Religion and Comedy Shows: How far is too far?

[AntiKarateKid]

THere is a trend of putting religious figures like Jesus/Moses etc in comedy and depicting them in humorous and often derogatory manners.

FOr example,

Carlos Mencia: Extremely popular comedian here in America, had a comedy skit with the Prophets wrestling with each other and beating each other up ( Jesus pbuh won by shooting lightning at Moses pbuh, Muhammad pbuh was shown as invisible and was thrown out of the ring by some Hindu God) :raging:


SOuth Park regularly pokes "fun" if u want to call it at Jesus


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0-WUu8LCg

Jesus being slashed by one of the characters :raging:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkzJ89NkIxs

Jesus boxing with Satan videogame ( He lost) :raging:




Seriously. People defend these abominations by saying "We're jsut kidding, you shouldnt take it so seriously."

How can you not take public disgracing of your religion seriously? If you dont see it as that, then you need to reassess your faith because this shows a lack of respect for your religion. How can you follow what you dont respect?

I would rather suffer a riot against a cartoon depicting my religion in a comedy show like the ones mentioned above, than it be reduced to a mainstream joke. :enough!:

[Wilma_Hum]

THere is a trend of putting religious figures like Jesus/Moses etc in comedy and depicting them in humorous and often derogatory manners.

FOr example,

Carlos Mencia: Extremely popular comedian here in America, had a comedy skit with the Prophets wrestling with each other and beating each other up ( Jesus pbuh won by shooting lightning at Moses pbuh, Muhammad pbuh was shown as invisible and was thrown out of the ring by some Hindu God) :raging:


SOuth Park regularly pokes "fun" if u want to call it at Jesus


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0-WUu8LCg

Jesus being slashed by one of the characters :raging:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkzJ89NkIxs

Jesus boxing with Satan videogame ( He lost) :raging:




Seriously. People defend these abominations by saying "We're jsut kidding, you shouldnt take it so seriously."

How can you not take public disgracing of your religion seriously? If you dont see it as that, then you need to reassess your faith because this shows a lack of respect for your religion. How can you follow what you dont respect?

I would rather suffer a riot against a cartoon depicting my religion in a comedy show like the ones mentioned above, than it be reduced to a mainstream joke. :enough!:

"How can you not take public disgracing of your religion seriously?"
I have no issue because I believe everyone is entitled to state there opinion and mostly I enjoy a good joke and I think god would also.

I also think taking violent action against no violent acts is a sin.

[Keltoi]

It's all about what is acceptable in the mainstream media. Jokes about race or other minority groups isn't acceptable. Making light of religious beliefs and talking down to people of faith is acceptable.

[Amadeus85]

AntiKarateKid is right. In my ideal state such comedies would be banned, no matter if they humiliate christians, jews or muslims.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Cabdullahi]

its ridiculous

[جوري]

There is nothing comical about such comedies, but I guarantee if you watch it, or are fueled in anger by it, they take notice and reinforce more negative comedies...

They are aimed at a certain audience and looks to provoke the rest... the best thing to do is to ignore it.. honestly whenever I see something like this I just switch the Chanel or boycott the show -- family guy/ simpsons etc constantly revel in despicable mockery, and I believe it is because they always find an audience to lap it up.. if they didn't have good ratings, they would desist .. shows gets canceled because people don't tune in.. and I believe that is the best philosophy, whether they are making toons, or caricatures etc.. the best thing isn't to go in a mad frenzy, rather find an alternative method to make them feel the hurt...

and Allah swt knows best

my two cents

:w:

[Olive]

It's stupid. So what if they thinks it's a joke. Some religious people would take offence to it. Don't they realise that?

[Karina]

The Simpsons generally has a subtle message to convey which does appear to reinforce universal morals.
It may appear to adhere to mockery and, (and I don't confine myself to such viewing all of the time! I'm certainly not saying it's crucial to ones moral development but...) it's not so bad in projecting some good social values (i.e.family values) to its audience.
There's more to it that is first apparent, albeit not that much to get excited about!
Lots more on TV to get a sore head about, like SKY NEWS!
:statisfie

[AntiKarateKid]

"How can you not take public disgracing of your religion seriously?"
I have no issue because I believe everyone is entitled to state there opinion and mostly I enjoy a good joke and I think god would also.

I also think taking violent action against no violent acts is a sin.

Hi,

Riot as in signs and protests and such, not people smashing windows and etc. I should have made that pert clearer.

I disagree with your "joke" part. God is not a human. People have died for their religion and sacrificed everything. From a theistic perspective, respect towards God is essential and dismissing it in the name of humor is repugnant to many.

Tell me, if you go to an extremely important job interview that you really need to ace, are you gonna put your arm ont he table and crack jokes about the interviewer?

So when you meet God after your death and your life is being examined, you are comfortable with making jokes about what guidance he sent you? Crack a joke about God or his prophets to his face and let's see what he thinks about your devotion.


As an agnostic, this should be a non issue because you have not even chosen a faith. Therefore your comment about "god taking a joke" is supported only by your own opnionion and not any divine authority.

[AntiKarateKid]

What baffles me is that these people can make fun of God during a show, then afterwards pray to him for help.

Making fun of your religion is not "innocent fun". It shows a lack of faith and respects towards the very tenets of your existence.

Nothing is sacred to these people. Perhaps they may realize someday that life is not a joke. A near death experience might sober them up.

[AntiKarateKid]

The Simpsons generally has a subtle message to convey which does appear to reinforce universal morals.
It may appear to adhere to mockery and, (and I don't confine myself to such viewing all of the time! I'm certainly not saying it's crucial to ones moral development but...) it's not so bad in projecting some good social values (i.e.family values) to its audience.
There's more to it that is first apparent, albeit not that much to get excited about!
Lots more on TV to get a sore head about, like SKY NEWS!
:statisfie

Hi karina,

# [to Louie Towman] You make life miserable and they can't do something about it. Just like God. - Homer Simpson

There were others but whatever "good" messages the simpsons ever got across were drowned the the plethora of crude and cynical ones that they also sent.

[Trumble]

I see no need for restrictions. Anyone likely to be "offended" can always watch something else, or if they find themselves becoming "offended" can always use the off-switch or leave the theatre. I use inverted commas as any real offence caused is usually minimal, most is just hysteria whipped up afterwards (or in some cases, in anticipation) by those with in an interest in doing so. I also think that many religions, and religious beliefs benefit from being gently mocked. That may well be, and usually is, 'unfair', but it can also throw a new light on things that helps you better understand them, appreciate them and even on occasion rethink them. One reason jokes are made about religion is that sometimes religious practices can actually seem pretty funny (even from your own religion, if you are honest enough to admit it).. anyone else old enough to remember Dave Allen?

BTW, nobody is "making fun" of God. The idea is pretty silly if you sit down and think about it for a second. How can you "make fun" of an omnipotent being? The idea God might be "offended" is even more ludicrous. It is the beliefs of people, and people themselves, being made fun of, not God, Jesus, Moses or Mohammed. Just bear that in mind and most "offence" disappears in a puff of pseudo-anger.

[AntiKarateKid]

It is the widespread acceptance of treating religion as the butt of jokes that is disgusting. God cannot be offended. But he couldnt possibly deem this as righteous behavior.

Honestly some censorship is a good thing.Why do so many shows censor Pornographic material? Gratuitous violence?


I wouldnt like kids thinking religion is a joke any more than them thinking porn or extreme violence is cool.

[aamirsaab]

...
Honestly some censorship is a good thing.Why do so many shows censor Pornographic material? Gratuitous violence?


I wouldnt like kids thinking religion is a joke any more than them thinking porn or extreme violence is cool.

Ah, you've come across one of the main hypocricies of this world. Welcome to the secular world where everything is allowed except whatever xyz group doesn't like (which is in direct contradiction of what IS allowed...e.g adultery not a crime but polygamy is...yeah that makes perfect sense!).

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

Hey Kid,

you know what, you have TOTAL control over what you watch and don't watch!

simply put Carlos Mencia and South Park on your list of "I ain't watching stuff!"

in fact, if you don't have a library of Islamic lectures, just unplug your TV and put in the closet until you get some.

go to youtube only to watch videos you might actually benefit from

in fact, try the videos here:

http://www.bilalphilips.com/bilal_pa...sk=view&id=288

i highly recommend Foundations of Islamic Studies and Contemporary Issues!

for some nice beneficial audio lectures, go here:

http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html

i recommend that you stop wasting your valuable time trying to find all the things that the kuffar do wrong and spend more time on media that will benefit you, like this:

http://www.kalamullah.com/al-fatihah.html

you will be better served and it will be easier, In Sha'a Allah, to explain Islam to others!

just some thoughts Brother...

:w:

[Trumble]

I wouldnt like kids thinking religion is a joke any more than them thinking porn or extreme violence is cool.

Just because you make can make jokes about religion does not mean religion is a joke. However if you try and force people into respecting religion through bans and censorship, you run the risk of turning it into one.

[AntiKarateKid]

:sl:

Hey Kid,

you know what, you have TOTAL control over what you watch and don't watch!

simply put Carlos Mencia and South Park on your list of "I ain't watching stuff!"

in fact, if you don't have a library of Islamic lectures, just unplug your TV and put in the closet until you get some.

go to youtube only to watch videos you might actually benefit from

in fact, try the videos here:

http://www.bilalphilips.com/bilal_pa...sk=view&id=288

i highly recommend Foundations of Islamic Studies and Contemporary Issues!

for some nice beneficial audio lectures, go here:

http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html

i recommend that you stop wasting your valuable time trying to find all the things that the kuffar do wrong and spend more time on media that will benefit you, like this:

http://www.kalamullah.com/al-fatihah.html

you will be better served and it will be easier, In Sha'a Allah, to explain Islam to others!

just some thoughts Brother...

:w:

Thanks for the links brother,

I probably didnt make it clear in my post. I am well aware that I can just change the channel. That was not my point. I was interested in hearing people's views on this type of comedy and if it's just me who thinks its retarded.


Peace!

[AntiKarateKid]

Just because you make can make jokes about religion does not mean religion is a joke. However if you try and force people into respecting religion through bans and censorship, you run the risk of turning it into one.

Just because you dont want children watching porn and extremely violent shows does not mean it is bad. However if you try and force people into watching other types of shows through bans and cencorship...... you my drift???:rollseyes


Eh? You cant tailor censorship to suit you needs either Trumble. It goes both ways.

I want the following to be uncensored then since Bans are soo bad, like you said

1. Teletubbies, instead of being a bunch of naked aliens, there will now be a bunch of naked human actors!
2. In the Lion King, I want Simba to viciously tear apart zebras so that children can know what the CIrcle of Life REALLY means!
3. Ratings on movies should be taken off since 10 year olds are completely capable of viewing possibly pornographic or explicit material!

Your new world without censorship kinda sounds scary! :skeleton:

[Wilma_Hum]

Hi,

Riot as in signs and protests and such, not people smashing windows and etc. I should have made that pert clearer.

I disagree with your "joke" part. God is not a human. People have died for their religion and sacrificed everything. From a theistic perspective, respect towards God is essential and dismissing it in the name of humor is repugnant to many.

Tell me, if you go to an extremely important job interview that you really need to ace, are you gonna put your arm ont he table and crack jokes about the interviewer?

So when you meet God after your death and your life is being examined, you are comfortable with making jokes about what guidance he sent you? Crack a joke about God or his prophets to his face and let's see what he thinks about your devotion.


As an agnostic, this should be a non issue because you have not even chosen a faith. Therefore your comment about "god taking a joke" is supported only by your own opnionion and not any divine authority.

As You say that I am on the wrong path, most of the world thinks you are on the wrong path. Doesn't that make you wonder? Of course not, you have faith. Guess what? So do I. It is just different than yours.

But still, if there is a god, she has to have a sense of humor. After all, she created us.

[AntiKarateKid]

As You say that I am on the wrong path, most of the world thinks you are on the wrong path. Doesn't that make you wonder? Of course not, you have faith. Guess what? So do I. It is just different than yours.

But still, if there is a god, she has to have a sense of humor. After all, she created us.

Peace Wilma,

In no part of my post did I assert to you that you were on the wrong path. it is part of my religion to believe that but I have not shoved it in your face. I notice that there has been an air of aggression from you towards every one of my posts, which is regrettable. And I apologize for any offense I may have given with my previous posts or any in the future! It is unIslamic of me to be rude, especially to one who is seeking the truth such as yourself.

My faith is based upon reason, a critical understanding of scripture, and a desire for truth. Islam has stood head above shoulders from the other faiths and ideologies.

Enough about me though, you are completely entitled to your opinion. But all you did is reassert your opening claim about God "having to have" a sense of humor, or what you yourself consider to be a sense of humor. You have only your opinion backing you.

Dont you think that some things are too sacred to make fun of? Or that there are other types of humor? God does not need to accept a joke about religion to be qualified as having a sense of humor.


Before I forget though, the number of adherents to Islam, in the end means nothing. THough it is the fastest growing and second largest religion which, in fact DOES make me think. It has the least number of sects, which does make me wonder. It even has the same book used by the sects. Cool huh?

“Islam began as something strange and will revert to being strange as it began, so give glad tidings to the strangers.” - hadith of the Prophet pbuh

[Trumble]

Just because you dont want children watching porn and extremely violent shows does not mean it is bad. However if you try and force people into watching other types of shows through bans and cencorship...... you my drift???:rollseyes

Your 'drift', and post, is half mistaken analogy and half pointless waffle. Porn and violent shows have nothing to it. We are talking about whether something is a proper subject of comedy or not.

There is no reason whatsoever why you cannot censor pornography and violence without inhibiting the possible subjects of comedy; that is exactly what does happen in many places.

[AntiKarateKid]

Your 'drift', and post, is half mistaken analogy and half pointless waffle. Porn and violent shows have nothing to it. We are talking about whether something is a proper subject of comedy or not.

There is no reason whatsoever why you cannot censor pornography and violence without inhibiting the possible subjects of comedy; that is exactly what does happen in many places.

So would you be in favor of censoring said things from a comedy show for kids?

I would like to censor those things from a comedy show along with jokes about religion.

You would rather censor the former and not the latter. :rollseyes

[Amaanah]

THere is a trend of putting religious figures like Jesus/Moses etc in comedy and depicting them in humorous and often derogatory manners.

FOr example,

Carlos Mencia: Extremely popular comedian here in America, had a comedy skit with the Prophets wrestling with each other and beating each other up ( Jesus pbuh won by shooting lightning at Moses pbuh, Muhammad pbuh was shown as invisible and was thrown out of the ring by some Hindu God) :raging:


SOuth Park regularly pokes "fun" if u want to call it at Jesus


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu0-WUu8LCg

Jesus being slashed by one of the characters :raging:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkzJ89NkIxs

Jesus boxing with Satan videogame ( He lost) :raging:




Seriously. People defend these abominations by saying "We're jsut kidding, you shouldnt take it so seriously."

How can you not take public disgracing of your religion seriously? If you dont see it as that, then you need to reassess your faith because this shows a lack of respect for your religion. How can you follow what you dont respect?

I would rather suffer a riot against a cartoon depicting my religion in a comedy show like the ones mentioned above, than it be reduced to a mainstream joke. :enough!:

:thumbs_up
funny how blasphemy counts for nothing next to freedom of speech
and treason holds such a high status :rollseyes

[YusufNoor]

Thanks for the links brother,

I probably didnt make it clear in my post. I am well aware that I can just change the channel. That was not my point.

i'm aware of that Akhi, i was making a different point!

I was interested in hearing people's views on this type of comedy and if it's just me who thinks its retarded.
Peace!

:sl:

you know, if you go to a strip club, there will be naked women there. if you go to a swingers club, people will be swapping mates. if you go to a satanist church, people will be worshiping satan there.

do you need to go there in order to know it's not appropriate?

do you need to comment on them?

if you don't think there will be irreverence on South Park...

:w:

[Trumble]

So would you be in favor of censoring said things from a comedy show for kids?

I would like to censor those things from a comedy show along with jokes about religion.

You would rather censor the former and not the latter. :rollseyes

Again, you seem to be confusing two totally different issues. I'm sure we all agree that while some things are 'appropriate' for adults (even if we personally find them distasteful) they are not appropriate for children. A great many adults do enjoy pornography and/or horror movies; that doesn't mean they would want their kids seeing either.

I'd worry about whether it's appropriate to censor a kids' comedy show to remove jokes about religion if they ever had any jokes about religion. They don't. It's a subject some adults find funny, not children, and no comedian includes material that he/she doesn't think will amuse their audience whoever they may be. Kids laugh at slapstick and gags about farting; they wouldn't 'get' religion in a comedy context at all any more than they would politics. When it comes to adult comedy, adult viewers should be allowed their own choice as to what they watch and find amusing, whether you or anybody else find it "retarded" or not. There have been jokes about religion and all religions for thousands of years (the Greeks and Romans told them) and no religion has ever been harmed by them.

[Ali_Cena]

As You say that I am on the wrong path, most of the world thinks you are on the wrong path. Doesn't that make you wonder? Of course not, you have faith. Guess what? So do I. It is just different than yours.

But still, if there is a god, she has to have a sense of humor. After all, she created us.

You state "she" what makes you think that God, has got a gender, and that is a She? we in Islam, say that Allah, has got no gender.
Second of all, who said most of the world say that we are on the wrong path, nearly all of the People belive in One God, so do we ok.
Peace

[Wilma_Hum]

Peace Wilma,

In no part of my post did I assert to you that you were on the wrong path. it is part of my religion to believe that but I have not shoved it in your face. I notice that there has been an air of aggression from you towards every one of my posts, which is regrettable. And I apologize for any offense I may have given with my previous posts or any in the future! It is unIslamic of me to be rude, especially to one who is seeking the truth such as yourself.

My faith is based upon reason, a critical understanding of scripture, and a desire for truth. Islam has stood head above shoulders from the other faiths and ideologies.

Enough about me though, you are completely entitled to your opinion. But all you did is reassert your opening claim about God "having to have" a sense of humor, or what you yourself consider to be a sense of humor. You have only your opinion backing you.

Dont you think that some things are too sacred to make fun of? Or that there are other types of humor? God does not need to accept a joke about religion to be qualified as having a sense of humor.


Before I forget though, the number of adherents to Islam, in the end means nothing. THough it is the fastest growing and second largest religion which, in fact DOES make me think. It has the least number of sects, which does make me wonder. It even has the same book used by the sects. Cool huh?

“Islam began as something strange and will revert to being strange as it began, so give glad tidings to the strangers.” - hadith of the Prophet pbuh

Your views on your religion are interesting. I joined the forum because I want to know how others feel about there religion. So I thank you for the time, effort, and thoughtfulness you put it to it.
Sorry I miss read one of your statements.
But let me assure you, Agnosticism, is "not choosing" "A Path" because it is "A Path".

[Wilma_Hum]

You state "she" what makes you think that God, has got a gender, and that is a She? we in Islam, say that Allah, has got no gender.
Second of all, who said most of the world say that we are on the wrong path, nearly all of the People belive in One God, so do we ok.
Peace

Of course god would not have a gender. But how many millions of times have you heard god referred to as he?
No on gets there dander up when god is referred to as "he".
That's why I generally use "she".
Second of all, 80% of the world does not believe in Islam is the "Right Path".
Everyone who believes in "One God" is not on the same path.

[Ali_Cena]

Of course god would not have a gender. But how many millions of times have you heard god referred to as he?
No on gets there dander up when god is referred to as "he".
That's why I generally use "she".
Second of all, 80% of the world does not believe in Islam is the "Right Path".
Everyone who believes in "One God" is not on the same path.

:w:
Hi, just wanted to say, lots of people use the word, "HE" not becuase of gender...

Second off, 80% of the people do not belive that agnostism is the "right path". second off, in Islam we belive that thier were messengers, sent in differnet times for different regions, and for diffreent languaes, now the Prophet sent down for thier times, regions and languges were only for thier times, regions and languges, and The Qu'ran, which our Prophet Mohammed SAW, was sent not for that area(arabia) it was sent for the whole of mankind. now you might get for example a christian, who follows christianity/Bible, but it still comes from Allah (God) as in islam we belive that the Bible, Torah and Quran came from Allah (God),now you might be saying but you(Muslims) belive it is corrupt?--becuase we belive that humans edited them, the only one which has not been touched(as in edited) is the Quran, so you might belive in a monothiestic religion, but it is the Same Allah(God), only one. other people are just following Allah(God) thier own way, which the right way i belive and know is Islam.
umm if you didnt understand, just let me know.
Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Your views on your religion are interesting. I joined the forum because I want to know how others feel about there religion. So I thank you for the time, effort, and thoughtfulness you put it to it.
Sorry I miss read one of your statements.
But let me assure you, Agnosticism, is "not choosing" "A Path" because it is "A Path".

Just to clarify, are you saying that agnosticism is a religion? I am curious about your use of the phrase "path".

As far as I know, and from reading about T.H. Huxely who first coined the term, agnosticism is a state of mind. One that has not made up its mind between the various ideologies in the world. Hence, I see it as no more a "separate" path than a lack of a road is a "road".

[KAding]

I would rather suffer a riot against a cartoon depicting my religion in a comedy show like the ones mentioned above, than it be reduced to a mainstream joke. :enough!:

To be frank, it is not up to you or me to decide what is or what isn't allowed, what others can or can't watch. Similarly, we are not right to take the law into our own hands, simply because we deem certain expressions to be "retarded" or "offensive". Keep in mind that shows like South Park have an adult rating and are targeted at adults.

We are essentially talking about satire here. And yes, it is a form of criticism. Yes, it does poke fun at some religious beliefs. However, you have no more right to ban South Park for such clips than I as an atheist am right to ban the Qu'ran for calling unbelievers the "worst of creatures" or for saying I am so despicable that I deserve eternal hellfire. The Qu'ran or the Hadith might not be comedy, but they are plenty "offensive" potential, in a way that actually makes it worse of course!

You may believe that your opinion is the truth, but trust me, most people have the same view about their own religion or world view. You do not have a monopoly on 'being offended' either. As a follower of a moralistic religion, be very aware that this is a slippery slope. As soon as "being offended" becomes a cause for censure and limitations to freedom of speech, you will lose your own religious freedoms very quickly. Because, without a doubt, the doctrine you follow will also be 'offensive' to some. Note, that the same applies for many other ideologies/religions. If you want us to take your offense seriously, then surely we'll have to do the same with the offense of others. This would lead to places you would probably would not want it to lead.

"Offense" or "outrage" is not be a valid argument for censorship. You'll have to do better than that and show how certain comedy, satire or criticism is causing actual harm.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
In light of the previous posts, perhaps then the question that should be asked is should religion be respected? If yes/no, why?

Also, when does comedy become disrespectful?

Note: I myself love comedies in a general form (House is brilliant!). Though, I personally draw a line at anything clearly offensive to any religion e.g. I won't find someone insulting any of the Prophets or derogatory comments aimed at any followers as funny - this might have something to do with the fact that those kinds of jokes actually suck due to their blatant and obvious nature (I prefer sarcasm and irony to lewd and crude....but whatever)

[Wilma_Hum]

:w:
Hi, just wanted to say, lots of people use the word, "HE" not becuase of gender...

Second off, 80% of the people do not belive that agnostism is the "right path". second off, in Islam we belive that thier were messengers, sent in differnet times for different regions, and for diffreent languaes, now the Prophet sent down for thier times, regions and languges were only for thier times, regions and languges, and The Qu'ran, which our Prophet Mohammed SAW, was sent not for that area(arabia) it was sent for the whole of mankind. now you might get for example a christian, who follows christianity/Bible, but it still comes from Allah (God) as in islam we belive that the Bible, Torah and Quran came from Allah (God),now you might be saying but you(Muslims) belive it is corrupt?--becuase we belive that humans edited them, the only one which has not been touched(as in edited) is the Quran, so you might belive in a monothiestic religion, but it is the Same Allah(God), only one. other people are just following Allah(God) thier own way, which the right way i belive and know is Islam.
umm if you didnt understand, just let me know.
Peace

Did I say or imply tht " 80% of the people do not belive that agnostism is the "right path"."?
No, so why did you state that?
Why distort my words?

Did I attack you or your religion? If you thought that, you are wrong.

It seams you have an inability to cope with people who believe different that you.

[Whatsthepoint]

Muhammad pbuh was shown as invisible and was thrown out of the ring by some Hindu God

Lol, this one really made me laugh.

[AntiKarateKid]

Lol, this one really made me laugh.

-_- Did they really think that making him invisible would really make it any better when they have such skits? Hes in a god forsaken wrestling match, if they wanted to not insult us, they should have left him out.

Fools...

[Whatsthepoint]

-_- Did they really think that making him invisible would really make it any better when they have such skits? Hes in a god forsaken wrestling match, if they wanted to not insult us, they should have left him out.

Fools...

I'm pretty sure they didn't make him invisible to spare your religious sentiments.

[جوري]

I'm pretty sure they didn't make him invisible to spare your religious sentiments.

cool cat.. we were wondering where you'd wandered?-- really glad to have you aboard.. :welcome: back

[Whatsthepoint]

cool cat.. we were wondering where you'd wandered?-- really glad to have you aboard.. :welcome: back

Nice to see you too. Won't be back for long though.

[Wilma_Hum]

Just to clarify, are you saying that agnosticism is a religion? I am curious about your use of the phrase "path".

As far as I know, and from reading about T.H. Huxely who first coined the term, agnosticism is a state of mind. One that has not made up its mind between the various ideologies in the world. Hence, I see it as no more a "separate" path than a lack of a road is a "road".

Agnosticism is a religion? Now that is an interesting question. That made me pull out my “Funk and Wagnall”.
Different than what T.H. Huxely said, my dictionary says “agnosticism: view that God's existence is unprovable”. And for religion “beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life”.
So I guess, at there most basic level, they do share some similarity.

But I never thought of it as that way. To me it is obvious that god is not provable. While many claim proof, in reality they have only found evidence that has convinced them. That is OK, I take no issue with that.

The major factor in me becoming an Agnostic is that I kept finding, what I conceder, to be logic errors, in every organized religion I looked at.

Maybe you can’t see agnosticism as a path because of how you think of a path.
I don’t believe I need a watch or a calendar to determine if it is time to perform some ritual and I don’t need a book to tell me murder is a bad thing. I think deep in our hearts we all know the difference between right and wrong.

To me, the critical thing is to follow what you believe because it is what you believe and it needs not to be based on what someone else believes.

[جوري]

Nice to see you too. Won't be back for long though.

drop in from time to time.. it is good to have you around! :)

[Ali_Cena]

Did I say or imply tht " 80% of the people do not belive that agnostism is the "right path"."?
No, so why did you state that?
Why distort my words?

Did I attack you or your religion? If you thought that, you are wrong.

It seams you have an inability to cope with people who believe different that you.

Hi, i think you are confused, becuase you are the one who brought up the issue of "percecntages"- i mean who was the first person to start talking about "80% of the people dont think..."; it was clearly you. second off, were have i distortid your words, i mean they are clearly my words, I SAID 80% of the people do not belive that agnostism is the "right path" ok i didnt even quote your words, thirdly no you didnt attack my religion, i didnt think that so i am not wrong, how can you tell from a few words, that you got confused in that i have an inability to "cope".
Peace.-no hard feelings :D

[AntiKarateKid]

Agnosticism is a religion? Now that is an interesting question. That made me pull out my “Funk and Wagnall”.
Different than what T.H. Huxely said, my dictionary says “agnosticism: view that God's existence is unprovable”. And for religion “beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life”.
So I guess, at there most basic level, they do share some similarity.

But I never thought of it as that way. To me it is obvious that god is not provable. While many claim proof, in reality they have only found evidence that has convinced them. That is OK, I take no issue with that.

The major factor in me becoming an Agnostic is that I kept finding, what I conceder, to be logic errors, in every organized religion I looked at.

Maybe you can’t see agnosticism as a path because of how you think of a path.
I don’t believe I need a watch or a calendar to determine if it is time to perform some ritual and I don’t need a book to tell me murder is a bad thing. I think deep in our hearts we all know the difference between right and wrong.

To me, the critical thing is to follow what you believe because it is what you believe and it needs not to be based on what someone else believes.

What a coincidence! That is waht Islam says too. We have fitrah, an inborn sense of right and wrong. But the problem with this is that without proper guidance, it can be lead astray.

Do you really think that "we all know the difference between right and wrong"? THis is obviously not true. Many people's fitrah has become distorted into strange and repugnant things. But deep down, they also belive that what they are doing is right.

Whos inborn sense is better then? Yours? Mine? Our neighbor's? You see?

barring the fact that you belive "God cannot be proven" yet acknowlege some strange and wonderful " inner sense of right and wrong" is a metaphysical mystery to me. You are closer to accepting a religion than you think Wilma.

Anyways, an analogy might do.

We all have a formula we are born with. Some people have more of the constants and necessary numbers than others to make it work. Each religion offers its own set of values and numbers and it is your job to find out which makes the formula work. Not sit back and say, none of them are right and make up your own numbers.

[Qingu]

Why is it wrong to mock religious beliefs when it's perfectly okay to mock all kinds of other beliefs, such as political beliefs?

For example, nobody cares when people mock George Bush or Alexander the Great. These men are (were) powerful and influential leaders with thousands or millions of loyal followers.

Can someone explain to me how mocking Muhammad or Jesus is any different? I mean, I understand that Muslims feel very strongly about Muhammad. Similarly, Republicans feel very strongly about George Bush (some of them even believe he is chosen by God).

It's also strange to see religious people have such a thin skin, when their holy book is literally filled with violent threats and insults against unbelievers like me. If I open up my Quran to a random page spread, chances are there will be at least one verse calling me an ignorant liar and claiming that I deserve to be tortured forever in hell. That's a lot more offensive than anything comedy shows say about Muhammad or Jesus, but I'm not trying to ban the Quran.

Edit: apologies to Kadang! I unintentionally restated what he said. :)

[جوري]

Isn't that what your pal kading just said on the same page? how about some new material? you know just for comedy's sake?

[Qingu]

Anyways, an analogy might do.

We all have a formula we are born with. Some people have more of the constants and necessary numbers than others to make it work. Each religion offers its own set of values and numbers and it is your job to find out which makes the formula work. Not sit back and say, none of them are right and make up your own numbers.

So are we supposed to judge the formulas based on the happiness and stability of their respective societies?

In that case I'm pretty comfortable choosing the "Western secular enlightenment" set of morals that makes up most of North America and Europe. These societies seem to be in much better shape than Islamic societies (or Christian societies of the middle ages).

In fact, many Muslims are flocking from their own societies to join Western societies! Though strangely, they aren't switching to the apparently superior moral worldview of Western societies when they come over (though their descendants, statistically, probably will).

[suffiyan007]

i think that Comedy is quite fun to watch cause makes us laugh...cause laughter is the best medicine...it doesnt link to Religion...Religion another chapter of issue...i found out we can see the show like MR. BEAN show...right...
so what is connected to religion...? it doesnt show any unappropriated.

[جوري]

Low class comedy is indeed enjoyed by low class folks.. hence in the beginning of the thread I stated, if you watch it, you simply increase their ratings and exhort their efforts.. no different than visiting hate websites and sending it by email to all your friends in expression of your fury.. in fact all you do is promote it!
If there is no audience for it, it will die down.. you have to have willing participants in order for it to matter?
caustic attempts at sanctities is as old humanity itself.. some folks are simply inept at differentiating defamation from comedy.. but say you try that with an event like the holocaust and you'll see how fast they are ready to jump and bite off your head.
western hypocrisy.. perhaps?.. perhaps it is an immature way for atheists to use an acceptable defense mechanism to ward off that which they don't understand!


bottom line is, if it offends you don't watch it.. if they bother you, boycott them.. you are not completely helpless at a response.. trust me if you want change you'll have to find an acceptable method to implement it..

my two cents

:w:

[AntiKarateKid]

So are we supposed to judge the formulas based on the happiness and stability of their respective societies?

In that case I'm pretty comfortable choosing the "Western secular enlightenment" set of morals that makes up most of North America and Europe. These societies seem to be in much better shape than Islamic societies (or Christian societies of the middle ages).

In fact, many Muslims are flocking from their own societies to join Western societies! Though strangely, they aren't switching to the apparently superior moral worldview of Western societies when they come over (though their descendants, statistically, probably will).

Funny seeing as how there is no Muslim state around. :rollseyes

Ask any of the Muslims here if they believe places like Saudi Arabia to be fully adherent to the Sharia.

You will never have a society like the Caliphates run by the companions of the Prophet. That is besides the point though.

[Wilma_Hum]

Hi, i think you are confused, becuase you are the one who brought up the issue of "percecntages"- i mean who was the first person to start talking about "80% of the people dont think..."; it was clearly you. second off, were have i distortid your words, i mean they are clearly my words, I SAID 80% of the people do not belive that agnostism is the "right path" ok i didnt even quote your words, thirdly no you didnt attack my religion, i didnt think that so i am not wrong, how can you tell from a few words, that you got confused in that i have an inability to "cope".
Peace.-no hard feelings :D

The point is I never implied 80% are Agnostic. If you look back and read, I also said percentages don' change what you believe.

But it seams we can agree to disagree.

[Wilma_Hum]

What a coincidence! That is waht Islam says too. We have fitrah, an inborn sense of right and wrong. But the problem with this is that without proper guidance, it can be lead astray.

Do you really think that "we all know the difference between right and wrong"? THis is obviously not true. Many people's fitrah has become distorted into strange and repugnant things. But deep down, they also belive that what they are doing is right.

Whos inborn sense is better then? Yours? Mine? Our neighbor's? You see?

barring the fact that you belive "God cannot be proven" yet acknowlege some strange and wonderful " inner sense of right and wrong" is a metaphysical mystery to me. You are closer to accepting a religion than you think Wilma.

Anyways, an analogy might do.

We all have a formula we are born with. Some people have more of the constants and necessary numbers than others to make it work. Each religion offers its own set of values and numbers and it is your job to find out which makes the formula work. Not sit back and say, none of them are right and make up your own numbers.

"proper guidance", that is a major issue in it's self. There are many different openions of where proper guidance comes from.

Yes, I think "we all know the difference between right and wrong". And deep down we know when we do wrong. We just don't always accept it.

"Whos inborn sense is better then?" Better? I don't think anyone can judge who's is better. It is easy to see that they are different, but how do you judge what is better for me and how can I judge what is best for you?

I think your "metaphysical mystery" can easly be solved. You assume morals come from religion, I believe they come from humanity.

Anyways, an analogy will have gaping holes. You are working on the assumption that there is a "Right/True" religion. That is not a universal assumption and one I do not make.

So we get back on the same wheel that goes round and round.

Who assumptions are correct. My assumption is that we will never know.

[Whatsthepoint]

Mypods and Boomsticks, the 7th episode of the 20th season of the Simpsons. Among other thing it deals with intolerance towards Muslims etc. It+s reasonably funny, you should all see it.

[AntiKarateKid]

"proper guidance", that is a major issue in it's self. There are many different openions of where proper guidance comes from.

Yes, I think "we all know the difference between right and wrong". And deep down we know when we do wrong. We just don't always accept it.

"Whos inborn sense is better then?" Better? I don't think anyone can judge who's is better. It is easy to see that they are different, but how do you judge what is better for me and how can I judge what is best for you?

I think your "metaphysical mystery" can easly be solved. You assume morals come from religion, I believe they come from humanity.

Anyways, an analogy will have gaping holes. You are working on the assumption that there is a "Right/True" religion. That is not a universal assumption and one I do not make.

So we get back on the same wheel that goes round and round.

Who assumptions are correct. My assumption is that we will never know.

Nice sidestep of the question! Morals come from humanity huh. We all have a strange and mysterious inborn knowledge that magically guides us to the right choice? Why hasnt this shown up? People know it but dont accept it!

Am I'm the one with the gaping holes!:rollseyes

[Qingu]

Funny seeing as how there is no Muslim state around. :rollseyes

Ask any of the Muslims here if they believe places like Saudi Arabia to be fully adherent to the Sharia.

You will never have a society like the Caliphates run by the companions of the Prophet. That is besides the point though.

Well, Saudi Arabia's constitution is the Quran; they have mutawa'in patrolling the streets ensuring everyone adheres to shariah law. Muslims have all the political power there (as well as in a number of other states).

But okay, let's say you're right. Again, I'm confused as to why I'm supposed to conclude that your moral system is superior to my Western moral system. Because Islamic society works out so well? According to you, there aren't any Muslim societies! What does that say about your morality? That it's incapable of actually working in a real-world setting?

I mean, have there ever been societies fully adherent to the Shariah? You brought up the Caliphates of the companions—weren't they plagued by fitnah as soon as Muhammad died? Besides: I'd certainly rather live in modern America than in 7th or 8th century Arabia, or the Abassid Caliphate, or any Caliphate really.

[جوري]

How does shari3a = to the Quran
I am not following

شَرِيعَة/shari'a as per dictionary

constitution , precept , prescript , legislation , lex , law , rubric , rule , code , canon


so perhaps you can explain better what you mean?

There is nothing in Islamic shari3a law that states men should go patrolling the streets --maybe again from the Quran you can show me where that is imposed?
being a Muslim doesn't equate to proper implementation of an Islamic state.. again I am confused as to what it is you mean?

A Muslim is obliged to fast for instance, yet some Muslims don't fast, does that automatically denote that fasting has been abolished since some don't adhere to it? if we are to use the same inane thought?

I am not sure anyone is asking you to conclude anything? after centuries of slavery, small pox blankets, trials by ordeals, imperialism, genocides, wars, the west can afford to have superior morality by way of media, I agree!

sure there have been societies adherent to shari3a -- that is how your Maimondes was able to write 'zham awlad Ishmael' under Muslim rule and get away with it.. I hazard ask when in modern society that sort of freedom was granted a parasite guest?

Glad you like living in the present.. no one is asking you to live in the distant past!

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

sure there have been societies adherent to shari3a -- that is how your Maimondes was able to write 'zham awlad Ishmael' under Muslim rule and get away with it.. I hazard ask when in modern society that sort of freedom was granted a parasite guest?

Well, when was the list time a Muslim cleric saying bad things about the British society (without inciting violence) was expelled from the UK?
Maimonides was as much of a parasite as any other asylum seeker or immigrant nowadays.

[Wilma_Hum]

Nice sidestep of the question! Morals come from humanity huh. We all have a strange and mysterious inborn knowledge that magically guides us to the right choice? Why hasnt this shown up? People know it but dont accept it!

Am I'm the one with the gaping holes!:rollseyes

Sidestep? How is that differernt than thinking morals come from religion a sidestep?

"Why hasnt this shown up?" What makes you think it hasen't?
As long as there is free choice, people are free to make choices they know are wrong. :rollseyes

[Qingu]

so perhaps you can explain better what you mean?

I was comparing Islamic societies to Western societies so I could judge which moral system to follow, as another poster seemed to suggest.

The poster then responded by saying there aren't any Muslim societies, which sort of surprised me.

But this discussion of the nature of shariah law in Saudi Arabia is sort of a tangent; if Saudi Arabia isn't a "Muslim society," what is?

I am not sure anyone is asking you to conclude anything? after centuries of slavery, small pox blankets, trials by ordeals, imperialism, genocides, wars, the west can afford to have superior morality by way of media, I agree!

Islamic societies never engaged in slavery, imperialism, or genocide?

And yes, I am ashamed of much of my culture's historical tradition. Are you?

sure there have been societies adherent to shari3a -- that is how your Maimondes was able to write 'zham awlad Ishmael' under Muslim rule and get away with it..

"My" Maimondenes?

And are you saying that Muslim-occupied Spain was a "Muslim society" in a way that modern Saudi Arabia is not?

I hazard ask when in modern society that sort of freedom was granted a parasite guest?

Why do you think Maimodenes was a parasite?

Do you think Muslims living on welfare or in asylum in Europe or America are parasites?

I mean, I admit that Andalusia was probably quite nice and tolerant ... compared to medieval Christendom. But I have trouble believing that you actually think it was a nicer and more tolerant place than ... which country do you live in, incidentally?

[جوري]

I was comparing Islamic societies to Western societies so I could judge which moral system to follow, as another poster seemed to suggest.

You should compare things that have some semblance- not imaginary societies that exist in your own mind?

The poster then responded by saying there aren't any Muslim societies, which sort of surprised me.

Maybe you are not as well read as you think?

But this discussion of the nature of shariah law in Saudi Arabia is sort of a tangent; if Saudi Arabia isn't a "Muslim society," what is?

A secular one that houses Muslims.. surely you can understand that, given that you live in the 'west' where you swear your presidents in by bibles which they don't implement or do they?

Islamic societies never engaged in slavery, imperialism, or genocide?

No they didn't! Islam came to enforce the best of traits and abolish what is hated.. you can browse this forum for very long discussions from the Visigoths to south east Asia!
Islam can't be responsible if the nature of men..
Mongols came, destroyed a great deal of the Muslim world, but the grandson of Genghis converted to Islam.. is Islam then responsible for seeded traits that he was passed on from his grandfather? try to carry that thought through before you write half-baked compositions which you expect to somehow have a profound affect on the rest of us!

And yes, I am ashamed of much of my culture's historical tradition. Are you?

Not at all, I am very proud of it!

"My" Maimondenes?

You seem like a Jew in denial!

And are you saying that Muslim-occupied Spain was a "Muslim society" in a way that modern Saudi Arabia is not?

Absolutely-- though not a caliphate run system it was not a Monarchy-- Monarchies aren't Islamic along with dictatorships are the worst!

Why do you think Maimodenes was a parasite?

When you live under Islamic law, and yet write books mocking the hand that fed, I'd think you a parasite!

Do you think Muslims living on welfare or in asylum in Europe or America are parasites?

Middle Eastern immigrants were highly educated, with 49 percent holding at least a bachelor's degree, compared to 28 percent of natives.

Median earnings for Middle Eastern men were $39,000 a year compared to $38,000 for native workers.

they tend to be better-educated than native U.S. residents — about half hold bachelor's degrees, compared to 28 percent of natives. They also perform as well economically as natives — 30- and 40-year-old Middle Eastern males with a college education have the same median income as natives, and Middle East immigrants are more likely be self-employed.




Middle Eastern Immigrants in U.S. Educated, Prosperous, Study Says
Gannett News Service, August 15, 2002

(Also ran in Arizona Republic - 8/15)

WASHINGTON — Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States are well educated, earn more money than most Americans and are predominantly Muslim, according to a report released Wednesday.

They also are among the nation's fastest-growing immigrant groups, according to the report issued by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, a think tank that supports reducing the number of immigrants to the United States.

The report says the number of Middle Eastern immigrants increased from fewer than 200,000 in 1970 to almost 1.5 million in 2000. The overall number of foreign-born residents in the United States tripled to 31 million over the same period.

The report offers a rare portrait of an immigrant group that has received intense scrutiny and negative publicity since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Project MAPS, a survey of "Muslims in the American Public Square" conducted in 2001-2002 by researchers at Georgetown University, found that 86 percent of all Muslim professionals were concentrated in three careers: engineering, computer science, and medicine. Law, law enforcement, and politics accounted for a minuscule 0.6 percent. American Muslims, some demographers say, have also been voting well below their numbers in the population -- registering to vote at only half the national rate, according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey [PDF], a project of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. "If they ever did play to their weight" in the electoral arena and in Washington, Muslims "would be a much more considerable force in public policy-making," says Steve Clemons, a Democrat who directs the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in Washington.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/p...ab_America.pdf
http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/mideastcoverage.html



according to this, Muslims seem to be doing better than the natives?.. further your entire ailing economies are now being supported by gulf countries if not always actually (do read the book, 'confessions of an economic hit man') , so when you give examples you don't come across like a complete yahoo, who doesn't know his A** from his head!
Even if they lived on well fare which I don't believe to be true, they are entitled to it!

I mean, I admit that Andalusia was probably quite nice and tolerant ... compared to medieval Christendom. But I have trouble believing that you actually think it was a nicer and more tolerant place than ... which country do you live in, incidentally?

I would rather be living in Andalusia than where I preside currently -- and where I preside currently is none of your business!


cheers

[جوري]

Well, when was the list time a Muslim cleric saying bad things about the British society (without inciting violence) was expelled from the UK?
Maimonides was as much of a parasite as any other asylum seeker or immigrant nowadays.

If I understand the news correctly, I believe Muslims are being held and tortured without trial-- surely you've heard of Guantanamo?


peace

[Whatsthepoint]

If I understand the news correctly, I believe Muslims are being held and tortured without trial-- surely you've heard of Guantanamo?


peace

Only ones caught fighting and plotting against the US and its troops.
This has nothing to do with what you said and what I said.

[جوري]

That is not true at all.. if it were in fact true, then please charge them with it and let them stand trial.. and it has everything to do with what you and I have engaged with!

You allege freedom of speech as enjoyed by the west, but I see guilt with no hope of proving ones innocence! contrary to the flowery slogans we are being fed!

[Whatsthepoint]

That is not true at all.. if it were in fact true, then please charge them with it and let them stand trial.. and it has everything to do with what you and I have engaged with!

You allege freedom of speech as enjoyed by the west, but I see guilt with no hope of proving ones innocence! contrary to the flowery slogans we are being fed!

I asked you how many Islamic preacher have been prosecuted or expelled from a western country for criticizing its society or the west in general, which is essentially what Maimonides did.
As for Guantanamo, what I said is true, the vast majority of people there are suspected of fighting or plotting against the US. I won't say they should be kept there for several years without trial, in fact I am strongly opposed to it, as I am opposed to the ways the way war on terror is being fought, as I was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or any preemptive war for that matter.
But this has nothing to do with what you and me have engaged with. I am quite certain Maimonides would have been taken in as well had he plotted or fought against the muslim rule.

[جوري]

I asked you how many Islamic preacher have been prosecuted or expelled from a western country for criticizing its society or the west in general, which is essentially what Maimonides did.

I don't know how many, I am not counting.. but certainly Muslim clerics aren't a thing loved.. they are constantly scrutinized.. the worst that happened to Maimonides was a polite counter rebuttal.. hold that in the face of the 60,000 + anti Islamic books, shows and politicians..

As for Guantanamo, what I said is true, the vast majority of people there are suspected of fighting or plotting against the US. I won't say they should be kept there for several years without trial, in fact I am strongly opposed to it, as I am opposed to the ways the way war on terror is being fought, as I was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or any preemptive war for that matter.

I don't believe that the majority of people there are anti anything.. and there is really no compensation for ruining people's lives.. do you think these folks even if released after 5+ yrs that they can resume life as they knew it? jobs families children?

But this has nothing to do with what you and me have engaged with. I am quite certain Maimonides would have been taken in as well had he plotted or fought against the muslim rule.

the man was expelled from Spain.. I don't think he could have afforded to speak against Muslim rule after the inquisition!

peace

[Whatsthepoint]

[QUOTE]

I don't know how many, I am not counting.. but certainly Muslim clerics aren't a thing loved.. they are constantly scrutinized.. the worst that happened to Maimonides was a polite counter rebuttal.. hold that in the face of the 60,000 + anti Islamic books, shows and politicians..

That's not the point. What I'm saying is that the western system does grant total freedom of speech to parasites as you chose to call them. That is what you hazarded to ask and I answered.
Besides, information didn't spread as quickly and widely in Maimonides' time as it does today, when basically everyone can write a book or set up their own radio talk show.

the man was expelled from Spain.. I don't think he could have afforded to speak against Muslim rule after the inquisition!

Well, what about people, Muslims, seeking asylum from repressive regimes and then calling the western society a moral cesspool or whatever?

[جوري]

Well, what about people, Muslims, seeking asylum from repressive regimes and then calling the western society a moral cesspool or whatever?

What about them?

[Qingu]

You should compare things that have some semblance- not imaginary societies that don't exist?

Muslim societies are imaginary?

I was comparing societies with predominately Western morality with societies with a predominately Islamic morality. Whether or not Saudi Arabia happens to be a Caliphate by some strict definition that you've arbitrarily coined isn't really relevant—the point is that Saudi Arabia is a majority Muslim country with a largely Muslim worldview.

No they didn't! Islam came to enforce the best of traits and abolish what is hated.. you can browse this forum for very long discussions from the Visigoths to south east Asia!

Muslims didn't own and trade slaves? They didn't conquer and occupy India? They didn't exterminate "heretics" like the Manichaeans?

Or wait. Let me guess. Those Muslims weren't "real Muslims."

Not at all, I am very proud of it!

You're proud of every part of Islamic history?

Even the fitnah parts?

I think this is the main difference between us. I see my culture's history as something to be built on and improved. You see your culture's history as an example to be venerated.

You seem like a Jew in denial!

What a strange thing to say. Incidentally, my family was Jewish, but are now atheists. Aside from enjoying matzo ball soup, I don't really identify with Jewish culture; I have little patience for Talmudic rabbis, in any case.

Absolutely-- though not a caliphate run system it was not a Monarchy-- Monarchies aren't Islamic!

So just to be clear: Al-Andalus is your ideal society?

What were you saying earlier about how conquering and occupying land is wrong?

When you live under Islamic law, and yet write books mocking the hand that fed, I'd think you a parasite!

Sort of like how Muslims living in Western societies mock George W. Bush and Western culture on this forum?

(Don't get me wrong, I'm all for mocking George W. Bush, and there is a lot to criticize about Western culture. But I think you're being hypocritical for attacking Maimodenes for doing what many Muslims on this board do every day—attacking the society they happen to live in.)

Middle Eastern immigrants were highly educated,....

I did not mean to imply that Middle Eastern immigrants were predominately on welfare. Certainly this is not true; immigrants tend to be wealthier across the board, I believe.

My point was that your logic in calling Maimondenes a "parasite" applies equally to any Muslim living in the West who is openly critical of the West, and certainly applies to Muslims living in the West who happen to be on welfare. I'm not trying to impugne Muslim immigrants, or even criticize welfare (I'm a liberal verging on socialist), just pointing out that your line of attack here is quite hypocritical.

further your entire ailing economies are now being supported by gulf countries if not always actually (do read the book, 'confessions of an economic hit man') , so when you give examples you don't come across like a complete yahoo, who doesn't know his A** from his head!

Ad hominem, and perhaps you can explain how our economy is supported by gulf countries? How does that book support your claim? Reading the Wiki entry and Amazon review I see absolutely nothing indicating that it supports what you said (the book seems to be a tirade, probably deserved, against American corporate malfeasance and manipulation of third-world economies). And last I heard the majority of U.S. debt was owned by Japan, China, and the UK.

Even if they lived on well fare which I don't believe to be true, they are entitled to it!

You think Muslims in Western countries are entitled to welfare in those countries, and that non-Muslims are not?

Why?

I would rather be living in Andalusia than where I preside currently -- and where I preside currently is none of your business!

Fair enough. I'd rather live in Andalusia than in plenty of places in the modern world ... of course, I would almost certainly be killed for blasphemy in Andalusia, so that's more of a comment on the state of the world today. :)

[Whatsthepoint]

What about them?

Do you think they can afford to do that?

[جوري]

Muslim societies are imaginary?

shari3a states existing is imaginary yes!

I was comparing societies with predominately Western morality with societies with a predominately Islamic morality. Whether or not Saudi Arabia happens to be a Caliphate by some strict definition that you've arbitrarily coined isn't really relevant—the point is that Saudi Arabia is a majority Muslim country with a largely Muslim worldview.

You are going off on tangents of morality-- if we are to strictly follow 'Muslim morality' then, no one is implementing that currently from so-called Muslim majority states-- in fact I'd go further to say that western societies are currently implementing Muslim morality!
which was also noted as per this hadith

Al-Mustawrid Al-Qurashi said to `Amr Ibn Al-`Aas: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “The Hour will begin when the Romans are the greatest people in number.” `Amr said, “Watch what you say!” He said, “I am saying what I heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).” He said, “If you say that, it is a fact, for they have four qualities. They are the most patient of people at times of tribulation; they recover quickly from calamity; they are quick to recover and attack again after defeat; and they are good to the poor, orphans and the weak. And a fifth good quality that they have is that they resist the oppression of kings.” (Reported by Muslim, 2889.)

Muslims didn't own and trade slaves? They didn't conquer and occupy India? They didn't exterminate "heretics" like the Manichaeans?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Discussing slavery and asking questions about it on the part of those who promote Christianity and try to divert people from following the religion of Islam is something that annoys the wise person and makes him point the finger of accusation towards the ulterior motives that lie behind these questions.

That is because slavery is well established in Judaism and Christianity, where it has taken unjust forms. They have many books which discuss that in detail and condone it. Therefore it makes you wonder: how can these churchmen call people to Christianity when Christianity condones and legitimizes slavery?

In other words: how can they stir up an issue when they themselves are up to their necks in it?!

The issue of slavery is completely different when discussed from the angles of Christianity and Islam, and when compared with the situation that prevailed at the advent of Islam.

Hence we must discuss this topic in some detail with reference to what is said in Judaism, Christianity and contemporary culture on this matter, then we will speak of slavery in Islam.

Many lies have been fabricated about Islam on this topic, at a time when criminals with lengthy track records are safe and nobody points a finger at them.

Islam and slavery:

Islam affirms that Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, created man fully accountable, and enjoined duties upon him, to which reward and punishment are connected on the basis of man’s free will and choice.

No human being has the right to restrict this freedom or take away that choice unlawfully; whoever dares to do that is a wrongdoer and oppressor.

This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in sharee’ah, whilst also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.

When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need.

Slavery did not spread in this appalling manner throughout all continents except by means of kidnapping; rather the main source of slaves in Europe and America in later centuries was this method.

The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).

It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.

There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means.

Islam limited the sources of slaves that existed before the beginning of the Prophet’s mission to one way only: enslavement through war which was imposed on kaafir prisoners-of-war and on their womenfolk and children.

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger. When Allaah enables the Muslim mujaahideen who are offering their souls and their wealth, and fighting with all their strength and with what Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kuffaar, then He makes them their property by means of slavery unless the ruler chooses to free them for nothing or for a ransom, if that serves the interests of the Muslims. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/387).

He also said:

If it is said: If the slave becomes Muslim then why keep him as a slave, when the reason for slavery is kufr and fighting against Allaah and His Messenger, so this reason no longer applies?

The answer is that the well known principle among the scholars and all wise people, which is that the previously established right cannot be erased by a right that is established later, and that what came first takes precedence, is obvious.

When the Muslims captured kuffaar, their right to possession was affirmed by the law of the Creator of all, Who is All Wise and All Knowing. So this right is confirmed and established. Then if the slave became Muslim after that, his right to escape slavery by embracing Islam was superseded by the mujaahid’s prior right to take possession of him before he became Muslim, and it would be unjust and unfair to annul the prior right because of a subsequent right, as is well known to all wise people.

Yes, it is good for the master to free the slave if he becomes Muslim. The Lawgiver enjoined and encouraged that, and opened many doors to it. Glory be to the Most Wise, the All Knowing. “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All‑Hearer, the All‑Knower” [al-An’aam 6:115].

“in truth” means in what He tells us, and “in justice” means in His rulings.

Undoubtedly this justice refers to owning slaves and other rulings of the Qur’aan.

How many people criticize something sound when their problem is their own misunderstanding. End quote from Adwa’ al-Bayaan (3/389).

Capture of prisoners during war was the most common way of acquiring slaves. Prisoners would inevitably be captured during any war, and the prevalent custom at that time was that prisoners had no protection or rights; they would either be killed or enslaved. But Islam brought two more options: unconditional release or ransom. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam)” [Muhammad 47:4]. During the battle of Badr the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted ransoms from the mushrik prisoners of war and let them go, and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) let many of the prisoners go for free, releasing them with no ransom. During the conquest of Makkah it was said to the people of Makkah: “Go, for you are free.”

During the campaign of Banu’l-Mustaliq, the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married a female prisoner from the defeated tribe so as to raise her status, as she was the daughter of one of their leaders, namely the Mother of the Believers Juwayriyah bint al-Haarith (may Allaah be pleased with her). Then the Muslims let all of these prisoners go.

Islam is not thirsty for the blood of prisoners, nor is it eager to enslave them.

Thus we may understand the limited ways that can lead to slavery. Islam did not abolish it altogether, because the kaafir prisoner who was opposed to truth and justice was a wrongdoer, or was a supporter of wrongdoing or was a tool in the execution or approval of wrongdoing. Letting him go free would give him the opportunity to spread wrongdoing and aggression against others and to oppose the truth and prevent it reaching people.

Freedom is a basic human right which cannot be taken away from a person except for a reason. When Islam accepted slavery within the limits that we have described, it put restrictions on the man who exploits his freedom in the worst possible way. If he was taken prisoner in a war of aggression in which he was defeated, then the proper conduct is to keep him in reasonable conditions throughout his detention.

Despite all that, Islam offers many opportunities to restore freedom to him and people like him.

The principle of dealing with slaves in Islam is a combination of justice, kindness and compassion.

One of the means of liberating slaves is allocating a portion of zakaah funds to freeing slaves; the expiation for accidental killing, zihaar (a jaahili form of divorce that is forbidden), breaking vows and having intercourse during the day in Ramadaan, is to free a slave. In addition to that, Muslims are also encouraged in general terms to free slaves for the sake of Allaah.

This is a brief summary of some of the principles of dealing with slaves in a just and kind manner:

1 – Guaranteeing them food and clothing like that of their masters.

It was narrated that Abu Dharr (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are your brothers whom Allaah has put under your authority, so if Allaah has put a person’s brother under his authority, let him feed him from what he eats and clothe him from what he wears, and let him not overburden him with work, and if he does overburden him with work, then let him help him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6050).

2 – Preserving their dignity

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard Abu’l-Qaasim (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever accuses his slave when he is innocent of what he says will be flogged on the Day of Resurrection, unless he is as he said.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6858).

Ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) manumitted a slave of his, then he picked up a stick or something from the ground and said: There is no more reward in it than the equivalent of this, but I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Whoever slaps his slave or beats him, his expiation is to manumit him.” Narrated by Muslim (1657).

3 – Being fair towards slaves and treating them kindly

It was narrated that ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan tweaked the ear of a slave of his when he did something wrong, then he said to him after that: Come and tweak my ear in retaliation. The slave refused but he insisted, so he started to tweak it slightly, and he said to him: Do it strongly, for I cannot bear the punishment on the Day of Resurrection. The slave said: Like that, O my master? The Day that you fear I fear also.

When ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf (may Allaah be pleased with him) walked among his slaves, no one could tell him apart from them, because he did not walk ahead of them, and he did not wear anything different from what they wore.

One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab passed by and saw some slaves standing and not eating with their master. He got angry and said to their master: What is wrong with people who are selfish towards their servants? Then he called the servants and they ate with them.

A man entered upon Salmaan (may Allaah be pleased with him) and found him making dough – and he was a governor. He said to him: O Abu ‘Abd-Allaah, what is this? He said: We have sent our servant on an errand and we do not want to give him two jobs at once.

4 – There is nothing wrong with slaves having precedence over free men in some matters

- with regard to any religious or worldly matters in which he excels over him. For example, it is valid for a slave to lead the prayer. ‘Aa’ishah the Mother of the Believers had a slave who would lead her in prayer. Indeed the Muslims have been commanded to hear and obey even if a slave is appointed in charge of their affairs.

5 – A slave may buy himself from his master and be free.

If a person is enslaved for some reason but then it becomes apparent that he has given up his wrongdoing and forgotten his past, and he has become a man who shuns evil and seeks to do good, is it permissible to respond to his request to let him go free? Islam says yes, and there are some fuqaha’ who say that this is obligatory and some who say that it is mustahabb.

This is what is called a mukaatabah or contract of manumission between the slave and his master. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you find that there is good and honesty in them. And give them something (yourselves) out of the wealth of Allaah which He has bestowed upon you”

[al-Noor 24:33]

This is how Islam treats slaves justly and kindly.

One of the results of these guidelines is that in many cases, the slave would become a friend of his master; in some cases the master would regard him as a son. Sa’d ibn Haashim al-Khaalidi said, describing a slave of his:

He is not a slave, rather he is a son whom [Allaah] has put under my care.

He has supported me with his good service; he is my hands and my arms.

Another result of the Muslims treating slaves in this manner is that the slaves became part of Muslim families as if they were also family members.

Gustave le Bon says in Hadaarat al-‘Arab (Arab Civilization) (p. 459-460): What I sincerely believe is that slavery among the Muslims is better than slavery among any other people, and that the situation of slaves in the east is better than that of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the east are part of the family. Slaves who wanted to be free could attain freedom by expressing their wish. But despite that, they did not resort to exercising this right. End quote.

How did non-Muslims treat slaves?

Attitude of the Jews towards slaves:

According to the Jews, mankind is divided into two groups: the Israelites form one group and all of mankind is another group.

As for the Israelites, it is permissible to enslave some of them, according to specific teachings contained in the Old Testament.

As for people other than the Israelites, they are a low-class race according to the Jews, who may be enslaved via domination and subjugation, because they are people who are doomed to humiliation by the heavenly decree from eternity. It says in Exodus 21:2-6:

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything.

3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him.

4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

5 But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,'

6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life”

As for enslaving non-Hebrews, this is done by taking them captive or overpowering them, because they believe that their race is superior to others, and they try to find a justification for that slavery in their distorted Torah. So they say that Ham the son of Noah – who was the father of Canaan – angered his father, because Noah was drunk one day and became naked as he was sleeping in his tent, and Ham saw him like that. When Noah found out about that after he woke up, he got angry and he cursed his progeny who were descendents of Canaan, and he said – according to the Book of Genesis 9:25-26): “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.’ He also said, ‘Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.’”

In the same chapter (v. 27) it says: “May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his [or their] slave”.

In the Book of Deuteronomy 20:10-14, it says:

“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.

11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you.

12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city.

13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it.

14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves”

Attitude of the Christians towards slaves:

Christianity confirmed slavery as it had been affirmed beforehand by Judaism. There is no text in the Gospels that prohibits or denounces slavery. It is remarkable that the historian William Muir criticized our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for not immediately abolishing slavery, whilst overlooking the attitude of the Gospels concerning slavery, as there is no report from the Messiah, or from the Disciples, or from the churches concerning this issue.

Rather, in his Epistles, Paul advised that slaves should be loyal to their masters, as he says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he enjoins slaves to obey their masters as they would obey the Messiah:

“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,

8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free”

(Ephesians 6:5-9).

In Grand Larousse encyclopédique, it says: It comes as no surprise that slavery has continued among Christians until today; the official representatives of the faith have affirmed its validity and accepted its legitimacy.

… to sum up: the Christian religion approved fully of slavery and still does so today. It is very difficult for anyone to prove that Christianity strove to abolish slavery.

The saints affirmed that nature makes some people slaves.

Churchmen did not prevent slavery or oppose it; rather they supported it, to such an extent that the philosopher saint Thomas Aquinas supported the philosophical view that agreed with the view of religious leaders, and he did not object to slavery, rather he praised it because – according to the view of Aristotle – it is one of the conditions in which some people are created naturally, and it does not contradict faith for a man to be content with the lowest position in life.

Haqaa’iq al-Islam by al-‘Aqqaad (p. 215).

In the Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. George Yousuf it says: Christianity did not object to slavery for political or economic reasons, and it did not urge believers to oppose their generation’s views with regard to slavery, or even debate it, and it did not say anything against the rights of slave owners or motivate the slaves to seek independence; it did not discuss the harm or harshness of slavery and it did not enjoin the immediate release of slaves.

It did not change anything in the nature of the relationship between master and slave; on the contrary, it affirmed the rights and duties of both parties.

Contemporary Europe and slavery

It is the reader’s right, in this era of advancement and progress, to ask questions about the pioneers of this progress and the numbers of people who died because of the way in which they were hunted, and who died on their way to the coast where the ships of the English Company and others would wait, then the rest died due to changes in climate. Approximately 4% died as they were being loaded onto the ships, and 12 % during the journey, let alone those who died in the colonies.

The slave trade continued at the hands of English companies that obtained the right of monopoly with the permission of the British government, then gave free rein to British subjects to enslave people. Some experts estimate that the total number of people seized by the British during slavery and exiled to the colonies between 1680 and 1786 CE was around 2,130,000.

When Europe made contact with Black Africa, this contact led to human misery during which the black people of that continent were faced with a major calamity that lasted for five centuries. The states of Europe came up with evil ways of kidnapping these people and bringing them to their lands to serve as fuel for their revival, where they burdened them with more work than they could bear. When America was discovered, the calamity increased and they became slaves in two continents instead of just one.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says (2/779) on the topic of slavery: Hunting slaves in the villages that were surrounded by the jungle was done by lighting fires in the straw of which the corrals surrounding the villages were made, then when the villagers fled to open land, the British hunted them down with whatever means they had at their disposal.

During the period from 1661 to 1774, for every million Black Africans who reached the Americas, a further nine million died during the hunting, loading and transportation. In other words, only one tenth of those who were hunted survived and actually reached the Americas, where they found no rest or relief, rather they were subjected to hard labour and torture.

At that time, they had laws which any wise person would be ashamed of.

Among these evil laws were those which said that any slave who transgressed against his master was to be killed, and any slave who ran away was to have his hands and feet cut off, and he was to be branded with hot iron; if he ran away again, he was to be killed. How could he run away if his hands and feet had been cut off?!

It was forbidden for a black man to become educated, and the jobs of whites were forbidden to coloureds.

In America, if seven black people gathered together, that was regarded as a crime, and if a white man passed by them it was permissible for him to spit at them and give them twenty lashes.

Another law stated that the blacks had no soul and that they possessed no smartness, intelligence or willpower, and that life existed only in their arms.

To sum up, with regard to his duties and service to his master, the slave was regarded as sane, responsible and punishable if he fell short, but with regard to his rights, he had no soul and no being, and he was not more than a strong pair of arms!

Finally, after many centuries of enslavement and oppression, there came the protocol to abolish slavery and strive to put an end to it, in a resolution issued by the United Nations in 1953 CE.

Hence their consciences did not awaken until the last century, after they had built their civilization on the corpses of free men whom they had enslaved unlawfully. What fair-minded person can compare this with the teachings of Islam, which came fourteen hundred years ago? It seems that accusing Islam with regard to this topic is like the saying, “She accused me of her problem then walked away.”

And Allaah knows best.

http://www.whymuhammad.com/EN/contents.aspx?aid=4924

Or wait. Let me guess. Those Muslims weren't "real Muslims."

see above reply!

You're proud of every part of Islamic history?

Yes-- do you have a problem with that?

Even the fitnah parts?

What does fitnah mean to you?

I think this is the main difference between us. I see my culture's history as something to be built on and improved. You see your culture's history as an example to be venerated.

Islam isn't a culture.. it is a complete economic/political/social/ religious system.. thus I'd refrain from what it is I see or don't?

What a strange thing to say. Incidentally, my family was Jewish, but are now atheists. Aside from enjoying matzo ball soup, I don't really identify with Jewish culture; I have little patience for Talmudic rabbis, in any case.

Judaism is your birth right.. I believe from the Jews I have met.. even if you stray, I am sure your God will save you on the account you are all chosen!

So just to be clear: Al-Andalus is your ideal society?

No-- not ideal better than this, but certainly not as good as khilafah rashida!

What were you saying earlier about how conquering and occupying land is wrong?

It depends on what you do with your conquest.. are you enlightening people and bringing justice or are you killing them and bringing moral decline and debauchery!

Sort of like how Muslims living in Western societies mock George W. Bush and Western culture on this forum?

Not quite.. I don't think no matter how well established that they got to enjoy the rights Jews and others enjoyed under Islamic rule!

(Don't get me wrong, I'm all for mocking George W. Bush, and there is a lot to criticize about Western culture. But I think you're being hypocritical for attacking Maimodenes for doing what many Muslims on this board do every day—attacking the society they happen to live in.)

Not attacking Maimonides-- just calling it as it was!

I did not mean to imply that Middle Eastern immigrants were predominately on welfare. Certainly this is not true; immigrants tend to be wealthier across the board, I believe.

indeed... I think you were secretly hoping, that I'd simply cave in to the sterotypes as dished out and usually lapped up by the ignorant?

My point was that your logic in calling Maimondenes a "parasite" applies equally to any Muslim living in the West who is openly critical of the West, and certainly applies to Muslims living in the West who happen to be on welfare. I'm not trying to impugne Muslim immigrants, or even criticize welfare (I'm a liberal verging on socialist), just pointing out that your line of attack here is quite hypocritical.

see my reply two paragraphs ago!

Ad hominem, and perhaps you can explain how our economy is supported by gulf countries? How does that book support your claim? Reading the Wiki entry and Amazon review I see absolutely nothing indicating that it supports what you said (the book seems to be a tirade, probably deserved, against American corporate malfeasance and manipulation of third-world economies). And last I heard the majority of U.S. debt was owned by Japan, China, and the UK.

British PM heads to Gulf for talks on world economy
http://news.smh.com.au/world/british...1102-5g0c.html

Gulf the saviour in economic crisis

IANS
Saturday, November 01st, 2008 AT 1:11 PM
Tags: World economy,
http://www.sakaaltimes.com/2008/11/0...conomic-c.html

just a quick google, but I know for a fact there is tons more money being funneled that your own benevolent monarchs are withholding from you!

You think Muslims in Western countries are entitled to welfare in those countries, and that non-Muslims are not?

Why?

Where in my post did I add 'while non-Muslims are not'?

Fair enough. I'd rather live in Andalusia than in plenty of places in the modern world ... of course, I would almost certainly be killed for blasphemy in Andalusia, so that's more of a comment on the state of the world today. :)

You most likely live on Xanadu where you'll be killed for for wearing polyester!

cheers

[Qingu]

shari3a states existing is imaginary yes!

I'm beginning to think that you see Islam not as a real-world ideology but as an abstract, ideal, unreachable state, like 0 degrees kelvin or something.

You are going off on tangents of morality-- if we are to strictly follow 'Muslim morality' then, no one is implementing that currently from so-called Muslim majority states-- in fact I'd go further to say that western societies are currently implementing Muslim morality!

Well, it's nice to know we have at least some common ground. :)

[INDENT]Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Discussing slavery and asking questions about it on the part of those who promote Christianity and try to divert people from following the religion of Islam

I am hesitant to even respond to this.

You copied and pasted it, and it's in response to Christian apologetics. I am manifestly not a Christian.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with what I said, which is that Muslims did engage in the slave trade, did conquer and occupy countries, and did occasionally commit genocide against minority (such as against the Manichaeans, or attempts against the Mandaeans today in Iraq). The fact that slavery in Islam tended to be more pleasant than slavery in Christianity or in Christian Southern America is completely immaterial. Do you think it should be legal to own human beings as property today? I don't, no matter how nice you're supposed to treat them.

Yes-- do you have a problem with that?

Yes, I think a lot of Islamic history is appalling. I think a lot of history in general is appalling and not worthy of imitating, so don't take that personally.

What does fitnah mean to you?

For example, one sect of Muslims assassinating or making war against another sect of Muslims over a succession dispute or religious doctrine.

Islam isn't a culture.. it is a complete economic/political/social/ religious system..

Incidentally, that's how I'd define "culture" but okay.

Judaism is your birth right..

Judaism is my birth right ... according to the religion of Judaism—which, as it happens, I think is a Mesopotamian mythology. So I'm not sure where that leaves me. :)

No-- not ideal better than this, but certainly not as good as khilafah rashida!

Really? The Rashidun caliphate seemed pretty unstable to me, what with all the assassinations and sectarian wars (i.e. fitnah, though apparently you dispute this is actually fitnah). I think I'd prefer Al-Andalus, personally; I'd probably have a higher chance of survival there, at least. :)

It depends on what you do with your conquest.. are you enlightening people and bringing justice or are you killing them and bringing moral decline and debauchery!

Well, most conquerers believe they are spreading enlightenment and freedom and justice—Sargon of Akkad, Alexander the Great, Roman emperors, Hindu emperors, Byzantine emperors, Islamic emperors, medieval Christians spreading the "light of Jesus" around the world, and, today, President George W. Bush spreading freedom and democracy around the world.

But obviously, conquering and occupying other countries is only okay if Muslims do it.

Not quite.. I don't think no matter how well established that they got to enjoy the rights Jews and others enjoyed under Islamic rule!

Do you really think that?

Because last I checked, Muslims in Western countries can testify in court against non-Muslims (dhimmis cannot against Muslims).

Last I checked, Muslims can openly proselytize (dhimmis cannot).

Last I checked, Muslims can bear arms (dhimmis cannot).

Last I checked, Muslims do not have to pay a poll tax (dhimmis do).

Did you mean to say "the rights of Jews and o ther enjoyed under Islamic rule except for all the rights they didn't have?

British PM heads to Gulf for talks on world economy
http://news.smh.com.au/world/british...1102-5g0c.html

Gulf the saviour in economic crisis

IANS
Saturday, November 01st, 2008 AT 1:11 PM
Tags: World economy,
http://www.sakaaltimes.com/2008/11/0...conomic-c.html

First link is dead, second one won't open for me. Can you summarize why Muslims are saving America from economic collapse?

Where in my post did I add 'while non-Muslims are not'?

I thought that was your implication—that Muslims in the West specially deserve welfare because Muslims are somehow shoring up our economy (still waiting for support on that claim).

But fair enough—I have no problem if all you meant was that poor Muslims are entitled to welfare just like poor non-Muslims. I am a fan of welfare programs.

You most likely live on Xanadu where you'll be killed for for wearing polyester!

Hm. Are you thinking of ancient Israel? :)

[جوري]

I'm beginning to think that you see Islam not as a real-world ideology but as an abstract, ideal, unreachable state, like 0 degrees kelvin or something.

It is a reachable state..insha'Allah-- in time we'll get there!
"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership, which will remain for as long as Allah wills, and then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood." Then he kept silent. (Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273))

Well, it's nice to know we have at least some common ground. :)

I have no common grounds with you.. this is what it is as prophecized in Islam -- if anything it is an eye opener than our deplorable state was predicted that many centuries ago!

I am hesitant to even respond to this.

You copied and pasted it, and it's in response to Christian apologetics. I am manifestly not a Christian.

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with what I said, which is that Muslims did engage in the slave trade, did conquer and occupy countries, and did occasionally commit genocide against minority (such as against the Manichaeans, or attempts against the Mandaeans today in Iraq). The fact that slavery in Islam tended to be more pleasant than slavery in Christianity or in Christian Southern America is completely immaterial. Do you think it should be legal to own human beings as property today? I don't, no matter how nice you're supposed to treat them.

When you bother read, I'll bother reply.. even if you skimmed that which is irrelevant you'd have found from Hadith and Quran how slavery is an abomination -- and that Islam worked to free slaves!

Yes, I think a lot of Islamic history is appalling. I think a lot of history in general is appalling and not worthy of imitating, so don't take that personally.

I don't take anything you say personally.. it is more a waste of time than an engaging discussion!

For example, one sect of Muslims assassinating or making war against another sect of Muslims over a succession dispute or religious doctrine.

huh? how is this relevant?
might do you some good to read outside the usual bull
Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...aq-475889.html

Incidentally, that's how I'd define "culture" but okay.

you can call a plum a prune for all I care.. if you wish your readers to understand your context I suggest you use terms generally understood by all!

Judaism is my birth right ... according to the religion of Judaism—which, as it happens, I think is a Mesopotamian mythology. So I'm not sure where that leaves me. :)

fascinating.. under either ground is of no consequence to me!

Really? The Rashidun caliphate seemed pretty unstable to me, what with all the assassinations and sectarian wars (i.e. fitnah, though apparently you dispute this is actually fitnah). I think I'd prefer Al-Andalus, personally; I'd probably have a higher chance of survival there, at least. :)

I think you have your history confused? try not to read about Islamic history a la Daniel pipes site?

I didn't dispute fitnah, I asked you what your definition was of fitnah -- as that seems in your book to detract from establishing a properly run state?

Well, most conquerers believe they are spreading enlightenment and freedom and justice—Sargon of Akkad, Alexander the Great, Roman emperors, Hindu emperors, Byzantine emperors, Islamic emperors, medieval Christians spreading the "light of Jesus" around the world, and, today, President George W. Bush spreading freedom and democracy around the world.

well apparently so few have established and SUSTAINED their goals.. the true test comes not through getting there but staying power.. for the chunk of its history the world under Muslim rule was pretty successful...
I think the least successful was atheist rule.. we only need to look at the enlightenment of Lenin, Xedon, Sung I1, Enver Hoxha, saloth Sar to actually understand the more man made or man tampered with, the worst it is!

But obviously, conquering and occupying other countries is only okay if Muslims do it.

Yes.. now you are on to something!

Do you really think that?

Think what?

Because last I checked, Muslims in Western countries can testify in court against non-Muslims (dhimmis cannot against Muslims).

We have had this conversation before and I gave you an example on how that was not so.. do you have some sort of encephalopathy that keeps you from retaining info? I really hate to repeat myself!

Last I checked, Muslims can openly proselytize (dhimmis cannot).

I think you proselytize Muslims galore... go into google and put in Muslim/Jiahd etc and see what comes up.. or is there just one method of converting in your book?

Last I checked, Muslims can bear arms (dhimmis cannot).

where did you check?.. was it something your proctologist found for you?

Last I checked, Muslims do not have to pay a poll tax (dhimmis do).

Muslims pay Zakat and go to war, both which dhimmis do not for enjoying privileges to live free at a time of oppression!

Did you mean to say "the rights of Jews and o ther enjoyed under Islamic rule except for all the rights they didn't have?

oh.. what didn't they enjoy? Perhaps they liked it better under Nazi Germany or when they themselves are being Nazis?

First link is dead, second one won't open for me. Can you summarize why Muslims are saving America from economic collapse?

The summary is your ailing economy is being saved by Gulf states.. and secondly Japan holds the world's highest debt so it is amusing to me at all how they are fixing your economy?.. it is a wonder to me at all.. if one didn't provide you with links you'd complain of validity, and if they provide you with a link you complain you want a summary.. do you not have better things to do with your time than wasting mine?

I thought that was your implication—that Muslims in the West specially deserve welfare because Muslims are somehow shoring up our economy (still waiting for support on that claim).

You think very faulty, and see my previous reply!

But fair enough—I have no problem if all you meant was that poor Muslims are entitled to welfare just like poor non-Muslims. I am a fan of welfare programs.

I'd indeed rather see the money funneled to folks who need it than to fund the colonial settler state of Israel who hordes more than all of Africa combined!
the system of welfare is the same as that of Zakat except instead of some moral conscientious drive, it has to be forced and usually misused by the govt!

Hm. Are you thinking of ancient Israel? :)

Israel was Jacob--period!

I hope we are done?!

[alcurad]

I'm beginning to think that you see Islam not as a real-world ideology but as an abstract, ideal, unreachable state, like 0 degrees kelvin or something.



Really? The Rashidun caliphate seemed pretty unstable to me, what with all the assassinations and sectarian wars (i.e. fitnah, though apparently you dispute this is actually fitnah). I think I'd prefer Al-Andalus, personally; I'd probably have a higher chance of survival there, at least. :)

injustice/crime will be committed regardless of existing religions or cultures, what's your point?

a muslim is not to hold historical periods in veneration, rather actions and stands are judged to be Islamic and held on to, or not and discarded. if someone does wrong, he is to be condemned regardless of his claim to whatever religion.

about dhimmis and all, most of their rules are not actually found in Islam, rather the Arabs adopted pre-existing rules and it found it's way to muslim texts afterwords.
jizya and so on were ordered in context of the prophet having recently won a grueling hard fought war for survival with tribes that did not adhere to much of what he adhered to, the early muslims needed to be prepared to fight most of the time, thus the sometimes harsh commands given in the qur'an or sunnah regarding non-believers, ie. the ones who were fighting the muslims. after the prophet's passing away, people who did not know much/didn't care about Islam came to be rulers and were the cause of the fitnah.
as it is, the fitnah is proof of the greatness of the teachings of Islam, not the opposite. the Caliph Ali fought against his enemies till he died, and his camp consisted mainly of the poorer arabs and the marginalized non arabs.

[Qingu]

It is a reachable state..insha'Allah-- in time we'll get there!
"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership, which will remain for as long as Allah wills, and then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood." Then he kept silent. (Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273))

Right. How could anyone predict wrongly with such conveniently vague promises?

I have no common grounds with you.. this is what it is as prophecized in Islam -- if anything it is an eye opener than our deplorable state was predicted that many centuries ago!

And I thought it was just the crazy Christians who believed every mention of Rome in their holy text actually is talking about late 20th/early 21st century America.

When you bother read, I'll bother reply.. even if you skimmed that which is irrelevant you'd have found from Hadith and Quran how slavery is an abomination -- and that Islam worked to free slaves!

Shocking that you would call a practice explicitly allowed in the Quran an "abomination."

If it's such an abomination, why did it take the ulema and Muslim leaders so long to outlaw it?

You think you know better than the ulema of the Rashidun caliphate, who permitted slavery during their time?

huh? how is this relevant?
might do you some good to read outside the usual bull
Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq

Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with my original comment (a definition of fitnah), it is also a completely dishonest distortion of what this article actually says. (It does not report that Americans are provoking civil war; it reports on Syrians delusionally believing that Americans are provoking civil war).

Do you think we don't read the articles you cite? Because this is the second article you've "cited" in defense of your post that does no such thing. Doesn't your religion command against bearing false witness?

Back to the topic which you were responding: please define fitnah. I gave my definition: do you accept it or not?

I think you have your history confused? try not to read about Islamic history a la Daniel pipes site?

Ad hominem, again. I do not read Daniel Pipes.

When you dispute my claim (that there were assassinations and sectarian warfare in the first generations of Islam), it might do your argument better to actually provide reasons instead of just insults.

I didn't dispute fitnah, I asked you what your definition was of fitnah -- as that seems in your book to detract from establishing a properly run state?

Still waiting for your alternate definition of fitnah, then.

well apparently so few have established and SUSTAINED their goals.. the true test comes not through getting there but staying power.. for the chunk of its history the world under Muslim rule was pretty successful...
I think the least successful was atheist rule.. we only need to look at the enlightenment of Lenin, Xedon, Sung I1, Enver Hoxha, saloth Sar to actually understand the more man made or man tampered with, the worst it is!

"Atheist" rule? The lack of belief in gods is not a governing ideology (unlike, for example, Islam, or Marxism, or Enlightenment-era rationalism).

Islam had its brief time in the limelight (though at the time China was more advanced). But it hardly "sustained" its goals, and the only reason Islamic countries today even have any power on a global scale is because they've bought it from the West and China, in exchange for oil.

As far as the most successful and sustained civilization in history, it's China by a longshot, and at the rate America's going today will likely continue to be.

Yes.. now you are on to something!

I'm noticing a pattern here.

You criticize things like slavery and treating people like second-class citizens ... unless it's a Muslim slaveowner or government with dhimmis.

You criticize conquering other countries and occupying them ... unless Muslims are the ones conquering and occupying.

Let me guess. You are deeply opposed to genocide and killing civilians as well ... unless, of course, it's the Muslims who are doing the genocide and civilian-killing?

I'm actually curious—what other actions or social policies are permissible if Muslims do it, but impermissible if anyone else does it?

Think what?

That Maimonedes as a dhimmi has more rights than a Muslim living in a Western country today. As you show below, you were being dishonest when you said that (there you go bearing false witness again)

We have had this conversation before and I gave you an example on how that was not so.. do you have some sort of encephalopathy that keeps you from retaining info? I really hate to repeat myself!

I haven't been on in almost a year, and I certainly don't remember any such conversation. And I really hate it when people resort to insults instead of supporting their argument with reasons. It usually happens when people are wrong and have no reasons.

I think you proselytize Muslims galore... go into google and put in Muslim/Jiahd etc and see what comes up.. or is there just one method of converting in your book?

But I am not a dhimmi. We were talking about dhimmis. Are dhimmis allowed to proselytize? Stop bearing false witness.

where did you check?.. was it something your proctologist found for you?

Another ad hominem. I take it then that you agree that dhimmis, unlike Muslims today, could not bear arms.

Muslims pay Zakat and go to war, both which dhimmis do not for enjoying privileges to live free at a time of oppression!

Those dhimmis were sure privileged. Just like how slaves didn't have to pay for their clothes or food.

So I take it you wouldn't mind living as a dhimmi under, say, an Israeli or American government? You wouldn't have rights and you have to pay extra taxes but hey, you'd be protected? Oh, nevermind—I forgot that it's only okay to treat classes of people like dhimmis if you're a Muslim government.

oh.. what didn't they enjoy? Perhaps they liked it better under Nazi Germany or when they themselves are being Nazis?

Holocaust humor, very cute. But I think you missed the joke, which was pointing out how claiming Maimonedes enjoyed more rights as a dhimmi than Muslims enjoy today under Western governments is laughably false and dishonest.

The summary is your ailing economy is being saved by Gulf states..

That's not a summary why your claim is true, that's a restatement of your claim. Repeating a claim over and over does not make it true. Why is our economy being saved by Gulf states?

and secondly Japan holds the world's highest debt so it is amusing to me at all how they are fixing your economy?.. it is a wonder to me at all.. if one didn't provide you with links you'd complain of validity, and if they provide you with a link you complain you want a summary.. do you not have better things to do with your time than wasting mine?

There's no need to get snippy; your links didn't work. Provide working links and I'll be happy to read them. I'm curious as to how Muslims are shoring up our economy.

You think very faulty

Ad hominem (fourth now?) Insults instead of reasons, etc.

I'd indeed rather see the money funneled to folks who need it than to fund the colonial settler state of Israel who hordes more than all of Africa combined!

What does that have to do with welfare?

the system of welfare is the same as that of Zakat except instead of some moral conscientious drive, it has to be forced and usually misused by the govt!

Zakat wasn't enforced?

Then how was it more of a burden than the jizya, which was enforced?

I hope we are done?!

I'd like to see you defend your points or admit you were wrong if you cannot defend them. But something tells me that's not going to happen.

[جوري]

Right. How could anyone predict wrongly with such conveniently vague promises?

How are they conveniently vague when they have happened exactly as described?

And I thought it was just the crazy Christians who believed every mention of Rome in their holy text actually is talking about late 20th/early 21st century America.

I don't really see how this relates to the topic..
there is a very explicit tabulation of the events...

Shocking that you would call a practice explicitly allowed in the Quran an "abomination."

You keep mentioning the Quran but don't actually bother quote to get an exegesis.. why is that?

If it's such an abomination, why did it take the ulema and Muslim leaders so long to outlaw it?

outlaw what?

You think you know better than the ulema of the Rashidun caliphate, who permitted slavery during their time?

slavery was very much in existence prior to Islam

from the Quran

Free Slaves


The Noble Qur'ân Al-Baqarah 2:177

It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and each and every act of obedience to Allâh, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and gives the Zakât, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.) in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles). Such are the people of the truth and they are Al*Muttaqûn (pious).



The Noble Qur'ân Al-Balad 90:1-15

1. I swear by this city (Makkah);

2. And you are free (from sin, to punish the enemies of Islâm on the Day of the conquest) in this city (Makkah),

4. Verily, We have created man in toil.

5. Thinks he that none can overcome him?

6. He says (boastfully): "I have wasted wealth in abundance!"

7. Thinks he that none sees him?

8. Have We not made for him a pair of eyes?

9. And a tongue and a pair of lips?

10. And shown him the two ways (good and evil)?

11. But he has made no effort to pass on the path that is steep.

12. And what will make you know the path that is steep?

13. (It is) Freeing a neck (slave, etc.)

14. Or giving food in a day of hunger (famine),

15. To an orphan near of kin.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emancipation: Marry a Slave


The Noble Qur'ân An-Nur 4:32-33

32. And marry those among you who are single (i.e. a man who has no wife and the woman who has no husband) and (also marry) the Sâlihûn (pious, fit and capable ones) of your (male) slaves and maid-servants (female slaves). If they be poor, Allâh will enrich them out of His Bounty. And Allâh is All-Sufficent for His creatures' needs, All-Knowing (about the state of the people).

33. And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you know that they are good and trustworthy. And give them something yourselves out of the wealth of Allâh which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil action unwillingly).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prefer Marriage to a Believing Slave


The Noble Qur'ân An-Nur 2:221

And do not marry Al-Mushrikât (idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allâh Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikûn till they believe (in Allâh Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikûn) invite you to the Fire, but Allâh invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If You Break an Oath: Free a Slave

The Noble Qur'ân An-Nur 2:221

Allâh will not punish you for what is uninentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masâkin (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families; or clothe them; or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths (i.e. do not swear much). Thus Allâh make clear to you His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) that you may be grateful.

Hadith - Al-Muwatta, #38.16


Malik related to me from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar freed an illegitimate child and its mother.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If You Kill a Believer: Free a Slave


The Noble Qur'ân An-Nisa 4:221

It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allâh. And Allâh is Ever All*Knowing, All*Wise.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Take Back Lawful Wife: First, Free a Slave


The Noble Qur'ân Al-Mujaadilah 58:3-4

3. And those who make unlawful to them (their wives) (by Az-Zihâr ) and wish to free themselves from what they uttered, (the penalty) in that case (is) the freeing of a slave before they touch each other. That is an admonition to you (so that you may not return to such an ill thing). And Allâh is All-Aware of what you do.

4. And he who finds not (the money for freeing a slave) must fast two successive months before they both touch each other. And for him who is unable to do so, he should feed sixty of Miskîn (poor). That is in order that you may have perfect Faith in Allâh and His Messenger. These are the limits set by Allâh. And for disbelievers, there is a painful torment.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slaves Are To Be Treated Like Brothers


Hadith - Sahih Al-Bukhari 3.721, Narrated Al Marur bin Suwaid

I saw Abu Dhar Al-Ghifari wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (i.e. how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied, "Once I abused a man and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked me, 'Did you abuse him by slighting his mother?' He added, 'Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So, if one has one's brethren under one's control, one should feed them with the like of what one eats and clothe them with the like of what one wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job).' "


Hadith - Al-Muwatta 54.41, Kindness to Slaves

Malik related to me that he heard that Umar ibn al-Khattab went to the villages every Saturday. If he found a slave doing work which he was not capable of doing, he lightened it for him.


Hadith - Sunan of Abu Dawud, #2694, Narrated Ali ibn Abu Talib

Some slaves (of the unbelievers) went out to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) on the day of al-Hudaybiyyah before treaty. Their masters wrote to him saying: O Muhammad, they have not gone out to you with an interest in your religion, but they have gone out to escape from slavery. Some people said: They have spoken the truth, Apostle of Allah, send them back to them. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) became angry and said: I do not see your restraining yourself from this action, group of Quraysh, but that Allah send someone to you who strike your necks. He then refused to return them, and said: They are emancipated (slaves) of Allah, the Exalted.



perhaps you are not as familiar with its content as you'll have us believe? or are you unable to read?

Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with my original comment (a definition of fitnah), it is also a completely dishonest distortion of what this article actually says. (It does not report that Americans are provoking civil war; it reports on Syrians delusionally believing that Americans are provoking civil war).

you have neither defined for us 'fitnah' nor have you actually read the article.. perhaps it would do you good to actually read so you are not so confused all the time?

Do you think we don't read the articles you cite? Because this is the second article you've "cited" in defense of your post that does no such thing. Doesn't your religion command against bearing false witness?

You speak of fitnah and that is what fitnah is, causing tribulation though falsehood.. what does my religion speaking against falsehood have to do with unethical warfare?

Back to the topic which you were responding: please define fitnah. I gave my definition: do you accept it or not?

Actually you haven't defined it, I have just done so for you in my last paragraph!

Ad hominem, again. I do not read Daniel Pipes.

yet amazingly you parrot his nonsense -- is it adhom when you state what you observe?

When you dispute my claim (that there were assassinations and sectarian warfare in the first generations of Islam), it might do your argument better to actually provide reasons instead of just insults.

It might do your argument even more good to define and event rather than an abstraction of your own making?

Still waiting for your alternate definition of fitnah, then.

definition of Fitnah is given to you two paragraphs ago.. we are actually rather still waiting on yours

"Atheist" rule? The lack of belief in gods is not a governing ideology (unlike, for example, Islam, or Marxism, or Enlightenment-era rationalism).

Atheism is a universal negative.. You have to actually prove that God doesn't exist or give us a reasonable alternative as to where everything came from, an account that with any luck would observe the principle of parsimony and can be asserted and verified experimentally-- until such a time, atheism is a belief system no different than any other belief system.. except when left to their own devices atheists regime has lead to the death of millions more than all the religions combined!

Islam had its brief time in the limelight (though at the time China was more advanced). But it hardly "sustained" its goals, and the only reason Islamic countries today even have any power on a global scale is because they've bought it from the West and China, in exchange for oil.

You just sound like an undereducated dupe.. which is rather expected.. considering the golden age of Islam happened prior to any oil surge--- forget the studies I have posted in my prior post at how much more successful Muslim immigrants are compared to the native -- the reason the west is where it is at, is because they have pillaged, imperialized and stolen the wealth of nations, and then had the good fortune to make thieving look good in the news!

As far as the most successful and sustained civilization in history, it's China by a longshot, and at the rate America's going today will likely continue to be.

Funny how you admire china and yet complain about them in the news daily
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...d=rssfrontpage

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2...nt_6540952.htm

to name a few!

I'm noticing a pattern here.

and we all know what a challenge that is for you!

You criticize things like slavery and treating people like second-class citizens ... unless it's a Muslim slaveowner or government with dhimmis.

I am just reducing your ineffectual logic to the low common denominator that is deserves!

Let me guess. You are deeply opposed to genocide and killing civilians as well ... unless, of course, it's the Muslims who are doing the genocide and civilian-killing?

I should throw you another bone, you've beaten this one to death!

That Maimonedes as a dhimmi has more rights than a Muslim living in a Western country today. As you show below, you were being dishonest when you said that (there you go bearing false witness again)

He enjoyed more rights indeed.. if all is to be compared!

I haven't been on in almost a year, and I certainly don't remember any such conversation. And I really hate it when people resort to insults instead of supporting their argument with reasons. It usually happens when people are wrong and have no reasons.

Do you hate it only when others do it, but not when you do it or have any supporting evidence to substantiate it?.. I have exposed your pattern thus far with each paragraph!
You don't read, you don't support what you spew from actual Islamic literature, you arrogate and we are supposed to somehow accept it because your highness said so?-- hilarious

But I am not a dhimmi. We were talking about dhimmis. Are dhimmis allowed to proselytize? Stop bearing false witness.

what is the method of 'proselytizing' that Muslims use? perhaps if you can define for us what you mean you can get a not so false witness!

Another ad hominem. I take it then that you agree that dhimmis, unlike Muslims today, could not bear arms.

Again, I have no idea where you get that crap from.. care to support it from an Islamic source?

Those dhimmis were sure privileged. Just like how slaves didn't have to pay for their clothes or food.

yeah.. you should really make a note of just how privileged when not fifty yrs ago a black woman was asked to move to the back of the bus for a white man, before you get all worked up with your BB gun!

So I take it you wouldn't mind living as a dhimmi under, say, an Israeli or American government? You wouldn't have rights and you have to pay extra taxes but hey, you'd be protected? Oh, nevermind—I forgot that it's only okay to treat classes of people like dhimmis if you're a Muslim government.

I already pay higher taxes than most, which get funneled to your colonial settler state -- so you are not really making a point for yourself --

Holocaust humor, very cute. But I think you missed the joke, which was pointing out how claiming Maimonedes enjoyed more rights as a dhimmi than Muslims enjoy today under Western governments is laughably false and dishonest.

Again, is it false because you said so? and we have all come to enjoy your invaluable and correct insights?

That's not a summary why your claim is true, that's a restatement of your claim. Repeating a claim over and over does not make it true. Why is our economy being saved by Gulf states?

would you enjoy an exclamation for writing something foolish..

let me put it in big fonts maybe it will take better

US asks Arab Gulf states for $290 billion to help in global crises
Published: Friday, 21 November, 2008 @ 6:54 PM in Beirut
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/20...ks_arab_gu.php

There's no need to get snippy; your links didn't work. Provide working links and I'll be happy to read them. I'm curious as to how Muslims are shoring up our economy.

Hope the last one doesn't conveniently not work for you!

What does that have to do with welfare?

What are you talking about?

Zakat wasn't enforced?

Enforced on Muslims by religious obligation not state obligation.. does that cocnern you?

Then how was it more of a burden than the jizya, which was enforced?

Jizya is less than zakat money!
I pay high taxes because of my income bracket that go to your colonial settler state without complaint.. so stop inquiring of little tax money imposed n dhimmis in a fictional non-existing state which is actually less than that which Muslims themselves had to pay.. it just makes you comes across like a moron who is looking for any straw to latch on!

I'd like to see you defend your points or admit you were wrong if you cannot defend them. But something tells me that's not going to happen.

You are hilarious-- thanks for tickling me with voluminous BS!

cheers

[جوري]

an addendum to previous post just in case the 'link doesn't work'

US seeks 300 billion dlrs from Gulf states:

The United States has asked four oil-rich Gulf states for close to 300 billion dollars to help it curb the global financial meltdown, Kuwait's daily Al-Seyassah reported Thursday.

Quoting "highly informed" sources, the daily said Washington has asked Saudi Arabia for 120 billion dollars, the United Arab Emirates for 70 billion dollars, Qatar for 60 billion dollars and was seeking 40 billion dollars from Kuwait.

Al-Seyassah said Washington sought the amount as "financial aid" to face the fallout of the financial crisis and help prevent its economy from sliding into a painful recession.

The daily said the United States plans to use the funds to help the ailing automobile industry , banks and other companies suffering from the global financial turmoil.

The four nations, all members of OPEC, produce together 14 million barrels of oil per day, around half of the cartel's production and about 17 percent of world supplies.

The four states are estimated to have amassed close to 1.5 trillion dollars in surplus in the past six years due to high oil prices that rocketed above 147 dollars in July before sliding to just above 50 dollars.

The daily also said that the United States has asked Kuwait to forgive its Iraqi debt estimated at around 16 billion dollars.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120...JOoU6Ff0es0NUE


I hope that, that will put an end to atheist platitudes