we have a choice to fulfill it but by not obeying Allah do you think will make Him happy with us?
Can you be a basketball player or claim to be one, while not really playing it, not practicing it, not knowing its rule, but when someone asks you you say I am a basket ball player. Will the audience shower you with flowers or pellet you with tomatoes and eggs at a game you did not know or practiced? Will the team keep you?
The most important thing is that of course it is difficult in today's world as it was in yesterday's probably to fulfill all obligations, but intentionally and deliberately leaving any obligations will cost us dearly. For those who have intentions and they do try to fulfill them, but do fall short, for them God has good news,Forgiveness.
The only sin I know mentioned in the Quran and the Bible that God has stated that He will not forgie is blasphemy or shirk, of associating with God as God what is not God, or worshiping as God someone or something that is created by God. Do you follow that?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 3:42am
Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaikum. Matt Browne. Let us start going by specifics. It is the West who introduced banning smoking in public and not any Muslim ruler or scholar. Islam says anything that is harmful to the body is prohibited. It is the West who introduced the law allowing a minimum concentration of alcohol for drivers to have in their body. The time to open bars and parlors have been reduced. I do not know any Muslim country standing on that. Does it mean now that no 1 Muslim country could implement it simply it is a Western rule?

I agree with Schmikbob's view on this issue.
Originally posted by Friendship

In the Torah, no one should delay justice. So when Muhammad came he introduced delaying of war crimes such that when the punishment is passed it does not sound as a lesson to others.
Justice requires time indeed. For this reason Jews created the Talmud. They also created a culture of debate, something Islam abandoned when the Golden Age ended.
Originally posted by Friendship

Nakedness- Muhammad gave certain areas of the body to be covered. Who is walking naked despite the apparent nudity in some countries.
I don't know which Western country you are talking about, but I don't see any naked people. There are a few nude beaches in Europe that more than 99% of the population never visit. When someone walks around naked in a town, the police will pick him or her up. In some states in the US, mothers can't even breastfeed their babies in public, something that for most Europeans is hard to understand, because it's a natural part of humanity.
Originally posted by Friendship

Look at how women are not given the right of priesthood. All such trivialities are not part of the Shari'a of Muhammad. Look at how psodomy and prostitution is legalized. Islam prohibits them openly, but gives one the right to do whatever he likes secretly. Islam protects the right and interest of the majority. In the manner Moses refused to join those who rebelled against Aaron, Muhammad also disallows one joining those who rebel against him.

Many churches have female priests, even bishops. The one I belong to does and I hope that some day all Christian churches give females this right. The legal situation of prostitutes differs from country to country.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 3:59am
Originally posted by Friendship

You said: Unfortunately, the 'no compulsion in religion' principle often gets overruled in the Quran and Sunnah.
Response: Let us be wise please! How can Qur'an and the Sunna overrule an injunction in the Qur'an. Let us straighten the wheel please. In other words you are saying that Allah contradicted himself.

I didn't use the word contradiction. Overruling is different. There is also the principle of abrogation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29#Theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29#Theory )
Originally posted by Friendship

The minimum protection given to uphold the dignity of women is for them to wear the veil. This is the meaning. If they feel that they will be dignified by not wearing the veil, they are free. To concur to that Muhammad allowed one to gaze at a woman twice. The fornication through the eyes, ears and sound is forgiven by Allah and not through physical contact.
Protection from who? No protection is needed when male adults behave like adults. Forcing women to wear veils because a small minority of immature men fail to behave properly is outrageous. Besides, even veils don't help as we can see in Egypt at the moment with men touching the breasts of women on the bus. In my country women would slap such men and possibly report such behavior to the police. So the problem are horny immature men. This doesn't give men the right to punish all women by forcing them to wear veils. In Egypt a new constitution is now in place. Egyptian women are now officially second-class citizens without equal rights. Egypt is on its way toward theocratic fascism.




-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 01 December 2012 at 4:23am
Originally posted by honeto

Matt, you seem biased toward history, Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years. They did not force people into their belief otherwise Spain, Portugal and some other parts of Europe and all Latin America would have been Muslim.

I'm not biased. I was simply stating historic facts. In 632 CE the entire world had different religions, from Indonesia to India to Persia to Morocco. Islamic imperialism changed all that. People were forced to convert to Islam. Many were killed when they didn't comply. Some resisted like Hindus in India. The people of the book could keep their faith but held no power and had to pay a fine for not being Muslims. This is why you also have Copts in Egypt and Catholics in Spain and Portugal.
Originally posted by honeto

That is in contrast to what Catholics did. The Catholics when took over Spain made a black mark on history by giving two choice to Muslims and Jews living there for centuries, be Baptized or be killed. There are true stories that Muslims went underground to keep their faith from the terror with which the Popes ruled and imposed their belief upon people for five centuries.
In the Americas the Catholicism made way through the same tactics. Either eliminate a people if they resisted, or subjugate them through any means in order to be Baptized. So that's the reason you see natives either exterminated or Baptized with no choice of their own. It is written in history, if you care to read. I am not making this up. It continued to very recent times.

This is again a good example of today's Christians admitting the crimes of the past committed in the name of Christianity. What you are describing is all true. Yes, natives were either exterminated or baptized with no choice of their own. And all of the popes other crimes did in fact happen. That was terrible!

Yet most of today's Muslims find it very hard to admit the crimes committed in the history of Islamic imperialism. Islam is supposed to be perfect. Islam is the world's best religion. Everything that was done in the name of Islam was good. So history gets distorted to make Islam look good.

And the hijab was not Allah's idea, in my opinion. It was the idea of jealous men.

Originally posted by honeto


The only sin I know mentioned in the Quran and the Bible that God has stated that He will not forgive is blasphemy or shirk, of associating with God as God what is not God, or worshiping as God someone or something that is created by God. Do you follow that? Hasan

Yes, I follow that. But God is the only judge. Therefore we can disagree with blasphemy, but further human action is not allowed. In open secular societies belief in God is optional, not mandatory. Religions and religious views can be criticized openly.


-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 31 December 2012 at 2:57pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by abuayisha

"sigh"
Let me see if I can say it for you, abuayisha: Islam does not need to be reformed.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/videos-features/ayaan-hirsi-ali-full-speech-at-university-of-wisconsin-distinguished-lecture-series/ - http://www.faithfreedom.org/videos-features/ayaan-hirsi-ali-full-speech-at-university-of-wisconsin-distinguished-lecture-series/
 
 
 
 



Print Page | Close Window