Senior cleric declares Fatwa on terrorism

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

josh0335
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 04:52 pm
@metacristi,
There's so much nonsense on this thread, I don't know where to start. I don't mind helping explain classical Islam and its application today if anyone has any genuine questions?
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 04:58 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;148654 wrote:
There's so much nonsense on this thread, I don't know where to start. I don't mind helping explain classical Islam and its application today if anyone has any genuine questions?


[SIZE="3"]Why Moslems celebrated 9\11\2001?[/SIZE]
 
metacristi
 
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2010 06:27 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;148654 wrote:
There's so much nonsense on this thread, I don't know where to start. I don't mind helping explain classical Islam and its application today if anyone has any genuine questions?



Many Christians and even Jews accept that the laws of the Old Testament are no more applicable in the modern context (being valid only in the remote past) and that the Bible is not infallible, requiring a symbolic interpretation in many aspects (being the work of fallible human beings influenced by the Divinity, their interpretation of God's will). We call them moderates (a wing of the Anglican Church even advocates renouncing condemning homosexuality). Can muslims do the same with sharia and the Qur'an (based on classical Islam of course)?
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:06 am
@metacristi,
metacristi;148697 wrote:
Many Christians and even Jews accept that the laws of the Old Testament are no more applicable in the modern context (being valid only in the remote past) and that the Bible is not infallible, requiring a symbolic interpretation in many aspects (being the work of fallible human beings influenced by the Divinity, their interpretation of God's will). We call them moderates (a wing of the Anglican Church even advocates renouncing condemning homosexuality). Can muslims do the same with sharia and the Qur'an (based on classical Islam of course)?

This is an extremely valid question for all muslims. Can they live in a democracy and not make demands on the secular society they choose to live in. If they abhor the Turkish mode of government , why should ours be beneficial to them? When we see sharia in action it does not give us any reason to embrace it or even tolerate it. Many Muslims will give you the better definitions of scripture, conveniently ignoring the nasty bits but others free to express themselves without recall will point the nasty bits out with relish.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 04:33 am
@xris,
metacristi;148697 wrote:
Many Christians and even Jews accept that the laws of the Old Testament are no more applicable in the modern context (being valid only in the remote past) and that the Bible is not infallible, requiring a symbolic interpretation in many aspects (being the work of fallible human beings influenced by the Divinity, their interpretation of God's will). We call them moderates (a wing of the Anglican Church even advocates renouncing condemning homosexuality). Can muslims do the same with sharia and the Qur'an (based on classical Islam of course)?


The Qur'an is considered a miracle by Muslims. The thing that dumbfounded the Arab pagans was the literary and linguistic style of the Qur'an, resulting in people accusing Muhammad of being a sorcerer or possesed by jinn. Arabic grammar, syntax, morphology and rhetoric was developed from the language of the Qur'an; it was the highest standard of Arabic ever witnessed and thus used as a 'textbook' for lingustic science! Meaning even non-Muslim Arabs use the techniques found in the Qur'an which were not present in the language before. If you're asking whether Muslims can reject the miracle status of the Qur'an, and accept it as Muhammad's personal effort, then the answer is no. How can Muslims do such a thing when they can witness the miracle themselves every time they read the Qur'an? Those who witnessed the parting of the red sea would not have relegated it to a story of symbolic nature a few years later. Modern Christians and Jews only interpret the story of Moses symbolically because they did not witness it themselves. But this is not the case with Muslims.

The question of sharia hinges on what your understanding of sharia actually is. Sharia is not 'God's law', as many Muslims will tell you. Sharia is man's attempt at implementing God's law. This is an important distinction. Some aspects of sharia are perfectly clear in Islam like praying five times a day, giving 1.5% of wealth to charity, fasting during the month of ramadan etc. These aspects leave no room for interpretation. Other aspects, are not only up for interpretation but also must necassarily change with the times. Things like fiat currency, taxing and inflation, freedom of movement between states, penal system etc. It is this area where scholarship has failed in Islam. I'm not going to go into the reasons why I think this has happened, but the spirit of reform and keeping the faith alive and dynamic essentially died with the Ottoman Empire.

Buried deep amongst the wahabi rhetoric, there are Muslims trying to re-ignite spirit of true classical scholarship in Islam. I recently read a book by Prof Scott Kugle, Homosexuality in Islam, who believes homosexuals and people with gender ambiguities are mentioned in the Qur'an in a positive manner. I didn't even know of these verses until I read his book. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, it shows people are still attempting to interpret the scriptures to help us with the human condition today. And that really is how sharia is understood by most Muslims.

xris;148747 wrote:
This is an extremely valid question for all muslims. Can they live in a democracy


Islam has been democratic from the start.

Quote:
and not make demands on the secular society they choose to live in. If they abhor the Turkish mode of government
You know nothing about Turkey. I've told you this before but you've clearly refused to do any research on the topic.

Quote:
, why should ours be beneficial to them?
What is 'ours' and who is 'them'?

Quote:
When we see sharia in action it does not give us any reason to embrace it or even tolerate it. Many Muslims will give you the better definitions of scripture, conveniently ignoring the nasty bits but others free to express themselves without recall will point the nasty bits out with relish.
What nasty bits are you referring to?
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 05:10 am
@josh0335,
Islamic democracy is nothing like secular democracy, in my opinion Islam can never be democratic because it demands gods laws not mans. Secular democracy safeguards us from the tyranny of extremism, allowed for in scriptures. How could a Muslim country allow a political party that opposed gods laws? Its incompatible. We see it Iran. By its nature it excludes non Muslims from the process.

This is why you oppose the Turkish model of democracy, it imposes that secular law is above gods law.

The nasty bits are such as the treatment of slaves , how when the non believer refuses to become Muslim, the treatment of women and how they should obey their husbands wishes. When the prophet married a child and kept slave girls. When it is allowed to have sex with slaves and split slave families up , when selling them. I cant help but question the morals and the behaviour of a faith that has allowed such excesses.
 
metacristi
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 06:11 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;148755 wrote:
The Qur'an is considered a miracle by Muslims. The thing that dumbfounded the Arab pagans was the literary and linguistic style of the Qur'an, resulting in people accusing Muhammad of being a sorcerer or possesed by jinn. Arabic grammar, syntax, morphology and rhetoric was developed from the language of the Qur'an; it was the highest standard of Arabic ever witnessed and thus used as a 'textbook' for lingustic science! Meaning even non-Muslim Arabs use the techniques found in the Qur'an which were not present in the language before. If you're asking whether Muslims can reject the miracle status of the Qur'an, and accept it as Muhammad's personal effort, then the answer is no. How can Muslims do such a thing when they can witness the miracle themselves every time they read the Qur'an? Those who witnessed the parting of the red sea would not have relegated it to a story of symbolic nature a few years later. Modern Christians and Jews only interpret the story of Moses symbolically because they did not witness it themselves. But this is not the case with Muslims.

The question of sharia hinges on what your understanding of sharia actually is. Sharia is not 'God's law', as many Muslims will tell you. Sharia is man's attempt at implementing God's law. This is an important distinction. Some aspects of sharia are perfectly clear in Islam like praying five times a day, giving 1.5% of wealth to charity, fasting during the month of ramadan etc. These aspects leave no room for interpretation. Other aspects, are not only up for interpretation but also must necassarily change with the times. Things like fiat currency, taxing and inflation, freedom of movement between states, penal system etc. It is this area where scholarship has failed in Islam. I'm not going to go into the reasons why I think this has happened, but the spirit of reform and keeping the faith alive and dynamic essentially died with the Ottoman Empire.

Buried deep amongst the wahabi rhetoric, there are Muslims trying to re-ignite spirit of true classical scholarship in Islam. I recently read a book by Prof Scott Kugle, Homosexuality in Islam, who believes homosexuals and people with gender ambiguities are mentioned in the Qur'an in a positive manner. I didn't even know of these verses until I read his book. Although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, it shows people are still attempting to interpret the scriptures to help us with the human condition today. And that really is how sharia is understood by most Muslims.



Yes more or less the official 'point of view'. But I hope you understand that non-muslims cannot accept uncritically what you tell us; unfortunately we have to reject a lot (even the divine nature of the qur'an and its unicity) and to condemn the double standards advocated by the islamic doctrines. There are a lot of reasons for this (although muslims do not really understand, do not even want to understand the arguments; in fact the mere existence of criticism is 'offensive' for them, your first post here is another proof), no matter that you want it or not sharia belongs to the 7th century. The islamic world is the only part of the world where religious constitutions still survive and this say much about islam; finally it's crystal clear for all rational thinkers that a defense like 'islam is the only true religion' thus its discriminatory laws are acceptable at all times is a perfect non-argument. Unfortunately islam is not compatible with real democracy (secularism is a must by the way) and universal human rights (as much as sharia is retained), the 'lot of nonsense' you were talking about was primarily about this and about the fact that the islam of the last 1400 years has definitely not been moderate. islam has still to prove that it is a religion of peace, and it has no internal mechanisms to prevent the abuse of minorities. Think beyond what your traditions taught you and you'll easily see this.


Querying the Koran- there must be no barriers for freedom of [rational] inquiry; basically nothing is beyond rational criticism and possible replacement in the future (but critical thinking does not imply criticism for the sake of criticism)
Would the Earliest Quranic Manuscripts of Sana'a Spell the Downfall of Islam?
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 06:11 am
@xris,
xris;148758 wrote:
Islamic democracy is nothing like secular democracy


So? There are many forms of secular democracy.

Quote:
in my opinion Islam can never be democratic because it demands gods laws not mans.


Islam is democratic.

Quote:
Secular democracy safeguards us from the tyranny of extremism,


No it doesn't.

Quote:
How could a Muslim country allow a political party that opposed gods laws?


It can't. But nor can a secular country allow a party that opposes the constitution.

Quote:
Its incompatible.


What is incompatible? Islam and secularism, yes. Islam and democracy, no.

Quote:
We see it Iran. By its nature it excludes non Muslims from the process.


Iran does not implement sharia understood by most Muslims.

Quote:
This is why you oppose the Turkish model of democracy, it imposes that secular law is above gods law.


You have no idea about why I oppose the 'Turkish model' because you have done absolutely no research on Turkey whatsoever. It is apparent in every remark you make about Turkey. Yet you don't have the humility to admit you've been exposed as being ignorant on the subject and simply stop talking.

Quote:
The nasty bits are such as the treatment of slaves ,


Slaverly was phasd out by Islam. And when it was still being implemented it gave rights to slaves which were non-existent when slavery was practised by the West. There is nothing nasty in Islam in regards to slavery.

Quote:
how when the non believer refuses to become Muslim,


There is no compulsion in religion. The Muslims have always had non-Muslim communities living amongst them.

Quote:
the treatment of women and how they should obey their husbands wishes.


Women are treated with dignity and respect. There's nothing nasty about that.

Quote:
When the prophet married a child


The marriage to Aisha was commanded by God. There is nothing nasty about it, especially considering she had reached puberty when the marriage was consumated. The marriage to Aisha is not an example Muslims are meant to follow, as it was not a normal marriage. Muslims see the divine plan of God when reviewing the life of Aisha. She was a greater scholar than the majority of men in her time, because she was bought up in the household of the Prophet. She bore no children and was forbidden to re-marry after he died. She thus dedicated her life to teaching Islam. The most intimate habits of the Prophet came exclusively from Aisha. The most complex Islamic science, inheritance, was taught almost exclusively by Aisha. None of the other wives of the Prophet reached this level of scholarship because they were too shy and respectful to question the Prophet. Aisha was the only one bold enough to question the Prophet and answer back, due to her being a child and being very inquisitive. She was the only one to get into arguments with the Prophet, giving Muslims examples of how people should conduct themselves when they get into fights with their spouse. She, on one occassion upset the Prophet to the point he considered divorcing her. And thus, Muslims had an example to follow regarding the way to conduct yourself when going through marital problems. All these teachings have come down to the Muslims via the marriage of Aisha. The point being, it was evident that it was because she was married as a child that she could reveal the parts of the Prophet's character that were still hidden despite having many other wives.

Quote:
and kept slave girls.


Slavery was permitted by Islam but phased out.

Quote:
When it is allowed to have sex with slaves and split slave families up , when selling them. I cant help but question the morals and the behaviour of a faith that has allowed such excesses.


Slavery was phased out. So there are no excesses to speak of.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 06:27 am
@josh0335,
Islam will not allow man to make laws, will it? Secular law is secular law, it is defined by man not god. Muslim democracies can not, will not permit true democracy, will it? You keep teling me I know nothing about Turkish democracy, do want me to post a link for you,a link I have read. Now you tell me what you oppose about Turkish democracy.

Mohamed betrothed that child when she was six and consummated the relationship when she was nine...Its this attitude that encourages dirty old men in the Taliban to take child wives. In my opinion and most civilised societies, puberty does not make a girl a women capable of sex with a grown man.

Slavery was continued for centuries by Islam, as late as the 1960s in KSA. What about Safiyah the Jewish girl taken as a slave and raped by Mohamed on the same day her father and husband was murdered by the muslims. You may see no historic reason to mention these facts but the morality is still there for us to examine and question.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 07:45 am
@xris,
metacristi;148772 wrote:

Yes more or less the official 'point of view'. But I hope you understand that non-muslims cannot accept uncritically what you tell us; unfortunately we have to reject a lot (including the divine nature of the qur'an or its unicity).


You asked whether Muslims can reform their view of their religion to something akin to how modern Christians and Jews view theirs, implying that this is more correct and acceptable to you. I've just explained to you why the case is different in Islam and you've responded by saying "Yes more or less the official 'point of view'". What was the point of asking the question in the first place if you're not going to absorb the response?

Quote:
no matter that you want it or not sharia belongs to the 7th century.
I've just explained to you what sharia is, and this is your response? What did I say that convinces you that sharia belongs in the 7th century? You think fasting for a month has no place in modern society?

Quote:
The islamic world is the only part of the world where religious constitutions still survive and this say many about islam;
Many of the religious constitutions you speak of are not reflective of what Muslims consider sharia.

Quote:
finally it's crystal clear for all rational thinkers that a defense like 'islam is the only true religions' thus its discriminatory laws are acceptable at all times is a perfect non-argument.
It's crytsal clear that no one has made this argument.

Quote:
Unfortunately islam is not compatible with real democracy
What is real democracy?

Quote:
and universal human rights (as much as sharia is retained), the 'lot of nonsense' you were talking about was primarily about this and about the fact that the islam of the last 1400 years is definitely not moderate. Think beyond what your traditions taught you and you'll easily see this.
What is not moderate about Islam?

xris;148774 wrote:
Islam will not allow man to make laws, will it?


Yes it will.

Quote:
Secular law is secular law,
Well done.

Quote:
Muslim democracies can not, will not permit true democracy, will it?
What is true democracy?

Quote:
You keep teling me I know nothing about Turkish democracy, do want me to post a link for you,a link I have read.
A link you've read? Is this what constitutes research these days? I was actually preparing a short list of research material for you to understand why those who support Turkey's history and application of secular democracy are no different to Muslims who support the Taliban. But I see it probably will make no difference to you.

Quote:
Mohamed betrothed that child when she was six and consummated the relationship when she was nine...Its this attitude that encourages dirty old men in the Taliban to take child wives.
Which is wrong. Islam teaches that this marriage was an exception and not to be imitated by anyone else.

Quote:
In my opinion and most civilised societies,
You do not speak on behalf of 'civilised societies'.

Quote:
puberty does not make a girl a women capable of sex with a grown man.
Yes it does. Her sexual organs are ready for sex and child bearing. But psychologically she would not be ready. That's why this marriage is not an example for Muslims to follow.

Quote:
Slavery was continued for centuries by Islam, as late as the 1960s in KSA.
KSA is not an example of a society following the teachings of Muhammad. In fact, there are still slaves in KSA today.

Quote:
What about Safiyah the Jewish girl taken as a slave and raped by Mohamed on the same day her father and husband was murdered by the muslims. You may see no historic reason to mention these facts but the morality is still there for us to examine and question.
She was his wife. So he did not rape her.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:07 am
@josh0335,
josh0335;148781 wrote:
You asked whether Muslims can reform their view of their religion to something akin to how modern Christians and Jews view theirs, implying that this is more correct and acceptable to you. I've just explained to you why the case is different in Islam and you've responded by saying "Yes more or less the official 'point of view'". What was the point of asking the question in the first place if you're not going to absorb the response?

I've just explained to you what sharia is, and this is your response? What did I say that convinces you that sharia belongs in the 7th century? You think fasting for a month has no place in modern society?

Many of the religious constitutions you speak of are not reflective of what Muslims consider sharia.

It's crytsal clear that no one has made this argument.

What is real democracy?

What is not moderate about Islam?



Yes it will.

Well done.

What is true democracy?

A link you've read? Is this what constitutes research these days? I was actually preparing a short list of research material for you to understand why those who support Turkey's history and application of secular democracy are no different to Muslims who support the Taliban. But I see it probably will make no difference to you.

Which is wrong. Islam teaches that this marriage was an exception and not to be imitated by anyone else.

You do not speak on behalf of 'civilised societies'.

Yes it does. Her sexual organs are ready for sex and child bearing. But psychologically she would not be ready. That's why this marriage is not an example for Muslims to follow.

KSA is not an example of a society following the teachings of Muhammad. In fact, there are still slaves in KSA today.

She was his wife. So he did not rape her.
you keep making these claims about Islam and democracy but the facts do not support your claims, in practice or by general consensus of Muslims. Democracy, secular democracy, can be available to all its citizens, Islamic government could not apply laws it considered un Islamic, therefor it would make laws only applicable to Islamic teaching. History of Islam has never ever shown itself capable of secular law or justice, ever. Apart from Turkey.

I do know the history of Turkey and it has a troubled past but it is reformed and is showing all the characteristics of a modern democracy .The military have had a certain input but they feel they are protecting the secular nature of its constitution. I probably don't know the details of Turkish history but it is democratic and it is progressing, not like other Muslim state where democracy is a joke.

I do speak for civilised opinion when it says a child is not physically or mentally capable of a sexual or emotional relationship at nine.

She,Safiyah was not married when she was raped by Mohamed on the day he killed her father and husband..How you can say that is a moral example for a faith that claims the moral high ground is amazing.

You keep on about not a good example of Islam,Iran KSA, is there one? has there ever been one? There are more slaves now than ever and Muslims are the main culprits. Its because they see the Prophet giving advice on the treatment of slaves but not the exclusion of keeping them.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 09:34 am
@xris,
xris;148788 wrote:
you keep making these claims about Islam and democracy but the facts do not support your claims, in practice or by general consensus of Muslims.


Yes, they do.

Quote:
Democracy, secular democracy, can be available to all its citizens, Islamic government could not apply laws it considered un Islamic, therefor it would make laws only applicable to Islamic teaching. History of Islam has never ever shown itself capable of secular law or justice, ever.
Secular law and justice are two different things. Yes, we've established that Islam is not secular. That doesn't mean it is not democratic.

Quote:
I do know the history of Turkey
Reading a website doesn't count.

Quote:
I do speak for civilised opinion when it says a child is not physically or mentally capable of a sexual or emotional relationship at nine.
A child who has reached puberty is physically capable of sex, male or female. Is it 'civilised' to believe this? Maybe not to you, but it's backed up by science. But what is the point you're trying to make here? That Muhammad was a pedophile and his life encourages men to marry young girls? Most Muslim men do not marry six year-olds because they are educated in their religion and would prefer a woman anyway.

Quote:
She,Safiyah was not married when she was raped by Mohamed on the day he killed her father and husband..How you can say that is a moral example for a faith that claims the moral high ground is amazing.
This is what happens when you visit anti-Islam websites for your research. Safiyyah was the wife of the Prophet. He did not marry her the day her father and husband were killed. They had sex after they were married, and so she was not raped. There is nothing immoral about this. But again, what is the point of you bringing this up? What are you trying to prove? That kidnapping and rape (even though that's not what happened) is acceptable in Islam?

Quote:
You keep on about not a good example of Islam,Iran KSA, is there one?
No.

Quote:
has there ever been one?
Yes.

Quote:
There are more slaves now than ever and Muslims are the main culprits.
How?

Quote:
Its because they see the Prophet giving advice on the treatment of slaves but not the exclusion of keeping them.
How do you know this?

The social engineering of the Qur'an and actions of the Prophet were clearly designed to phase out slavery. The majority of Muslims understand this.
 
polpol
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 12:26 pm
@Marat phil,
Marat;148657 wrote:
Why Moslems celebrated 9\11\2001?

Many non-muslims celebrated sept.11 too, though none dared to show it openly. Despite the horror, some people thought it was bound to happen sooner or later because the arrogance of American imperialism cannot go on forever. Before we knew who did it, some people felt that someone somewhere had decided that enough is enough. Some welcomed such a clear message... that someone somewhere is at least as powerful, as intelligeant and as rich as the Americans. Anyways, we will have to wait at least 50 years before we know what really happened. Some still think it was an inside job. I personally don't understand how the Americans can be so cynical as to turn such a tragedy into a tourist attraction. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are waiting the end of the war so they can give the reconstruction contract to O.Bin Laden's father, a good friend of the USA.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 12:41 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;148797 wrote:
Yes, they do.

Secular law and justice are two different things. Yes, we've established that Islam is not secular. That doesn't mean it is not democratic.

Reading a website doesn't count.

A child who has reached puberty is physically capable of sex, male or female. Is it 'civilised' to believe this? Maybe not to you, but it's backed up by science. But what is the point you're trying to make here? That Muhammad was a pedophile and his life encourages men to marry young girls? Most Muslim men do not marry six year-olds because they are educated in their religion and would prefer a woman anyway.

This is what happens when you visit anti-Islam websites for your research. Safiyyah was the wife of the Prophet. He did not marry her the day her father and husband were killed. They had sex after they were married, and so she was not raped. There is nothing immoral about this. But again, what is the point of you bringing this up? What are you trying to prove? That kidnapping and rape (even though that's not what happened) is acceptable in Islam?

No.

Yes.

How?

How do you know this?

The social engineering of the Qur'an and actions of the Prophet were clearly designed to phase out slavery. The majority of Muslims understand this.
So you tell me what democracy means in a muslim state, how does it differ to the charade we see in Iran.simple question.

Why cant you explain your views on Turkeys democracy and why you believe it is not a democracy? simple question.

The jewish widow was raped before she became his wife, the rest of her female companions just became sex slaves. You show me an unbiased opinion on slavery and the rape of female prisoners by Muslims?

If you consider a nine year old still playing with her dolls suitable for an aged mans sexual pleasure, what more can I say?

I know about slavery by research amnesty have carried out.

---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 01:44 PM ----------

polpol;148850 wrote:
Marat;148657 wrote:
Why Moslems celebrated 9\11\2001?

Many non-muslims celebrated sept.11 too, though none dared to show it openly. Despite the horror, some people thought it was bound to happen sooner or later because the arrogance of American imperialism cannot go on forever. Before we knew who did it, some people felt that someone somewhere had decided that enough is enough. Some welcomed such a clear message... that someone somewhere is at least as powerful, as intelligeant and as rich as the Americans. Anyways, we will have to wait at least 50 years before we know what really happened. Some still think it was an inside job. I personally don't understand how the Americans can be so cynical as to turn such a tragedy into a tourist attraction. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are waiting the end of the war so they can give the reconstruction contract to O.Bin Laden's father, a good friend of the USA.

So whats your opinion on those who celebrate the death of so many innocent civilians? do you celebrate their death.
 
josh0335
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:09 pm
@xris,
xris;148856 wrote:
So you tell me what democracy means in a muslim state, how does it differ to the charade we see in Iran.simple question.


The right to vote for their officials and administration, and thus the right to vote them out. The right to have an influence over social matters.

Quote:
Why cant you explain your views on Turkeys democracy and why you believe it is not a democracy? simple question.


When did I say it was not a democracy? Turkey's democracy is an imitation of Western models.

Quote:
The jewish widow was raped before she became his wife, the rest of her female companions just became sex slaves. You show me an unbiased opinion on slavery and the rape of female prisoners by Muslims?


The Jewish widow was not raped before she became his wife. Just admit that you learnt this from an anti-Islam website and stop embarrasing yourself.

Quote:
If you consider a nine year old still playing with her dolls suitable for an aged mans sexual pleasure, what more can I say?


No, I don't consider that. Try reading what I said.

Quote:
I know about slavery by research amnesty have carried out.


So tell me how Muslims are the main culprits of slavery due to Islam's teachings. You make these kind of comments but don't respond when I call you out.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 02:52 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;148880 wrote:
The right to vote for their officials and administration, and thus the right to vote them out. The right to have an influence over social matters.



When did I say it was not a democracy? Turkey's democracy is an imitation of Western models.



The Jewish widow was not raped before she became his wife. Just admit that you learnt this from an anti-Islam website and stop embarrasing yourself.



No, I don't consider that. Try reading what I said.



So tell me how Muslims are the main culprits of slavery due to Islam's teachings. You make these kind of comments but don't respond when I call you out.
Then your idea of democracy is false, it only allows the inclusion of Muslims in the system as I suspected but you were too reticent to admit it. You still after numerous times of asking refuse to give your opposition to a Turkish democratic state, why is that?

As for our Jewish widow , I asked you for a independent account as you assumed a bias view on my report. Did her female country women get raped and placed in slavery? something you avoided replying to.

So it is unnatural for an old man to bed a nine year old, you admit it?

Just look up amnesty thats what I referred you to. Why should millions of slaves be taken from Africa by muslims over six centuries if they had been convinced of its illegality. Even in the british Isles slaves were taken to Islam, hundreds of coastal villages raped and plundered for their human cargo, back to north Africa.
 
metacristi
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:23 pm
@josh0335,
josh0335;148781 wrote:
You asked whether Muslims can reform their view of their religion to something akin to how modern Christians and Jews view theirs, implying that this is more correct and acceptable to you. I've just explained to you why the case is different in Islam and you've responded by saying "Yes more or less the official 'point of view'". What was the point of asking the question in the first place if you're not going to absorb the response?


Well, if you have not realized yet, islam contradicts some fundamental values of Enlightenment which produced Modernity (the islamic world had only a marginal contribution to this by the way, islam certainly doesn't work). The only way in which islam can be made compatible with democracy is to renounce sharia for good (the political part of islam should be dropped entirely, islam should become a personal religion as are all other major religions). I wanted to know what average muslims think of sharia and I got the answer I expected: it is unlikely that islam will ever undergo a process of Enlightenment. Thanks.


Quote:
I've just explained to you what sharia is, and this is your response? What did I say that convinces you that sharia belongs in the 7th century? You think fasting for a month has no place in modern society?


You said nothing, sharia itself does: it is in total contradiction with elementary human rights. Happily we still have a standard of Rationality and it points ruthlessly towards my conclusion: sharia is incompatible with the modern world and a rational person should drop it totally.


Quote:
Many of the religious constitutions you speak of are not reflective of what Muslims consider sharia.


Sharia is sharia, curbing some fundamental human rights. Word games do not help.


Quote:
It's crytsal clear that no one has made this argument.


Are you sure? What else then mean "Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which God made the best nation that has given mankind..." and "Believing that fundamental rights and universal freedoms in Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one as a matter of principle has the right to suspend them in whole or in part or violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commandments, which are contained in the Revealed Books of God and were sent through the last of His Prophets to complete the preceding divine messages thereby making their observance an act of worship and their neglect or violation an abominable sin, and accordingly every person is individually responsible - and the Ummah collectively responsible - for their safeguard."? (The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in islam).


Quote:
What is real democracy?


A real democracy require, among others, the total separation between the state and religion; in a real democracy all people are equal before the law (not only muslims, males and so on) and the will of the people can even lead to important changes in the laws themselves. In islam we have double standards (non muslims have basically no rights, atheists have to be killed if they refuse to convert, females have less rights etc) and a group of laws which are considered 'frozen', valid forever (imposed by religion via a group of islamic scholars who cannot be challenged in any way). I've already told you islam is not capable to assure the same rights for minorities (even in relatively liberal countries), islam is essentially undemocratic. Finally whilst the Western type of democracy gave us modernity (of which you like to profit) the islamic world gave us the 'islamic paradises' from which many muslims run away. Islam didn't work in the past and all evidence points that it is utterly unlikely that it will do so in the future (it leads also to a much narrower intellectual horizon, scientific quest is in danger, severely limited by the islamic 'turbans of the mind'). That's why you have to modernize islam and never implement sharia in the Constitution.


Quote:
What is not moderate about Islam?


You have not bothered to read a word from what I posted here before (look at least at that imam from Egypt - see below* an extended video with his 'perls' following directly from islamic traditions - who curse and condemn the Jews for the guilt of being Jews, he gave you exactly the suras used to defend his view; what other major religion have you seen where religious leaders have such a type of discourse?), you're a proof of where the appeasement of islam can lead...I will answer you with a comprehensive quote from Ali Sina:

"A thorough study of Quran and Hadith reveal an Islam that is not being presented honestly by the Muslim propagandists and is not known to the majority of Muslims. Islam as it is taught in Quran (Koran) and lived by Muhammad, as is reported in the Hadith (Biography and sayings of the Prophet) is a religion of intolerance, inequality, violence, discrimination, superstition, fanaticism, and blind faith. Islam advocates killing the non-Muslims, abuses the human rights of the minorities and women. Islam expanded by Jihad (holy war) and forced its way by killing the non-believers and the dissidents. Apostasy in Islam is the biggest crime, punishable by death. Muhammad was a fundamentalist himself therefore fundamentalism cannot be separated from true Islam. Islam, which means submission, demands from its followers to submit their wills and thoughts to Muhammad and his Allah, a deity that despises reason, democracy, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. The reason I think Islam is harmful and must go is not due to the fact that Quran says Earth is flat or the stars are missiles that Allah fires at the genies who climb the heaven to eavesdrop the conversation of the exalted assembly. These tales could even amuse us. Islam must go because it teaches hate, it orders killing the non-Muslims, it denigrates women and it violates the human rights. Islam must go not because it is false but because it is destructive, because it is a danger; a threat to peace and security of humankind. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Islamic countries, Islam has become a serious and a real threat to the survival of our civilization."


* Muslims will Forever Fight the Jews till the End of Time
 
polpol
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:38 pm
@josh0335,
Josh, You are very generous but you are throwing pearls to the hogs.
 
metacristi
 
Reply Tue 6 Apr, 2010 03:49 pm
@polpol,
polpol;148902 wrote:
Josh, You are very generous but you are throwing pearls to the hogs.


Do you happen to have some reasons for this? He merely says islam is peace, islam is egalitarian, islam is democratic, islam is...but with no real justification. Unfortunately for him the qur'an is not infinitely elastic in interpretation, no mental gymnastics can wipe out the dark parts of islam. The only solution is a non-trivial reformation; and apologies for the dark past of islam: muslims brain-shawed somehow themselves and believe that their religion was white as snow: the peak of delusion.

Unfortunately they have a bad tendency to idealize their religion and be basically immune to criticism*: the problem is always outside islam according with them (at Jews, Christians and so on, that's why they feel no guilt for the past violence in the name of islam when their ancestors 'self-defended' all the way until India and Western Europe); what is really needed is a [much] more impartial examination of islamic traditions (basically nothing is above rational criticism and possible replacement in the future, this is the principle which lead to modern science not 'discovering' modern science in the qur'an).


*moreover they are 'offended' by the mere existence of rational criticism, something rarely found in the case of other major religions where even many fundamentalists managed at least to accept that someone can criticize their religion and that the only ripost should be done using argumentation alone

Islam's violation of Human Rights
 
xris
 
Reply Wed 7 Apr, 2010 02:50 am
@polpol,
polpol;148902 wrote:
Josh, You are very generous but you are throwing pearls to the hogs.

Why dont you enter into dialogue instead of your one line abusive posts. Confront us if you dare. If we are being abusive report us, if we lie point it out.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 09:55:41