Senior cleric declares Fatwa on terrorism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

metacristi
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 06:50 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;147486 wrote:
Who cares ? Pope says the same; nobody listens.


Well the Christian doctrine is essentially peaceful at the core and the vast majority of Christians is moderate enough to prevent any real danger here (in what Christian terrorists are concerned). But of course I agree that in other respects you are right. However the strategy might work well in the case of muslims where 'submission' to Allah is very important, indeed obeying the legitimate muslim rulers (not only the fatwas issued from the consensus of ulama) is a religious duty in Islam. The terrorists cannot be an alternative, the fatwa expose them as unlawful rebels, without teological basis, condemned by islamic jurisprudence thus outside islam (not that I am convinced but what is important is that muslims be convinced). Let's hope that the proponent of this fatwa will prove to be influential enough among muslims (capable at least to weaken muslim terrorism); indirectly we have only to benefit from it. But, as I said, even if successful this is not a real solution on long term (especially in what non-muslims are concerned), islam has much deeper problems than the mere existence currently of some radicals and 'hate preachers'.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 07:14 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;147420 wrote:
I am afraid........
1) no one has the authority to denounce other people's faith,
2) no one has the sole virtue of judging other's law of living or a way of life,
3) no one is capable of analysing in depth on how social movements and political motivations takes place.

Any one who claims he or she can do the above without prejudging or harbouring bias is a hypocrite.


That is preposterous, since when the other people are suicide bombers we need to judge them, or else die.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 12:22 pm
@metacristi,
metacristi;147464 wrote:
Time to say no to postmodernist tolerance of the intolerant islam before islamization become a mass problem, before a time when any novel idea (especially contradicting the qur'an) is likely to be branded 'blasphemous', its proponets punishable by death/prison/lashes etc (one of the reasons the muslim world remained backward is the despise of critical thinking and diversity).


.... all Muslims - not just a group we called "fundamentalist" - believe that the Koran is literally the word of God...Many Christians have accepted the results of Science and adjusted their beliefs accordingly and are no longer committed to the literal existence of their biblical parents [Adam and Eve]. Muslims have yet to take even this first step. - ibn Warraq

Islam presents an absolutist political agenda one that doesn't lend itself to compromise, nor to coalition building. - imam Zaid Shakir, an African American convert to Islam (saying the truth about islam, indeed we mistake islam with other major religions) -..........
...............
......... The real period of ignorance is the islamic period.

Our opponents accuse us National Socialists, and me in particular, of being intolerant and quarrelsome. They say that we do not want to work with other parties...I have to admit one thing, these gentlemen are quite right. We are intolerant...I have given myself one goal - to sweep these thirty political parties [existent in 1932] out of Germany. They mistake us for one of them. We have one aim and we will follow it fanatically and ruthlessly to the grave. - Adolf Hitler, electoral campaign 1932 - islam has definitely quite many in common with Nazi supremacism and fanaticism (among others dhimmis remind of the Nazis' 'subhumans of the East', the attacks of muhammad and his successors outside Arabia of the need for vital space, the fact that non mulims in the arab empires of the past had to wear distinctive signs of the persecution of the jews, the strong indoctrination of children with muslim supremacism of Hitlerjugend and so on)

Myth: If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent

.........
While the muslims feel free to insult Christianity, they themselves go into paroxysms of rage and violence at the slightest hint of criticism of islam, which "must be accepted uncritically as divine revelation by non-muslims as well by muslims, and that this must be reflected in the structure and conduct of the state, and of society". - ibn Warraq




It appears you have done lot of research on the internet. You have quoted one to many. I can also understand your sentiments. Don't take me wrong if i say, that you are in fear. Of course, it comes from your good sense. You wordings does reveal a kind of frustrations. But, my friend please be careful. It is possible that you are jumping the gun. Your contention, that islam is intolerant, is not true. Islam means peace. Islam has been more of a social movement to educate the illiterate, to tame the arrogant, to humble the rich, and place The Creator at the top of all things human.

It is a very appealing religion. Unlike many other religions, it is proactive in its principle of equality. It emphasis of universal brotherhood, and sense of justice towards all components of a society, irrespective of caste, position, status, gender, age and class is its strong points.

You may be right when you say they are taking Koran in the literal sense, but who are 'they'. The they are the indoctrinated ones, the young and vulnerable ones. Yes some educated ones have also taken the 'jihad' route, but they are misled. It is the work of the 'devil' as the religionists would say. You are also mistaken by believing that the sharia and koran are one.



metacristi;147464 wrote:
When muslims impose sharia, or at least part of it, will you say the same? No intention to be offensive here but it's a legitimate question...Besides we have never forget that they have always felt free to attack Christianity and all other faiths at will (unlike other major religions islam does not have the Golden Rule, somehow muslims are at peace, at the mental level, with demanding respect from others while showing basically none in return)...Happily contrary to what you say there is a standard of Rationality, albeit provisional, the rationality or irrationality of the qur'an (and for that matter all other holy books) it's not in the 'eye of the beholder'. No one want muslims to leave islam (at least not me), the problem is that it should be modernized because it is a threat for the whole world, even for muslims (although it may seem good for islamists of course). We can only say NO to the 7th century sharia and other discriminatory and intolerant teachings of islam (hypocrites are those who try to whitewash islam, in spite of a mountain of contrary evidence, in the name of political correctness instead of calling for non-trivial reforms)...


You have a provocative style. But please be at rest. Let me tell you that you may have a legitimate concern and question those concerns, but also kindly understand the religion on which you want to spark a debate. The teachings of islam, is in contrary to what these fundamentalists think it persuades. You are similarly falling into a propoganda against islam. By your constructions, i feel you are going hammer and tongs without differentiating the husks and the seeds. The religion or the idea of what it is or represents is different to the followers who pretend to follow it.

You take a high point by stating that christian fundamentalists are different while islamic fundamentalists are quite another ball game. You cannot escape such irrationality. Lets trace some history: Christopher columbus went on a convert or get butchered (killed is a mild word) spree when after stepping serendipitiously on a continent, to find favour with his pope and king; Christain brutality and fundamentalism could be seen how cruelly the Australian aborigines were treated by the British invaders, when Ku Klax Klan used to murder citizens in the name of creed, race, and scriptures. Does this mean that the whole christiandome is at fault. No. So please do not label all islam for the sins of the few.

---------- Post added 04-02-2010 at 11:57 PM ----------

kennethamy;147499 wrote:
That is preposterous, since when the other people are suicide bombers we need to judge them, or else die.


You are right, if there are suicide bombers - i say, kill them first, then judge them.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 12:42 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
I think people should be free to pray to who they like, or not pray at all. Cursing should be forbidden out of respect.

To make this possible we have Laws which govern the inhabitants and the way they can enjoy their freedoms. Priviledges. In my country plotting against the government is not allowed. Any religious group planning to gain power would be prosecuted. Except Christians to be honest.

Pepijn Sweep
Magister X:bigsmile:X
 
metacristi
 
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 05:09 pm
@trismegisto,
[quote=Jackofalltrades]It appears you have done lot of research on the internet. You have quoted one to many. I can also understand your sentiments. Don't take me wrong if i say, that you are in fear. Of course, it comes from your good sense.[/quote]

I've done much more than merely 'researching the net'. I've tried to understand this religion for quite many years now (I've read enough many books sympathetic with islam in the process). Contrary to what you say my stance is not something based on irrational fear, it's reason and cold logic: there will never be a real peace in islam even in the hypothetical case that it will 'take over' worldwide (but this won't happen of course), islam will be forever in a war with Reason, common sense and basic human freedoms; a perpetual cultural and moral wasteland leading inexorably towards a much narrow intellectual horizon (that's why the contribution of islam to Modernity is minimal at best).


[quote=Jackofalltrades]You wordings does reveal a kind of frustrations. But, my friend please be careful. It is possible that you are jumping the gun. Your contention, that islam is intolerant, is not true. Islam means peace. Islam has been more of a social movement to educate the illiterate, to tame the arrogant, to humble the rich, and place The Creator at the top of all things human.[/quote]

I fail to see where is the 'peace' in islam: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm. And if there is a frustration that is because of the undeserved status which islam enjoys today, it certainly does not deserve it. Muslims say it is peace, equality etc but is it really so? It seems that you didn't read at all the links I offered (I cannot write books here, that's why I posted those link not to annoy you and others; sometimes a video link values more than 100000 words); unfortunately even if many muslims are honest in their belief that islam is peace the double standard of islam is evident for all would be rational thinkers.

Islam the ideology (I have nothing against people by the way) is as extremist as fascism; if someone created now a sect as discriminatory and intolerant as islam he/she would be soon behind bars for, not surprising, incitement to violence. Appeasement of the unreformed islam is as pointless as was the appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis by the English and French. The fact that there are many muslims is no excuse for the political class in Western Europe, the postmodernist political correctness should be modified in order to allow at least open criticism of islam at academic level; only this (and not sugarcoating islam) can create real muslim moderates.


[quote=Jackofalltrades]It is a very appealing religion. Unlike many other religions, it is proactive in its principle of equality. It emphasis of universal brotherhood, and sense of justice towards all components of a society, irrespective of caste, position, status, gender, age and class is its strong points.[/quote]

'Universal' brotherhood which stops at the level of the umma, you're kidding with 'universal' isn't? Look at the status of the dhimmi along history or at the religious minorities in the muslim dominated world. Unfortunately islam does not have the Golden Rule and deserves no respect, it has selfish rules at the core (the zakat for example means nothing as much as only muslims can benefit from it). What the muslims claim is 'tolerance' is in fact sheer intolerance and discrimination (upon our standards of which they duly benefit).

Finally islam gives the appearance of a 'strong' religion because it inculcates a very powerful, uncritical, clan identification* (with its inherent advantages, characteristic - to some extent - to other religions and even political movements) but this is not necessarily a good asset. For example the Nazis or Mafia ideologies were able to inculcate basically the same strong group identification (and I encountered personally people from the former Soviet Union who deeply regret the communist era when they had the feeling of belonging to a very strong and respected country). islam ceases to be strong when its tenets are examined critically...

*way stronger than in Christianity, to the extent that, as one ulama once said, all muslims are the islamic equivalent of Christian monks (clearly much more dogmatism in islam)


[quote=Jackofalltrades]You may be right when you say they are taking Koran in the literal sense, but who are 'they'. The they are the indoctrinated ones, the young and vulnerable ones. Yes some educated ones have also taken the 'jihad' route, but they are misled. It is the work of the 'devil' as the religionists would say. You are also mistaken by believing that the sharia and koran are one.[/quote]

I said that a vast majority is quasi-literalist. Some minor deviations from sharia do not make those muslims moderates (in the Western acceptation of the term). And jihad is also the predatory misuse of the legal system, the use of persistent pressures to shield islam from critical thinking, the raise of money to help the islamist cause (including funding extermist organizations abroad), the organization of widespread muslim propaganda in order to mislead non-muslims that islam is 'peace' etc. This is lead by the 'educated' people you mention.

The final goal is basically the same (although the time table is very different): the islamization of non-muslim societies. No need to resort to the methods of radicals to fight jihad. Finally even if quite many apologist of islam say that it [islam] is fully compatible with democracy in reality it isn't, if sharia is retained (I've already pointed this in another post). What do you want us (critics of islam) to do more? Wait for muslims to take over to demonstrate you that at that time even many of the so called (pseudo)moderates will realize finally (if they were not using Taqiyya before) that the real islam require replacing liberal democracy with large parts of sharia? Existing evidence points clearly toward the fact that the model of the Middle East will move to the West if muslims ever 'take over'. My 'bigotry' and 'irrational fear' (islamophobia) exists only in the rich imagination of muslims, in fact the real bigots are in their ranks.


[quote=Jackofalltrades]You have a provocative style.[/quote]

I was provoked, as in other occasions when I dealt with muslims online (muslims seem incapable to think that someone can criticize islam with honesty). But if you look with attention you'll remark that I've always tried to focus on providing rational arguments. If the muslim fellow had known to tolerate alternative views (whilst offering counterarguments compatible with a minimal standard of argumentation) my tone would have been milder; of course the criticism would have been basically the same.


[quote=Jackofalltrades] But please be at rest. Let me tell you that you may have a legitimate concern and question those concerns, but also kindly understand the religion on which you want to spark a debate. The teachings of islam, is in contrary to what these fundamentalists think it persuades. You are similarly falling into a propoganda against islam. By your constructions, i feel you are going hammer and tongs without differentiating the husks and the seeds. The religion or the idea of what it is or represents is different to the followers who pretend to follow it. [/quote]

What makes you believe that I do not understand the nature of islam? That I do not accept their taboos and their totally dishonest interpretations? I'm afraid the teaching of islam are fully compatible with extremist views (I've offered plenty of evidence for this); moreover ibn Warraq hit the nail when he says No amount of mental gymnastics or intellectual dishonesty is going to make the unpalatable, unacceptable, and barbaric aspects of Islam disappear. Non-trivial reforms appear unavoidable (when seen from a rational standpoint).


Jackofalltrades wrote:
You take a high point by stating that christian fundamentalists are different while islamic fundamentalists are quite another ball game. You cannot escape such irrationality. Lets trace some history: Christopher columbus went on a convert or get butchered (killed is a mild word) spree when after stepping serendipitiously on a continent, to find favour with his pope and king; Christain brutality and fundamentalism could be seen how cruelly the Australian aborigines were treated by the British invaders, when Ku Klax Klan used to murder citizens in the name of creed, race, and scriptures. Does this mean that the whole christiandome is at fault. No. So please do not label all islam for the sins of the few.


The real problem is whether the killings done in the name of Christianity can be really justified with the Scriptures. The answer is that is not at all easy to justify 'Holy War' using the Christian Scriptures (the Pope Urban II and his cardinals tried hard before finding such justification, very weak anyway, for the First Crusade). Besides the vast majority of Christians in the world is moderate now (the Christian memeplex is much more compatible with critical thinking, democracy and tolerance of other views than the islamic counterpart). Totally different is the situation in islam where the 'holy war' has rich roots in fundamental traditions of islam (and the vast majority of muslims is quasi-literalist). Failing to see this simple fact can lead to your erroneous conclusions. Finally look how these religions responded to Modernity. In 2000 the Vatican apologized for example for the "errors committed in the service of the truth through recourse to non-evangelical methods."

Where are the apologies for the conquests made in the name of Islam? Instead many islamic apologists try to persuade us that the conquerors of Egypt, Palestine, North Africa, Persia, Anatolia (all Byzantine Empire finally) and so on were in reality...'still pagan' (a forced move for no one dares to challenge the view that the qur'an is the eternal and exact word of allah and muhammad the perfect human being; dishonesty ad infinitum). No matter the mental gymnastics one can use these two religions are not on the same level (although I agree that they were similar in the past fact is that they totally diverged from a certain point on; the roots of this separation have to be seek primarily in the internal logic of these religions, the Islamic memeplex is much more dogmatic and reactionary than that of Christianity). Contrary to what some say islam is definitely not like the other major religions.


As an overall conclusion all you say is based on the old myth that the 'real' islam is good at the core only that 'hijacked' by a few radicals. A simple rational inspection, based on existing evidence, points towards the contrary. Are you sure you really understood islam?


It is easy to ensure co-operation between even a race of devils provided only that they are intelligent. - John Maynard Smith paraphrasing Kant - Cooperation (even treating all members of the community as 'brothers' and 'sisters' & helping the poors; all inside the community) is fully compatible with evil ideologies (e.g. Mafia), one cannot use this to defend islam against the common sense observation that it teaches hate, violence and discrimination against non-muslims.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 03:12 am
@metacristi,
metacristi;147637 wrote:
there will never be a real peace in islam even in the hypothetical case that it will 'take over' worldwide


metacristi;147637 wrote:
islam will be forever in a war with Reason, common sense and basic human freedoms; a perpetual cultural and moral wasteland leading inexorably towards a much narrow intellectual horizon (that's why the contribution of islam to Modernity is minimal at best).


metacristi;147637 wrote:
I fail to see where is the 'peace' in islam


metacristi;147637 wrote:
And if there is a frustration that is because of the undeserved status which islam enjoys today, it certainly does not deserve it.


metacristi;147637 wrote:
unfortunately even if many muslims are honest in their belief that islam is peace the double standard of islam is evident for all would be rational thinkers.


metacristi;147637 wrote:
Islam the ideology (I have nothing against people by the way) is as extremist as fascism;


metacristi;147637 wrote:
Appeasement of the unreformed islam is as pointless as was the appeasement of Hitler and the Nazis by the English and French.


metacristi;147637 wrote:
The fact that there are many muslims is no excuse for the political class in Western Europe,


metacristi;147637 wrote:
Unfortunately islam does not have the Golden Rule and deserves no respect, it has selfish rules at the core


metacristi;147637 wrote:
the zakat for example means nothing as much as only muslims can benefit from it


metacristi;147637 wrote:
What the muslims claim is 'tolerance' is in fact sheer intolerance and discrimination (upon our standards of which they duly benefit).


metacristi;147637 wrote:
islam gives the appearance of a 'strong' religion because it inculcates a very powerful, uncritical, clan identification


metacristi;147637 wrote:
the Nazis or Mafia ideologies were able to inculcate basically the same strong group identification


metacristi;147637 wrote:
all muslims are the islamic equivalent of Christian monks


metacristi;147637 wrote:
a vast majority is quasi-literalist. Some minor deviations from sharia do not make those muslims moderates (in the Western acceptation of the term).


metacristi;147637 wrote:
jihad is also the predatory misuse of the legal system, the use of persistent pressures to shield islam from critical thinking


metacristi;147637 wrote:
the raise of money to help the islamist cause (including funding extermist organizations abroad), the organization of widespread muslim propaganda in order to mislead non-muslims that islam is 'peace' etc. This is lead by the 'educated' people


metacristi;147637 wrote:
The final goal is basically the same (although the time table is very different): the islamization of non-muslim societies.


metacristi;147637 wrote:
even if quite many apologist of islam say that it [islam] is fully compatible with democracy in reality it isn't


metacristi;147637 wrote:
if sharia is retained (I've already pointed this in another post). What do you want us (critics of islam) to do more? Wait for muslims to take over


metacristi;147637 wrote:
Existing evidence points clearly toward the fact that the model of the Middle East will move to the West if muslims ever 'take over'.


metacristi;147637 wrote:
My 'bigotry' and 'irrational fear' (islamophobia) exists


metacristi;147637 wrote:
I was provoked as in other occasions when I dealt with muslims,


metacristi;147637 wrote:
muslims seem incapable to think that someone can criticize islam with honesty


metacristi;147637 wrote:
I've always tried to focus on providing rational arguments.


metacristi;147637 wrote:
If the muslim fellow had known to tolerate alternative views (whilst offering counterarguments compatible with a minimal standard of argumentation) my tone would have been milder


metacristi;147637 wrote:
of course the criticism would have been basically the same.


metacristi;147637 wrote:
What makes you believe that I do not understand the nature of islam?


metacristi;147637 wrote:
I'm afraid


metacristi;147637 wrote:
when seen from a rational standpoint


metacristi;147637 wrote:
Where are the apologies for the conquests made in the name of Islam?


metacristi;147637 wrote:
islamic apologists try to persuade us that the conquerors of Egypt, Palestine, North Africa, Persia, Anatolia (all Byzantine Empire finally) and so on were in reality...'still pagan' (a forced move for no one dares to challenge the view that the qur'an is the eternal and exact word of allah and muhammad the perfect human being; dishonesty ad infinitum).


metacristi;147637 wrote:
one cannot use this to defend islam against the common sense observation that it teaches hate, violence and discrimination against non-muslims.


................................................. We are all speechless.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 04:18 am
@jeeprs,
Hi meta,

You are not only fearful and frustrated, but you are angry too. Anger leads to rantings. I am extremely sorry to say this, but is it not clear?.

You say your arguments are rational. But it is irrational all the way. You keep on saying 'muslims are this or that or you tend to say all muslims are like this and that. How can that be rational. This is a small example to demonstrate your carelessness. To have an healthy debate, you need to be circumspect, and discrete.

Further, as your so called proofs, you bring up some opinions of some individuals or give links to substantiate your point. Well, my friend, the internet is an ocean of opinions not facts........ the number of links you may provide, i would be able to provide double that proving exactly the opposite of what you want to argue upon. And ofcourse vice versa. Kindly avoid giving links, that a bad practise, unless asked for. Good arguments are not based on such double opinions. It can only be based on facts, good logic, good reasons, and good intellect.

A few points:
You say: "that's why the contribution of islam to Modernity is minimal at best"

Sir, this may shock you, and it may appear to you as rhetorical, but let me tell you that 'modernity' is not considered any good, to say the least, in some intelligent quarters. What contribution has any religion played in 'modernity'. You are confusing advancement in thought, by way of philosophy and practical politics with religious contributions. If christian monks and preists have contributed to science, so also have islamic scholars and adherants who have as much contributed to mathematics, logic, geometry and astronomy, and philosophy in general. And i am only talking about post death of Mohammed. So let us get our facts correct.

Of course, the western educational system has kept these secrets out of your reach. Like, all nations will run their own propaganda, and you are victim to that. So one cannot find fault in ones ignorance. This is the making of a system.

Having said this, I do not have a grudge against modernity, although i may have some reservations. If islam is against modernity, than you would not have a Dubai, or Malayasia, Lebanon, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, Turkey or Indonesia, where the so called 'modernity' has set in a few decades ago. Please check up. These are places where the majority are muslims. So please stop your illogical assertions based on 'islamisation means anti-modernity' tirade.

Then you say: The real problem is whether the killings done in the name of Christianity can be really justified with the Scriptures.

Thats like saying, the christian goons can rape anyone, kill, massacre, and cut down sacred forests of red indians, and say 'hey don't blame christianity; its not written or approved in the bible'.......... Thats poor defense. You sound just like the ulemas who justify killings in the name of 'jihad', a word found in Koran. ..... its just that you are defending by going into scriptural authorisation or the lack of it. Thats dogma - the other side of it. You are no different, my friend.

Now...... it is not my case to defend islam. I tend to broadly agree and sympatise with the problems we face due to fundamentalists terrorrism. Of course its a genuine concern. But you cannot tackle it by being equally irrational of some of them are to a majority of us including a majority of muslim dominated nations of our world.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:26 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
I find it very strange that those who cant accept the truth of Islam can never rebuke those who criticise it with anything other than rhetoric...I always say if those who believe Islam teaches peace and tolerance, just join an average Muslim web site but beware you can be easily banned for disrespect. I lasted five years, quite a record for a non believer.

The public face of Islam is quite different to the teachings. It never advertises the extremes of its scriptures and is very publicly astute at hiding its extremist preachers, since the recent terrorist attacks. There are many moderate muslims , the majority, but the scriptures allow extremist voices to be believed and carry authority.

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 06:30 AM -------
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 05:50 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;147776 wrote:
Hi meta,

You are not only fearful and frustrated, but you are angry too. Anger leads to rantings. I am extremely sorry to say this, but is it not clear?.

You say your arguments are rational. But it is irrational all the way. You keep on saying 'muslims are this or that or you tend to say all muslims are like this and that.


But he does not say that at all. He is talking about the religion, not about the people. He is saying that insofar as Mulims are guided by their religion, they are a great peril. And, I tend to agree.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 12:17 pm
@xris,
xris;147785 wrote:
I find it very strange that those who cant accept the truth of Islam can never rebuke those who criticise it with anything other than rhetoric...I always say if those who believe Islam teaches peace and tolerance, just join an average Muslim web site but beware you can be easily banned for disrespect. I lasted five years, quite a record for a non believer.

The public face of Islam is quite different to the teachings. It never advertises the extremes of its scriptures and is very publicly astute at hiding its extremist preachers, since the recent terrorist attacks. There are many moderate muslims , the majority, but the scriptures allow extremist voices to be believed and carry authority.

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 06:30 AM -------


Do you have anyway to defend this argument?

Demonstrate which scriptures you are talking about? You make assertions without any knowledge of the subject at all.

Post the passages you have issue with and I will gladly demonstrate where your lack of understanding has led to complete ignorance of the subject.

otherwise, admit that you are are a fear monger.

[links are a co-out, if you can't take the tyime to write what you know then you demonstrate to everyone that you know nothing]

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 11:19 AM ----------

kennethamy;147797 wrote:
But he does not say that at all. He is talking about the religion, not about the people. He is saying that insofar as Mulims are guided by their religion, they are a great peril. And, I tend to agree.



There is no rational way to defend Meta's point. he is simply an ignorant fear monger. So, in order that you are not lumped into the same category, EXPLAIN why you tend to agree with meta's particular brand of bigotry.
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 12:51 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;147899 wrote:
Do you have anyway to defend this argument?

Demonstrate which scriptures you are talking about? You make assertions without any knowledge of the subject at all.

Post the passages you have issue with and I will gladly demonstrate where your lack of understanding has led to complete ignorance of the subject.

otherwise, admit that you are are a fear monger.

[links are a co-out, if you can't take the tyime to write what you know then you demonstrate to everyone that you know nothing]

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 11:19 AM ----------




There is no rational way to defend Meta's point. he is simply an ignorant fear monger. So, in order that you are not lumped into the same category, EXPLAIN why you tend to agree with meta's particular brand of bigotry.

So you immediately claim I have no knowledge of the subject in question? thats a good start. Do you agree that violent jihad is permitted or not? Do you agree that certain imams encourage violence or not? Do you agree there is a division in the Muslim community that suicide bombers are carrying out holy Jihad? Don't accuse me of fear mongering when a Muslim terrorist attack by suicide is committed every week somewhere in this world. If they have the conviction its holy, tell them they are fear mongering not me.
 
metacristi
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 01:33 pm
@xris,
xris;147911 wrote:
So you immediately claim I have no knowledge of the subject in question? thats a good start. Do you agree that violent jihad is permitted or not? Do you agree that certain imams encourage violence or not? Do you agree there is a division in the Muslim community that suicide bombers are carrying out holy Jihad? Don't accuse me of fear mongering when a Muslim terrorist attack by suicide is committed every week somewhere in this world. If they have the conviction its holy, tell them they are fear mongering not me.


Many fanatic muslims are just like this guy, they don't argue they go straight to invectives (he's certainly not radical but not real moderate either; unfortunately as Sam Harris put it well islam is all fringe but no center). As a matter of fact they don't even try to think rationally when islam is in question, the idea that islam can be criticized with honesty, legitimately, using Reason is alien to them. I agree that probably I am too harsh with islam (it has some good points no doubt) but unfortunately there are too many dark parts of islam, dwarfing its good parts, which have to be commented first...Yes I fully agree with you that the Salafists have a very strong justification for their acts, even for terrorism, in basic islamic traditions, the problem with islam is much deeper than what is contended by the supporters of postmodernist political correctness. That's why the fatwa (a laudable initiative anyways, I do not want to downplay it) won't have a too great success among the supporters of Bin Laden (Salafists in nature), let's hope however that it will resonate at least among the suppoprters of 'mainstream' islam (much more numerous) by deterring them to join the Salafists; unfortunately less terrorism & extreme methods to carry terror do not imply that the many other problems with islam (mainstream or not) go away (jihad=holy war included).


Comparing Jesus and Muhammad, Christianity and Islam


Belief can blunt human reason and common sense even in learned scholars. Rational thought requires more impartial study. - Ali Dashti, one of the victims of islamic persecutions in Iran

In other words, if a country is perceived to be hindering the spread of Islam, Muslims are obliged to wage war against it. This would, of course, be a defensive conflict, since the hindrances came first. Here then is another illustration of how elastic and essentially meaningless the concept of fighting only in self-defense has become. What constitutes a sufficient provocation? Must the defending side wait until the enemy strikes the first military blow? These questions have no clear or definitive answers in Islamic law, making it possible for anyone to portray virtually any struggle as defensive without violating the strict canons of that law. But this also renders meaningless the oft-repeated claims that jihad warfare can only be defensive. - Robert Spencer on the claim that jihad is only defensive
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 02:52 pm
@xris,
xris;147911 wrote:
So you immediately claim I have no knowledge of the subject in question?


From the remarks you have posted so far, YES, I claim you have no knowledge of the subject and the fact that you FAILED to post a single passage only point.

xris;147911 wrote:
thats a good start.


I agree.

xris;147911 wrote:
Do you agree that violent jihad is permitted or not?


Yes, I agree that when violent foreign invaders, such as the western european christian states that have been waging social, political, and economic warfare in the Arab world over the last 100 years, abuse, murder, rape, and steal from muslims in muslim lands then the LESSER jihad is permitted.

It is very advanced religion that concedes that war will always exist and therefore sets about rules to clearly define what is acceptable warfare.

The christian version of Holy War is a perfect example of Christianity's intellectual inefficiencies to grasp complex philosophical thought.


xris;147911 wrote:
Do you agree that certain imams encourage violence or not?


Absolutely. Just as you agree that certain christianists dress up in white robes and hang colored folk. Just as you agree that certain christianists shoot mexicans along the border, just as you agree that certain christianists scream out 'GOD HATES FAGS!" at the funeral services of fallen veterans. just as you agree that certain christianists walk into CHURCHES and kill doctors in front of their friends and families.

What is your point? that CERTAIN elements of every religion has whackjobs? fine agreed.


xris;147911 wrote:
Do you agree there is a division in the Muslim community that suicide bombers are carrying out holy Jihad?


Absolutely, the division exists between the vast majority of muslims who denounce all acts of violence in the name of god and those few unstable minorities who have been severely traumatized by the raping and pillaging of the arab world by western european christianists.

When the US and its European allies destroy peoples lives they have nothing left to live for. When a crushed people have no offshore missile frigates to safely launch death from twenty miles out at sea they have to become the missile themselves. If you give your enemies the same weapons capabilities I assure you they will stop blowing themselves up. Of course then they will blow you up with as much efficiency as you have been blowing them up for the past 75 years.

xris;147911 wrote:
Don't accuse me of fear mongering when a Muslim terrorist attack by suicide is committed every week somewhere in this world.


I assure you that if the western christianist states stop invading foreign lands, murdering foreign people, stealing foreign treasure and resources, and all in the name of Jesus "I never really existed" christ, then you will no longer have foreign peoples retaliating against YOU.

xris;147911 wrote:
If they have the conviction its holy, tell them they are fear mongering not me.


But the fact remains that YOU are the fearmonger, spreading your ignorance and lies with every post.

As long as you continue to lie and spread your fear I am gonna call you out and demonstrate everywhere you are quite obviously mistaken

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 02:04 PM ----------

metacristi;147927 wrote:
islam is all fringe but no center


FEAR MONGERING!!!! You have no evidence for this ignorant opinion.

xris;147911 wrote:
they don't even try to think rationally when islam is in question, the idea that islam can be criticized with honesty, legitimately, using Reason is alien to them.


FEAR MONGERING!!! You have no evidence to support this ignorant opinion

xris;147911 wrote:
there are too many dark parts of islam, dwarfing its good parts


FEAR MONGERING!!!! You have no evidence to support this ignorant opinion.

xris;147911 wrote:
In other words, if a country is perceived to be hindering the spread of Islam, Muslims are obliged to wage war against it.


FEAR MONGERING!!!! You have no evidence to support this ignornat opinion.

[/COLOR]
xris;147911 wrote:
What constitutes a sufficient provocation?


100 years of invasion, murder, coups and plundering.


[/COLOR]
xris;147911 wrote:
Must the defending side wait until the enemy strikes the first military blow?

If you had ever read a single word out of the Koran you would know the answer to this is yes. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the history of the 20th century has proved time and again. Muslim societies have all waited until western chrisitianists struck the first blow.

xris;147911 wrote:
xris;147911 wrote:
These questions have no clear or definitive answers in Islamic law,


Further proving you have never read a single word of the Koran.


Why do you continue to further embarrass yourself with thise unintelligent speculations founded entirely on bigotry and christianist extremist blogs?

You are clearly quite afraid and your fear has driven you mad. It is sad that you choose to continue. Although its much more sad that you actually believe the lunacies you post.
[/COLOR]
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:02 pm
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;147899 wrote:
Do you have anyway to defend this argument?

Demonstrate which scriptures you are talking about? You make assertions without any knowledge of the subject at all.

Post the passages you have issue with and I will gladly demonstrate where your lack of understanding has led to complete ignorance of the subject.

otherwise, admit that you are are a fear monger.

[links are a co-out, if you can't take the tyime to write what you know then you demonstrate to everyone that you know nothing]

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 11:19 AM ----------




There is no rational way to defend Meta's point. he is simply an ignorant fear monger. So, in order that you are not lumped into the same category, EXPLAIN why you tend to agree with meta's particular brand of bigotry.


That is just like the question, have you stopped beating your wife? When you ask a non-question-begging question, I may reply to you.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 01:33 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;148064 wrote:
That is just like the question, have you stopped beating your wife? When you ask a non-question-begging question, I may reply to you.



In other words you have no way to defend your opinion. I thought as much.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 03:57 am
@trismegisto,
trismegisto;148116 wrote:
In other words you have no way to defend your opinion. I thought as much.
I will ignore your abuse as it is evidently beyond your ability to express yourself without it.

Would you say the debate among Muslims is not yet resolved on the question of suicide?

Would you also agree that Islam was spread by the sword. You try to claim that Islam only acts in a defensive war,not aggressive, well history quite clearly shows that on the majority of occassions it only ever advanced by invasion.

Would you also say that a man who held slave girls for his satisfaction is not exactly the man to be given so much respect? You know as well as I that many Muslims believe it has authority to advance Islam by any means. Why you find it necessary to abuse my post is because you see I am making others aware of your devious intentions.

Look at the UMMHA it is a fine example,casual visitors find moderate views expressed but join and you will soon find the extremist views spewed out,t hey will give you your scriptures,they use,to excuse their bigoted opinions. Argue with them , they are the ones that brought Islam to my attention. Before I visited that site I believed Islam a moderate faith exploited by a few nutters but now I realise it has violence an extremists views embedded in its very nature.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 05:16 am
@jeeprs,
Friends,

Somehow, this tend to happen. The object of the OP was perhaps to highlight a positive developement in the religio-political sphere of current affairs, but sadly we do not want to see and talk about the positives, but only the negative.

I wonder how many of you actually read the entire article linked up in the OP, for a start. Then, how many have actually read the Koran or the Bible in entirety. How many have actually discussed these issues with an kazi or an maulana or read there books, or still at the least have one discussed the issue with a close practising muslim freind. Or do you have any such friends, is a doubt that exists.

Anyway, it is a sad commentary on human affairs. I do not see any fear-mongering so far. But expressing ones fear is quite legitimate in debate. The need is to calm the disturbed waters. I also have not seen any bad words written against a particular religion, thats a relief so far. This needs to be appreciated. And i hope we restrict ourselves under this framework.

A few points for your considerations:
For muslims:
While it is true that extremism in its various avatars has spread across the globe, there are some extremists who take the name of their god, while doing a dastardly act, and sanctify their ill deed by saying it is under 'jihad'. This constant invocation of the name of God, is what gives out a wrong impression or message to the victimised society. So it is natural for the victims and their family, and the society to believe that they are being targeted for the religion they follow.

If one can accept this reality, than it is time for muslims, just like the Ullema in the OP, to introspect the need to de-hyphenate islam from terrorism, and condemn all such acts. The theological interpretations needs to be reviewed and revisited. The problem for the ullema's is that they gave a very rigid understandings of the Koran and sharia to the laity, and kept people out of any theological discusions. Keeping people in the dark, and propagating and druming up emotions in the name of God, has tempered the minds of the believers in Islam.

Today, the same old fashioned obstinacy, and adherants to sharia, as a sacred duty in the name of God, and keeping the essence of the messages in Koran or Quran, out of the main discourse of religious life, has led to a situation where they find themselves in a difficult position to explain the rise of the violent cults like al qaeda.

For non-muslims
Please, understand that the suicide bombers, by all practical news, facts and data available, are all young people, some are in teens. You should agree that most of the youths can easily be trapped in the jihadi agenda. They can be motivated easily if there is despair, chaos and anarchy in their living conditions. Poverty, lack of education, lack of econoic avenues or opportunities for employment is the main pool from where the jihadi recruitments takes place. One can well argue that these factors are the result of the culture and socio-economic conditions in which they are placed. One can argue that some ullemas and shaikhs are themselves the real culprits.

While all this may be true to certain extent and geographies, it should be also be admitted that the religion that practises for social justice, and equality for all cannot be directly blamed. It is the interpretators of the scriptures which have doen the major harm. By charging the blame or complaint agaist the scripture is an ad-hominen attack without understanding the facts of the verses in the Holy Koran. The more you attack the scripture the more jihadis will be born. There is many reasons for this, socio-cultural and psycho social in nature. But one simple reason being that that idea by itself is wrong and unjust.

More later.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 06:16 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
BUT even the moderate Muslim will tell you they can understand why they commit these horrors, you have seen it here. The problem will always be that Islam allows violent jihad, no matter what the moderate imam tells his congregation, the violence can be given reason by scriptures. Its a problem for Muslims as much as it is for the non believer.
 
trismegisto
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 11:55 am
@xris,
xris;148145 wrote:
I will ignore your abuse as it is evidently beyond your ability to express yourself without it.


You certainly will not! You will sit there and take my abuse. I am not going to let you run around bullying people with your ignorant fear mongering without taking some bullying of your own. If you feel it is acceptable to spread your lies and fears then I find it acceptable to clearly demonstrate to the world exactly how ignorant you are.

Now quit with you sophomoric OPINION and supply some evidence to back up your moronic assertions!!!

I can't believe I gotta go through again and point out how utterly stuoid you are on this topic. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

xris;148145 wrote:
Would you say the debate among Muslims is not yet resolved on the question of suicide?


No I would not, where do YOU get that OPINION from? Supply evidence.

xris;148145 wrote:
Would you also agree that Islam was spread by the sword.


No I would not, where you YOU get that OPINION from? Supply evidence.

xris;148145 wrote:
You try to claim that Islam only acts in a defensive war,not aggressive, well history quite clearly shows that on the majority of occassions it only ever advanced by invasion.


No it does not, where do YOU get that OPINION from? Supply evidence.

xris;148145 wrote:
Would you also say that a man who held slave girls for his satisfaction is not exactly the man to be given so much respect?


No I would not, where do YOU get that OPINION from? Supply evidence


xris;148145 wrote:
You know as well as I that many Muslims believe it has authority to advance Islam by any means.


No I do not, where do YOU get that OPINION from? Supply evidence


xris;148145 wrote:
Why you find it necessary to abuse my post is because you see I am making others aware of your devious intentions.


Thank you for once again proving you are an idiot. How can I not abuse your post? are you kidding me? My whole life I have kicked the S*** out of bullies and I am certainly not going to stop with you.

You sit locked away in your little room safe from all the scary things in the world and you lash out at the world with your fear and ignorance, yoo are the worst kind of bully because you are so afraid that you don't even realize that you are the bad guy, well, I can't physically slap some sense into you so I have to do the next best thing. I have to embarrass you with your own ignorance in front of this entire forum. Do you really think that any sane people listen to a single word of your stupidity?

xris;148145 wrote:
Look at the UMMHA it is a fine example,casual visitors find moderate views expressed but join and you will soon find the extremist views spewed out,t hey will give you your scriptures,they use,to excuse their bigoted opinions. Argue with them , they are the ones that brought Islam to my attention. Before I visited that site I believed Islam a moderate faith exploited by a few nutters but now I realise it has violence an extremists views embedded in its very nature.


Jesus "I got stabbed in the side" Christ you are a moron!!!!!

Tell me you did not actually go to a muslim site with your ignorance. You can can't even defend yourself here against non muslims what did you expect to do at a place where every person you come in contact with is infinitely more educated on the subject than you!?!

Do yourself a favor and just stop posting. Its much better that we all just THINK you are an idiot than to continue with your drivel and prove to us ALL that we are correct.
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
Reply Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:30 pm
@xris,
xris;148178 wrote:
BUT even the moderate Muslim will tell you they can understand why they commit these horrors, you have seen it here. The problem will always be that Islam allows violent jihad, no matter what the moderate imam tells his congregation, the violence can be given reason by scriptures. Its a problem for Muslims as much as it is for the non believer.


I think you have focussed the issue to a central point. I thank you for that. Lets forget all that was said until now, and try and focus on this proposition/observation of yours ..... "Islam allows violent jihad".

This is the cruz of the problem, according to you and many others, who otherwise also understands Islam to whatever great or little extent, but it all boild down to violence. This issue of allowance or alleged approval in 'Islam' is the core of all debates on this topic. And its a fair and valid point of view.

Believe me, if you say, that inspite of the moderate imams, maulanas, and ullema councils appeal to calm and tolerance does not go well with muslims, and a muslim will do a jihad in any circumstances, than, the corrollary of your suggestion would mean anarchy, and destruction all around, ten times over. By which i mean, if the entire islamic world is doing a jihad, then your and my neighbourhood would have been a hell to live in by now.

You are right, when you say that there are verses in Koran which suggests a call for war. But please look at the context in which a war is suggested. I can't understand, and since there was a emphasis on being rational, in which case it should be much more easier to understand the practical side of Koran. I should say, that it is one scripture where you will find less of hypocrisy, and idealism. In its application it is very practical. If it says, that one should take up causes for the sake of justice, against sinners and those who leads an unethical life and currupts a society by their own free will, and personal aggrandisement. I ask whats wrong if it is written (even as one would accept for arguments sake that the POV is correct, as argued) to go to war for the sake of justice and peace. The principle is a human principle. Now, that it is written is a crime, and therefore evil, is not a sound argument. It is a natural law. It is across board. It is found in all societies, human or animal.

Moreover, tell me which scripture does not talk of violence. The old testament is full of violence, retribution, revenge and power just at a drop of an hat. One should not forget the context in which prophet Mohammed had written (or revealed) the Koran. The society, inspite of jewish laws, christian laws, pagan laws, was full of crime and corrupt officers of the state. Christians and Jews were controlling trade and commerce while the sheikhs were indulging in debauchery, and snatching wealth by whatever means. The prophet could understand that no morals or ethical standards can be inculcated in the citizenry without the actual behavioural standards being set at the top by the officials in power. He saw how the feudals, nobles or warriors were treating the minorities, the weak and the disadvantageous. It included slaves, women, children, sick and disabled. Persecution of the weak nd poor was at its peak. He led an army of hundreds against thousands.

That islam allows violent jihad is true only to the extent that it calls for action whenever evil and immorality threatens the fabric of a just and peaceful society. Whats so wrong about that. Which religion does not allow violence when the security and moral environment is under threat. It is an hypocrisy for christians and jews to say so. I wont go into history now. Even Hindu scriptures, The chinese and japanese culture calls for war.

So, if we think we are rational, logical and reasonable as against being emotional, idealistic, romanticist and platonic, than a consideration of good sound judgemnet shal reveal that Islam allows violent jihad is true and practical call for action. It is just that it is written in plain words, while in other scriptures including the New testament it is hidden and implicit.

The real question should be, in todays context, whether killing of innocents are allowed in Islam?.... There are more than a couple of verses where it is categorically disallowed. The debate should end there.

Now, the question that will remain is 'why is than so many terrorists using violent and destructive means to make political statements'?; 'Why do they do suicide bombings and target societies which according to them is anti-islamists, atheistic, secular and modern?;

Lets try and answer these issues.

---------- Post added 04-05-2010 at 12:13 AM ----------

Hi trismegisto

Sir, xris , is a senior member, you should not treat his opinions like this. I humbly would like to inform you that he is not what you have stated he seems to be. I request you to take back those words, rest are fine, you have your style. Please exericise caution and patience. Thanks
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 10:35:50