/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Can We Coexist?



snakelegs
06-25-2006, 10:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
And Muslims ought to be encouraged to leave non-Muslim countries. We cannot live together. Separation is the only viable option.
this is a very sad comment. what's even more sad is that i am gradually and reluctantly coming to a similar conclusion.
our mentalities are just too different.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ansar Al-'Adl
06-25-2006, 11:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
this is a very sad comment. what's even more sad is that i am gradually and reluctantly coming to a similar conclusion.
The terrorists and extremists on both sides score a victory when you allow their ideology of hatred to divide us, though they are so few in number and the manjority of people disagree with them.
our mentalities are just too different.
We both respect human life and call for peace, understanding and justice. Is that so different?
Reply

snakelegs
06-25-2006, 11:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

The terrorists and extremists on both sides score a victory when you allow their ideology of hatred to divide us, though they are so few in number and the manjority of people disagree with them.

this is true. however, i feel no hatred only a deep sadness.

We both respect human life and call for peace, understanding and justice. Is that so different?

no that is not different, but here are some things that are and these differences seem irreconcilable for example:
there is a wide spread belief among muslims (including on this forum) that apostasy and blasphemy should be punishable by death.
it is not uncommon to hear muslims demanding that shariah should be in place in non-muslim countries.
the murder of van gogh.
the violent reactions (yes, i know they were few) to the cartoons that denmark paper published but even more alarming to me were the placards at the peaceful protests in UK and the fact that these are people living in the west.
it is not a matter of right or wrong (i think the van gogh thing and the cartoon thing were deliberate provocation).
it is just that this type of mentality is so foreign to the average westerner.
i am trying not to come to the conclusion that we cannot live together, but it is getting more and more difficult.
peace.
edit: p.s. it would be more accurate to say "this interpretation of islam". i
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-26-2006, 12:14 AM
Sometimes I get the feeling from some of these comments that there are some non-muslims who will never be satisfied with Muslims no matter what we do. Especially when someone says something like, "I came on this forum looking for dialogue but the more I read the more negative my view of Muslims and Islam and the more I think we can't live peacefully with them!"

Excuse me? How? What has there been on this forum except for Muslims promoting peace, condemning injustice and violence, spreading the moral teachings of Islam on respect, kindness, humility, mercy, justice, tolerance, patience, and all forms of virtuous conduct. What do people want to read??
there is a wide spread belief among muslims (including on this forum) that apostasy and blasphemy should be punishable by death.
it is not uncommon to hear muslims demanding that shariah should be in place in non-muslim countries.
No, we don't want to impose our laws on you, we don't demand that you submit to Islamic laws, all we ask is that we have mutual respect and understanding. I've already explained the apostasy law in this thread and blasphemy in this thread, which shouldn't be unfamiliar to Christians and Jews. These are laws implemented within our own Islamic state, not non-muslim countries.
the murder of van gogh.
the violent reactions to the cartoons
Both of these are not from Islam's teachings and are rejected and denounced by mainstream Muslims, so how on earth can this be evidence that it is impossible for Muslimns and westerners to coexist? You initially claimed that there was a difference in our mentalities and now you've resorted to the old fallacy of highlighting individual unislamic acts, not Islamic teachings.

Secondly, it is interesting you would raise this example as if to say, "We want to live peacefully with you and without hostility but we reserve the right to revile, defame, malign, slander and abuse you, your religion and whatever you hold sacred." Sorry, but there's no peace in that, only hostility and hatred. There will only be peace when both sides agree to respect eachother, not defend their right to spread hatred against eachother.

Of course it is difficult for someone to live together with soemone else if they demand that they should be allowed to insult and incite hatred towards them! If you think it is difficult to live peacefully, it is only because you have made it that way. You cannot call for peace while permitting hatred and oppression.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
snakelegs
06-26-2006, 01:12 AM
ansar,
i don't know if you read my p.s. "p.s. it would be more accurate to say "this interpretation of islam".

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Sometimes I get the feeling from some of these comments that there are some non-muslims who will never be satisfied with Muslims no matter what we do. Especially when someone says something like, "I came on this forum looking for dialogue but the more I read the more negative my view of Muslims and Islam and the more I think we can't live peacefully with them!"

Excuse me? How? What has there been on this forum except for Muslims promoting peace, condemning injustice and violence, spreading the moral teachings of Islam on respect, kindness, humility, mercy, justice, tolerance, patience, and all forms of virtuous conduct. What do people want to read??

well, i listed some in my last post that are a long way from "respect, kindness, humility, mercy, justice, tolerance"


No, we don't want to impose our laws on you, we don't demand that you submit to Islamic laws, all we ask is that we have mutual respect and understanding. I've already explained the apostasy law in this thread and blasphemy in this thread, which shouldn't be unfamiliar to Christians and Jews. These are laws implemented within our own Islamic state, not non-muslim countries.

ansar, your statements about shariah may be true, but the danger lies in muslims who interpret it in these ways. again it is a mindset that is just foreign to western culture, at least in modern times.


Both of these are not from Islam's teachings and are rejected and denounced by mainstream Muslims, so how on earth can this be evidence that it is impossible for Muslimns and westerners to coexist? You initially claimed that there was a difference in our mentalities and now you've resorted to the old fallacy of highlighting individual unislamic acts, not Islamic teachings.

Secondly, it is interesting you would raise this example as if to say, "We want to live peacefully with you and without hostility but we reserve the right to revile, defame, malign, slander and abuse you, your religion and whatever you hold sacred." Sorry, but there's no peace in that, only hostility and hatred. There will only be peace when both sides agree to respect eachother, not defend their right to spread hatred against eachother.

ansar, this statement makes me furious. i have no desire to :"revile,defame, malign" etc anyones' religion. to turn my statement into this is a cheap shot.
again, my issue is more one of a certain interpretation of islam like that that prevails on this forum. and, as i pointed out it is not a matter of right and wrong or true or false, but a fundamentalclash in mentalities.

Of course it is difficult for someone to live together with soemone else if they demand that they should be allowed to insult and incite hatred towards them! If you think it is difficult to live peacefully, it is only because you have made it that way. You cannot call for peace while permitting hatred and oppression.
you have a way of turning anything around and this is a good example. when i say the 2 mentalities are incompatible it is not the same thing as "permitting hatred and oppression" this accusation doesn't even deserve a comment

may i suggest that this be a separate threat in the world section "can we live together?" starting with my first post:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by HeiGou
"And Muslims ought to be encouraged to leave non-Muslim countries. We cannot live together. Separation is the only viable option."

this is a very sad comment. what's even more sad is that i am gradually and reluctantly coming to a similar conclusion.
our mentalities are just too different."
peace
Reply

Panatella
06-26-2006, 02:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Excuse me? How? What has there been on this forum except for Muslims promoting peace, condemning injustice and violence, spreading the moral teachings of Islam on respect, kindness, humility, mercy, justice, tolerance, patience, and all forms of virtuous conduct. What do people want to read??
I have left the rest of your post for you and snakelegs to discuss. The paragraph I have quoted I take issue with based on the lack of truth.

In the time I have spent reading posts on this forum, I know this to be untrue. While I have seen a great many people write the kind of posts you claim, I have also seen volumes of hatred, hate-mongering, bigotry, and promoting and condoning violence. If you would like I could quote some examples, but the best examples are removed by moderators.
You could say of course that this removal by moderators is an example of how this behavior is not tolerated, but truthfully it only shows that moderators do not tolerate it. If you watch the threads develop in real time as people write their posts, you see people saying the awful things I have stated, and others condoning what is being said. Others do not condemn violence and injustice as you say, they are silent and only continue posting as if something terrible had not been said. Yes many do speak up, but many do not. Many condone the terrible posts. And many also write them.
So, while I agree that some people here condemn injustice and violence, many here promote these things. So I take issue with the wording of your post
Excuse me? How? What has there been on this forum except for Muslims promoting peace.....
What I gathered from snakelegs post, is a kind of dispair at a realization she wants to deny. I personally feel that there are a large number of people, both muslim and nonmuslim that greatly contribute to the realization that people like snakelegs are coming to. Perhaps you are right Ansar that mainstream muslims can coexist just fine. But even at a minority, the numbers that cannot coexist are large. Think of the countless posts that you and the other mods delete regularily on just this one forum. Think of all the hateful people you must ban regularily. Certainly not a majority, but very many indeed. Until 'mainstream' muslims address these people, and actively discourage the extreme views and behaviour, the muslim community will continue to be viewed with distrust. Of course the other side of ther coin is the same, and muslims don't trust western society either.
Reply

Woodrow
06-26-2006, 03:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Panatella
What I gathered from snakelegs post, is a kind of dispair at a realization she wants to deny. I personally feel that there are a large number of people, both muslim and nonmuslim that greatly contribute to the realization that people like snakelegs are coming to. Perhaps you are right Ansar that mainstream muslims can coexist just fine. But even at a minority, the numbers that cannot coexist are large. Think of the countless posts that you and the other mods delete regularily on just this one forum. Think of all the hateful people you must ban regularily. Certainly not a majority, but very many indeed. Until 'mainstream' muslims address these people, and actively discourage the extreme views and behaviour, the muslim community will continue to be viewed with distrust. Of course the other side of ther coin is the same, and muslims don't trust western society either.
I'm just curious about a statement I see here quite often.

Quoting from above:

" 'mainstream' muslims "
Quite simply, a person is either Muslim or is not Muslim. Islam is not divided into factors as to differences of practice.

In order to be Muslim a person must be a Muslim. To be a Muslim means to act as a Muslim. Those that do not act in accordance with Islam, will not listen to those that do. The Islamic Community has no more influence over them then any other person. For a person to act in a non-Islamic manner is an indication that the person either does not know or has foresaken the teachings of Islam.

Those of us who live in non-Islamic countries are forbidden to try those wrong doers for crimes against Islam. Yet, that is the only tool we have to influence would be wrong doers. We are asked to try to influence those who would be terrorist. But, our hands are tied by the very people that want us to spread our influence.

We do openly condemn terrorism, yet publicaly it is seldom shown as being a Muslim protest. When we publicaly protest We are seen as Americans, British, Australians etc, and not as Muslims. However, if we protest a law we see as unfair, the press is quick to show us as Muslims and not as Americans, British, Australians etc.

Those who deal in criminal activities with intent of terror are not acting as Muslims. There are no mainstream Muslims, a person is either Muslim or is not Muslim. It is very difficult to get a Non-Muslim to listen to and agree with a Muslim
Reply

Panatella
06-26-2006, 06:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I'm just curious about a statement I see here quite often.

Quoting from above:
'mainstream' muslims
Quite simply, a person is either Muslim or is not Muslim. Islam is not divided into factors as to differences of practice.

In order to be Muslim a person must be a Muslim. To be a Muslim means to act as a Muslim. Those that do not act in accordance with Islam, will not listen to those that do. The Islamic Community has no more influence over them then any other person. For a person to act in a non-Islamic manner is an indication that the person either does not know or has foresaken the teachings of Islam.

Those of us who live in non-Islamic countries are forbidden to try those wrong doers for crimes against Islam. Yet, that is the only tool we have to influence would be wrong doers. We are asked to try to influence those who would be terrorist. But, our hands are tied by the very people that want us to spread our influence.

We do openly condemn terrorism, yet publicaly it is seldom shown as being a Muslim protest. When we publicaly protest We are seen as Americans, British, Australians etc, and not as Muslims. However, if we protest a law we see as unfair, the press is quick to show us as Muslims and not as Americans, British, Australians etc.

Those who deal in criminal activities with intent of terror are not acting as Muslims. There are no mainstream Muslims, a person is either Muslim or is not Muslim. It is very difficult to get a Non-Muslim to listen to and agree with a Muslim
My apologies, "mainstream muslims" was my lazy way of saying "the majority."

As far as the rest goes about "a muslim is a muslim, there are no differences....", well, I am sorry, but I have been hearing this for too long. It is time to call a spade a spade, and just say it the way it is. Baloney. There. I said it. Baloney. This whole bit about those not acting in accordance with islam are not muslims, etc... More baloney. There are countless different "ideas" out there about what islam says about topics it seems. "This guy does this, well, that's because he is not acting in accordance with islam". Well, when you talk to that guy, he says he is acting in accordance with islam, and you are not! You are not doing enough. He is going to far. Everybody thinks their version of thinking is the correct one. The guy that you think is not acting in accordance with islam, thinks that he is.
So tell me then, if these guys are viewed as not acting as muslims, then why are so many so quick to call a fallen terrorist a "martyr"? If the terrorist is not acting in accordance with islam, then surely any person that supports and praises his actions is also not acting in accordance with islam. Which means that there is alot of people calling themselves muslims, which are in fact, not really following islam.
We also have many that argue with those that call them martyrs, and say "how dare you call this man a martyr, he has been killing our brothers and sisters?" Clearly, there is much division. To suggest otherwise is either misleading or naive.

Quite simply, a person is either Muslim or is not Muslim.
Question is, who is the muslim? You or the other guy you think is not? I bet he thinks he is.
Islam is not divided into factors as to differences of practice.
Perhaps not islam. But it is safe to say "Muslims are divided into factors as to differences of practice." When you say what was said in your quote, it is assumed that I do not differentiate between islam and muslims. This is not true. I see what islam says, and I see what muslims do. These two are very different.
Reply

snakelegs
06-26-2006, 06:55 AM
ansar,
you will see what i am saying as being islamophobic or anti-islam, all i am trying to do is be honest about why some westerners regard this extremist trend with alarm.
you counter these statements with stuff like "there is no vigilante justice in islam"
"the punishments for apostasy and blasphemy can only be carried out by an islamic government, and only after certain criteria have been met." (not an exact quote).
while this may be true, it has nothing to do with facts "on the ground". the fact is there are many muslims who have these sentiments, including many right here on forum. how many people here said the cartoonists deserved to die? how many said that an apostate must be killed? for that matter, how many have said homosexuals should be killed?

as i've said, it is not a matter of right and wrong - it is that this mentality is incomprehensible and totally foreign to the western mindset.
so what good is citing the shariah when the issue is this kind of interpretion of shariah.

look at some of these placards in protests in london. (by people living in the west!)

"slay those who insult islam"
"europe, you will pay. demoliton is on its way"
"whoever insults a prophet kill him"
"democracy go to hell"
"europe your 9/11 will come"
"massacre those who insult islam"
"behead those who insult islam"
"freedom go to hell"

yes, these views are probably not the majority and were condemned, but the fact is, that a number of people hold them. people living in the west.
this mindset is incomprehensible to the average westerner.
if the rift is this wide, i do wonder if we can live together, and sadly, i am coming around to thinking that maybe we can't and i do not like feeling this way.
ansar, i ask you again, will you please move this to a new thread, "can we live together?" beginning from message # 48? i think it is an extemely important topic that needs wider discussion but i don't know how to do it.
also, i hope that others will participate and that this not be limited to just you and me.
thank you.
Reply

snakelegs
06-26-2006, 07:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I'm just curious about a statement I see here quite often.


Quite simply, a person is either Muslim or is not Muslim. Islam is not divided into factors as to differences of practice.

In order to be Muslim a person must be a Muslim. To be a Muslim means to act as a Muslim. Those that do not act in accordance with Islam, will not listen to those that do. The Islamic Community has no more influence over them then any other person. For a person to act in a non-Islamic manner is an indication that the person either does not know or has foresaken the teachings of Islam.

Those of us who live in non-Islamic countries are forbidden to try those wrong doers for crimes against Islam. Yet, that is the only tool we have to influence would be wrong doers. We are asked to try to influence those who would be terrorist. But, our hands are tied by the very people that want us to spread our influence.

We do openly condemn terrorism, yet publicaly it is seldom shown as being a Muslim protest. When we publicaly protest We are seen as Americans, British, Australians etc, and not as Muslims. However, if we protest a law we see as unfair, the press is quick to show us as Muslims and not as Americans, British, Australians etc.

Those who deal in criminal activities with intent of terror are not acting as Muslims. There are no mainstream Muslims, a person is either Muslim or is not Muslim. It is very difficult to get a Non-Muslim to listen to and agree with a Muslim
woodrow,
islam is not a monolith. there are many interpretations and much controversy around many issues within islam.
you say "a person is either muslim or is not muslim". would you deny that there is even controversy within islam about this??
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
06-26-2006, 03:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
I disagree. Since those who commit these acts of terror do it in the name of Islam it is hardly a mute point.
Yes, there is a problem with that. It's not so much Islam, but an individual's interpretation of Islam. Likewise, there are individuals who misinterpret Chistian records - such as President Bush. God never told Bush to invade Iraq - he was hearing his own internal chatter. As far as I know, God didn't like the stupid idol - that vain statue of Hussein's likeness. But then again, I might have been listening to my own internal chatter since I know that, for reasons I don't understand, I hated the thing! I even twacked a mock-up of it off my coffee table!

Where Islam is concerned, I asked Allah to rule on the subject of the suicide missions for me, because the debate here last April was going in circles and I couldn't get beyond it. I feared for Abu Musab, that he might have been taught a violation of Islamic Law. I asked Allah to spare the martyrs who died by this means, that charges against them be dismissed, that rightfully belong with their teachers. I also asked Allah that if this method did not find grace with him, that Abu Musab not be allowed to die by that means. Ayman Zawahiri can boast all he wants about how Abu Musab was inseparable from his explosive belt, all that proves was that he was loyal. But Allah answered the prayer, and Abu Musab died the very moment he took the device off.

That prayer cost me dearly, but the reality is crystal clear (at least to me). Some people, regardless of their religion, will seek any means with which they can win their battles when they've been pushed to their limits. Al Qaeda is one such group, but they do not speak for all of Islam and are not capable of uniting the Ummah, while separating themselves from it.

Heaven help the one who is responsible for uniting them... but then you'll have real Jihad.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-26-2006, 04:06 PM
Hello Snakelegs,
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
well, i listed some in my last post that are a long way from "respect, kindness, humility, mercy, justice, tolerance"
You need to distinguish between Islam's teachings and the unislamic actions performed by some you see in the media. The placards you mentioned and the violence have nothing to do with Islam's teachings so you once against commit the fallacy of identifying the criminal actions of a minority as the 'mentality' of the majority and then calling for isolation on that basis.
ansar, your statements about shariah may be true, but the danger lies in muslims who interpret it in these ways.
By all means, show me what is dangerous about my views.
ansar, this statement makes me furious. i have no desire to :"revile,defame, malign" etc anyones' religion.
You should be furious because you have consented to such a ridiculous standard all your life. I never said you desired to insult and revile Islam but you certainly support the 'freedom' of others to do so, like many other westerners. So when you say that people should be allowed to propagate hateful material like van gogh's or the cartoons, without any hindrance, then you are essentially telling Muslims, "We will live in peace with you on the condition that we may revile and slander your religion as we choose." That's not peace, that's hostility. So unless you condemn the people who spread hatred too, then you can't live peacefully.
again, my issue is more one of a certain interpretation of islam like that that prevails on this forum.
Is it in our interpretation of Islam to carry placards calling for violence?!

Your argument is completely incoherent. On one hand you keep claiming that there is a fundamental clash in our mentality and that our interpretation of Islam is not compatible with living in the west peacefully, but on the other hand when I challenge you to back it up you don't bring up issues of interpretation and understanding of Islamic teachings, instead you bring up the actions of a criminal minority that we condemn!!!

Which is it?? Make up your mind - is the conflict of interest in the understanding of Islam presented on this forum, or is it in the criminal actions of a few condemned by the majority. Continually recalling violent actions condemned by the majority is the strawman fallacy, and persistently resorting to it implies that one is not here to debate, they are here to hate.

yes, these views are probably not the majority and were condemned, but the fact is, that a number of people hold them.
So then you must also believe that the criminal actions of the Nazis necessitate that we cannot live peacefully with germans. Or that the criminal actions of 12th century crusaders means we cannot live peacefully with Christians. Is that what you wish to imply? No? Then how dare you cite the criminal actions of a few Muslims (condemned by the majority) to support the claim that you cannot live peacefully with all Muslims?!
while this may be true, it has nothing to do with facts "on the ground". the fact is there are many muslims who have these sentiments, including many right here on forum. how many people here said the cartoonists deserved to die? how many said that an apostate must be killed? for that matter, how many have said homosexuals should be killed?
None of which means that we are to go out in a non-muslim country and start implementing Hadd punishments. You continue to resort to strawman attacks to support the unsubstantiated genocidal claim that peaceful coexistence with Muslims is impossible.

I live in a non-muslim country. I have the understanding of Islam that you claim conflicts with peaceful coexistence. And yet I get along perfectly well with the non-muslim community here and with the non-muslims in my neighborhood. I don't implement punishments for burglary or murder here because that is not my job, nor is it the job of any Muslim living in the west. It is a figment of the imagination of bigots who conjure images of Muslims in the west running around implementing vigilante justice to develop a feeling of hatred and disavowal for Muslims in the minds of Non-muslim citizens. And as is clear from the posts of many non-muslims on this forum, they have been succesful.

Hello Panatella,
Perhaps you are right Ansar that mainstream muslims can coexist just fine. But even at a minority, the numbers that cannot coexist are large. Think of the countless posts that you and the other mods delete regularily on just this one forum. Think of all the hateful people you must ban regularily. Certainly not a majority, but very many indeed.
There are many human beings who are given to violence and crime. Despite centuries even millenia of human civilization, we are unable to rid ourself of crime, warfare and injustice. The criminals are not a majority, but they still constitute a significant number of people. By your reasoning, should we then say that human beings in general cannot coexist peacefully and therefore we should abandon all efforts to do so? I think not.

Regards
Reply

abdmez
06-26-2006, 04:30 PM
People look at Islam as a Nationalistic thing. It is just a religion... I show no favor to Jordan, or Syria because they are Islamic Countries more than I do to China. I show favor to who is doing the right thing, ans sometimes neither country or religion is.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
06-26-2006, 04:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hello Snakelegs,

You need to distinguish between Islam's teachings and the unislamic actions performed by some you see in the media. The placards you mentioned and the violence have nothing to do with Islam's teachings so you once against commit the fallacy of identifying the criminal actions of a minority as the 'mentality' of the majority and then calling for isolation on that basis.
This is the work of Zawahiri, who boasted to President Bush: "Do you know where I am? I am walking among the Muslim people."

On my Live Journal, Last Testament of the Ninth Scribe, I even reacted to this bold statement on an entry called: Whoa, Rant Alert, wherein I answered: "And Zawahiri, if you're walking among the Muslims, you'd better watch your back because as far as I can tell, your people don't AGREE about ANYTHING."

It is frustrating, and if you read my posts from this forum alone, I have repeatedly tried to explain that I'm having problems understanding what a 'Muslim' is. The definition varies that much, depending on who you talk to. That's the real problem... and people like Zawahiri go out of their way to put you all on the spot by thinking they have the right to answer for everyone.

So, this is my new line of study, collecting all the disputes in interpretation and trying to organize them all so I can keep track of them ... because there are that many of them, it looks like a giant jig-saw puzzle. I also need to learn Arabic, so there's another five years I have to put into these times!

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Panatella
06-26-2006, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hello Panatella,

There are many human beings who are given to violence and crime. Despite centuries even millenia of human civilization, we are unable to rid ourself of crime, warfare and injustice. The criminals are not a majority, but they still constitute a significant number of people. By your reasoning, should we then say that human beings in general cannot coexist peacefully and therefore we should abandon all efforts to do so? I think not.

Regards
Hi Ansar,
I should clarify that this was not neccessarily my reasoning.
In the first part of my post I was offering a correction to the statement that all the muslims that come to this forum only promote peace, condemn injustice and violence, and spread the moral teachings of Islam on respect, kindness, humility, mercy, justice, tolerance, patience, and all forms of virtuous conduct. This clearly is not true, and I was compelled to set the record straight.

In the second part of my post, I offered understanding and hopefully insight into how some people that think the same as snakelegs come to think this way. Personally, I believe there are many that will never be able to coexist peacefully. This is not a statement about all muslims of course.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
06-26-2006, 05:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Panatella
Personally, I believe there are many that will never be able to coexist peacefully. This is not a statement about all muslims of course.
Like I mentioned about the giant jig-saw puzzle... When I see conflicts like this, all I see are two pieces that just don't fit together. But the each belong somewhere. You can't just throw the pieces away, because you won't be able to see the pretty picture in the end. Instead, you have to try to find the pieces that fit 'in-between' them. They're somewhere... we just have to keep looking for them!

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Eric H
06-26-2006, 06:10 PM
Greetings and peace snakelegs,

Peace on earth has to be the goal and I believe we are either a part of the solution or a part of the problem. Somehow whether we are atheist, agnostic, Christian Muslim or conform to any other belief system we can still contribute towards peace.

There will always be angry people of all persuasions; somehow we need to be gentle with them and try and find ways to help them find peace for themselves.

Peace is a journey always one day at a time, we never really reach our destination but we must always travel in the same direction.

Take care

Eric
Reply

SirZubair
06-26-2006, 06:36 PM
Evil and God's Chosen?
By: Dr. Nazir Khaja* & Rabbi Steven Jacob**



God can not be made a scapegoat for xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, and anti-Muslim ...

Carl Sandberg, when asked what was the word in English language that he hated most, replied "exclusivism." The ideas that follow from exclusivism indeed provide the framework for a very narrowly defined world view which has been at the heart of innumerable intra- and inter-religious conflicts, wars, and genocides. Assuming that there is only a select group who an arbitrary God has chosen or forgiven, the others seem then to be excluded from His mercy and grace. Repetition of these kinds of claims have caused great harm throughout our history; counter-claims necessarily follow and the divide continues to deepen. To justify this way of thinking through Biblical, Quranic, or any Scriptural source renders the lofty ideals within these sources of guidance meaningless and only adds insult to injury. As we face the evil of, all forms of, terrorism there is a definite need to understand this complex issue so that we can respond appropriately to contain, if not annihilate, this modern "Plague of Darkness" -- to use a biblical term.

Violence perpetrated by Muslims may have complex reasons, but the framework of their hatred and hostility has indeed come down to an "Us vs. Them" paradigm, which they base entirely on an Islam, which the majority does not agree with. Again, these misguided people see God on their side and have internalized exclusivist attitudes and values, which, in their thinking, separates them from the rest of the world. Heaven for them is secure, and they are prepared to act on what they falsely interpret and believe as God's promise of Heaven for their acts. They are then the chosen ones. All their acts are justified through a historical narrative of their own which reaffirms this attitude and belief that theirs is a manifest destiny and that they are purging the world of evil. To base one's claim on the moral authority or right dispensed exclusively to us by a God who we all believe is merciful and just, to achieve worldly advantage, or to stake claim to heaven, is presumptuous, pompous, and perverse. This, as the basis of interaction between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, will only increase the tensions that already exist between these groups.

The ethos of Judaism is tikkun olom - the repair of the world. It is a universal challenge reaching out to all. We are all "Chosen" to love and repair. Jews, as others, are chosen for a world of Godliness and not superiority. To say otherwise justifies the hatred of the Jews, and makes Jews God's target. Will this notion hold for any group that has suffered? Blacks, Native American Indians, Armenians? God can not be made a scapegoat for xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Christianity, and anti-Muslim. We prefer to define ourselves as a choosing people: choosing goodness over demonization. Those who feel they are chosen and who "do the will of God," and those who follow chosenness foster civilizational war.

Islam came after Judaism and Christianity. Starting from this vantage point in its history, it has in its roots much that the other two offered earlier. Therefore a Muslim is a Jew before he is a Muslim, a Christian before he is Muslim. Five times daily when a Muslim offers his mandatory prayers, the format of which is set from the earliest times within it, he has to offer Peace and Blessings on the progeny of Prophet Abraham. This, along with several verses in the Quran, clearly define the inclusiveness that has been sadly absent in the thinking of many Muslims who are deluded into believing and acting on the exclusivist paradigm.

Therefore to trash Islam or to judge it condescendingly from an assumed moral high ground for the deviant acts of a few of its followers is entirely an act of historical or political opportunism which will only make a bad situation worse. Instead, there is a critical need to build on the "inclusivist" paradigm, and to refrain from mixing politics and religion, even as we sound off as religious leaders offering an understanding of the complex problems of the world, including terrorism. From the Muslim perspective, it is twice as difficult because of an onerous legacy that has perverted the true meaning of Islam. With the Governments within Muslim countries being mostly un-representative and un-caring and the masses mostly poor and uneducated, it will not be easy to undertake this critical task yet this infact is the critical need. The majority of the Muslim masses do believe in this message and are but waiting for their voices to be liberated and amplified.

Let us choose the path of understanding and pluralism. This is our true blessing.

*Nazir Khaja, M.D. - Chairman, Islamic Information Service, Torrance, CA. Tel: (310) 370-4660, Email: nkhajamd@earthlink.net

**Rabbi Steven Jacob - Temple Kol Tikvah, Woodland Hills, CA. Tel: (818) 348 0670, email: rabbijacobs@koltikvah.org

Source
=================================================

ALSO SEE
Fear and Fascination - The Other in Religion: A Muslim Australian Perspective

Kissing Cousins: Christians & Muslims Face to Face

Muslims and Jews: A Historical Perspective that Reveals Surprises

For These Three, Kindness Begins In the Hearts of Innocents

Jewish-Christian-Muslim Conference of Australia

Muslims in the West - Coexistence or Conflict?

Friendship with Non-Muslims According to the Qur'an
Reply

SirZubair
06-26-2006, 06:41 PM
Scholars Urge Juristic Battle Against Extremism

Protection of Non-Muslims' Places of Worship

[/list]

=======================

FURTHER READING

Australian Muslims Reaction & Perspective

Australian Muslims Condemn Terrorist Acts In London

Australian Muslims Condemn Blasts

Muslim Leaders Condemn Terror Attacks

Islamic Council of Victoria Condemns London Blasts(pdf)

FAIR: Badawi Condemns London Underground Bombings

Muslim Civil Rights Group Condemns Terrorist Acts In London

The West Fights A Losing Battle

Muslims Fear Reprisals

A Muslim House Divided

This Is No Way to Wage the War on Terror

Love Always Perseveres ...

To London Muslims: Speak Out Or Be Condemned For Your Silence

International Muslims Groups Condemn London Attack

Muslim Scholars, Countries Condemn London Bombings
BACKGROUND INFO
London Blasts On Tubes And Buses

7 July 2005 London Bombings
FACT CHECKING
What Is the Islamic Stance on the London Bombings?

Violence Is A Human, Not An Islamic Trait

Anatomy of Violence: Terror in Name of Islam

The Origins Of Suicidal Terrorism: An Idiot's Guide to the "Civilised" World

The London Bombings - A Time for Reflection: A Muslim Perspecitve

Will London Attack Mark A Turning Point For Extremism?

Muslim Loyalty & Belonging: Some Reflections on the Psychosocial Background

We Are All Collateral Damage

Islam in the West: The Threat of Internal Extremism

Islam, Terrorism, Myths and the Mass Media: An Interview with Hamza Yusuf

Peace and Justice in Islam

Terrorism and Islam

The Real Meaning of Jihad

Muslim Scholar: Terrorists Are Mass Murderers, Not Martyrs

The Quran on War, Peace and Justice

Friendship with Non-Muslims According to the Qur'an

Qur’anic Foundations of Muslim/Non-Muslim Relations

Does the Qur’an Teach Violence?

The International Islamic Conference: ‘True Islam and its Role in Modern Society'
ALSO SEE
Sheikh Says ASIO Raids A Political Stunt

'Holy war' Books Spark Legal Threat

Islamic Cleric Defends Australian with Al-Qaeda Links

Sunday: (Australian) Muslim vs Muslim

"I Am Behind Every Muslim In This Country'

The Bulletin: Watching the Sheik

The Ahl Sunnah wal Jama'ah Association of Australia

'Qatada's Key UK Al-Qaeda Role'

The Recruiters: Abu Qatada

MI5 and Police Ordered Illegal Break-ins @ Mosques

How I Was Betrayed By the British

The Spy Who Came In From the Mosque

Who Is Reda Hassaine?
Reply

snakelegs
06-26-2006, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hello Snakelegs,

You need to distinguish between Islam's teachings and the unislamic actions performed by some you see in the media. The placards you mentioned and the violence have nothing to do with Islam's teachings so you once against commit the fallacy of identifying the criminal actions of a minority as the 'mentality' of the majority and then calling for isolation on that basis.

By all means, show me what is dangerous about my views.
ansar,
we seem to be having trouble communicating. maybe i am not being clear. i do distinguish between islam's teachings and the unislamic actions performed by people. i clearly distinguished between the shariah and the actions and thinking of some muslims. i don't know how to say it any better except the problem exists with this kind of interpretation of islam and not with islam itself. and this type of thinking does not seem to be uncommon. this is the mindset that is hard for a westerner to comprehend because it is so different. and i find this type of thinking among people living in the west especially shocking. i have no way of knowing how widespread this is or how much of a threat it is. but once more, to many westerners it is simply incomprehensible and quite concerning.

You should be furious because you have consented to such a ridiculous standard all your life.
could you explain this to me - i don't understand.

I never said you desired to insult and revile Islam but you certainly support the 'freedom' of others to do so, like many other westerners. So when you say that people should be allowed to propagate hateful material like van gogh's or the cartoons, without any hindrance, then you are essentially telling Muslims, "We will live in peace with you on the condition that we may revile and slander your religion as we choose." That's not peace, that's hostility. So unless you condemn the people who spread hatred too, then you can't live peacefully.
ansar, are you listening to me at all? i condemn the publishing of the cartoons as an abuse of free speech. free speech should never be used to spread hate. i think it was a deliberate provocation to boost conservative parties throughout europe. i don't know why you make assumptions about my thinking. i respect other people's religions and consider it a pre-condition for peaceful co-existence.

Is it in our interpretation of Islam to carry placards calling for violence?!
can we agree that rightly or wrongly, this type of interpretation exists and even on this forum? and this is alarming to me and i am not alone in this.

Your argument is completely incoherent. [b]On one hand you keep claiming that there is a fundamental clash in our mentality and that our interpretation of Islam is not compatible with living in the west peacefully, but on the other hand when I challenge you to back it up you don't bring up issues of interpretation and understanding of Islamic teachings, instead you bring up the actions of a criminal minority that we condemn!!

Which is it?? Make up your mind - is the conflict of interest in the understanding of Islam presented on this forum, or is it in the criminal actions of a few condemned by the majority. Continually recalling violent actions condemned by the majority is the strawman fallacy, and persistently resorting to it implies that one is not here to debate, they are here to hate.
i am really getting frustrated at this communication problem. i don't know how to make my concerns any clearer or more coherent than i have. i have repeatedly given you specific examples of the type of thinking that worries me. i don't want to go through the list again. i have no way of gaging how widespread this is but it's "out there".
leaving aside the cartoon issue, i have listed the type of things that worry me and have made it as clear as i can that my concern is not with islam per se but with this type of thinking, which is not at all uncommon on this very forum. one more time:
apostates should be killed.
blasphemers should be killed.
the cartoonists should be killed.
homosexuals should be killed.


So then you must also believe that the criminal actions of the Nazis necessitate that we cannot live peacefully with germans. Or that the criminal actions of 12th century crusaders means we cannot live peacefully with Christians. Is that what you wish to imply? No? Then how dare you cite the criminal actions of a few Muslims (condemned by the majority) to support the claim that you cannot live peacefully with all Muslims?!
if i did not want to live peacefully with muslims i wouldn't be here and i wouldn't be straining my poor brain trying to tell you what my concerns are, would i? it's not like i don't have other things to do.
your examples above don't make sense to me.
if there was a growing number of nazis in my country i would be very alarmed. the analogy you gave doesn't make sense because you are combining past and present. also, frankly, i have no desire to co-exist with nazis and believe it is not possible so i wouldn't waste my time. obviously i don't view islam in the same category at all
if there were a number of crusader type christians running around, i would also be worried. (actually i am quite alarmed about the rise of the christian right and its influence on american policy, but that's another subject.)
i have not come to the conclusion that we can't exist - i am just on my way and i don't want to make this conclusion. i do think co-existence is impossible with this type of mentality or interpretation of islam.

You continue to resort to strawman attacks to support the unsubstantiated genocidal claim that peaceful coexistence with Muslims is impossible.
this is one of the most insulting things anyone has ever said to me. it is largely my fear of such a thing that causes me to come here and try to achieve a better understanding. do you agree there is a growing backlash in europe, which is also quite troubling? and this movement is a threat to everyone, not only muslims. this is exactly why we need to come together and communicate. i consider it vital to see if this gap can be bridged before it is too late.

[QUOTEI live in a non-muslim country. I have the understanding of Islam that you claim conflicts with peaceful coexistence. And yet I get along perfectly well with the non-muslim community here and with the non-muslims in my neighborhood. I don't implement punishments for burglary or murder here because that is not my job, nor is it the job of any Muslim living in the west. It is a figment of the imagination of bigots who conjure images of Muslims in the west running around implementing vigilante justice to develop a feeling of hatred and disavowal for Muslims in the minds of Non-muslim citizens. And as is clear from the posts of many non-muslims on this forum, they have been succesful.[/QUOTE]

that's the problem. it is not a "figment of the imagination" that there are those among muslims who have the views like i gave examples of above - they really do exist and these issues need to be addressed by scholars and leaders in islam, not by imams giving hateful rabble rousing khutbas week after week (don't tell me they don't exist, please.)
i'm afraid i can't make myself any clearer.
this is a matter of great concern to me. i am terrified by any kind of bigotry and consider it a threat to all.
there are many voices of reason on this forum too - they're not the ones that alarm me.
i don't know what more i can say. these are troubling times indeed - for all of us.
peace.
p.s. i wish i had half the skills at these types of debate as you do!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-26-2006, 08:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i don't know how to say it any better except the problem exists with this kind of interpretation of islam
You already have said that there are dangers or problems with our understanding of Islam, but you're not answering my counter question - please show me how my understanding of Islam is dangerous and/or problematic. You keep saying the problem is why my interpretation or the understanding we promote here (which btw to clarify is to simply follow Islam according to the Qur'an and Prophetic teachings), but when I ask you for evidence you resort to referencing individuals who's actions have been condemned by the Muslim majority.

That's as good as if I were to say "we can't live peacefully with westerners because there is a problem with their mentality" and then when asked to support my claim I quote bigots who have said that Mecca should be bombed (and there are many hateful non-muslims who have said this). Does this prove my claim? No, it only shows there are some violent people, not that peace with any westeners is impossible or even difficult.
i respect other people's religions and consider it a pre-condition for peaceful co-existence.
Okay, that's good and I agree.
can we agree that rightly or wrongly, this type of interpretation exists and even on this forum?
This isn't an interpretation, this is ignorance of Islam's teachings and when I see this on the forum I correct such people, whether publicly or privately. And in response to panatella such occurances are rare, and the people always admit their mistake.
one more time:
apostates should be killed.
blasphemers should be killed.
the cartoonists should be killed.
homosexuals should be killed.
I already told you that you are misquoting Islamic legislation and using it support your conclusion. Muslims are not and should not be implementing Hadd punishments in non-muslim countries, so this is hardly a reason to claim that there can be no peaceful coexistence. And you have misquoted all of these laws; I provided the links earlier explaining them in context. All punishments in an Islamic state are only for the protection and preservation of society; if you want to discuss that further we can do so in another thread.

if there was a growing number of nazis in my country i would be very alarmed. the analogy you gave doesn't make sense because you are combining past and present. also, frankly, i have no desire to co-exist with nazis and believe it is not possible so i wouldn't waste my time. obviously i don't view islam in the same category at all
if there were a number of crusader type christians running around, i would also be worried. (actually i am quite alarmed about the rise of the christian right and its influence on american policy, but that's another subject.)
So if you agree that Nazis do not prove anything about coexistence with germans and that crusaders do not prove anything about coexistence with Christians, then why don't you likewise acknowledge that the criminal actions of a minority of Muslims do not prove antyhing about coexistence with Muslims? Obviously the people who we cannot coexist with is the criminal minority, so you should say that instead of saying that you cannot coexist with the majority of Muslims.
i have not come to the conclusion that we can't exist - i am just on my way and i don't want to make this conclusion. i do think co-existence is impossible with this type of mentality or interpretation of islam.
I have the 'mentality' and the 'interpretation of Islam' that you keep blaming. And yet I live in a non-muslim country coexisting peacefully with non-muslim neighbors. Therefore, your conclusion that is impossible is baseless. And there are millions more Muslims living in non-muslim countries coexisting peacefully.
i consider it vital to see if this gap can be bridged before it is too late.
But you're breaking the bridge yourself. You misquote Hudud punishments and use them as an excuse to conclude that it is impossible for Muslims to coexist peacefully with Non-muslims. You highlight the actions of a crminal minority and conclude from that, that peaceful coexistence is impossible.
that's the problem. it is not a "figment of the imagination"
There are NO Muslims implementing hadd punishments in non-muslim countries - you can cite a few random criminals here and there but that's the same as if I cited a non-muslim murderer to conclude that the mentality of westerners makes peaceful coexistence impossible.
that there are those among muslims who have the views like i gave examples of above
I notice you use the words 'views' and 'interpretations' for both the understanding of the Muslim scholars and the ignorance of the uneducated. The two are unequal in every respect. These actions that we condemn are not from scholars nor scholarly teachings, they are the result of ignorance concerning Islamic teachings.
they really do exist and these issues need to be addressed by scholars and leaders in islam
Right from the start I pointed out the problem with this repeated statement from non-muslims. The Muslim scholars have been condemning such violent actions left, right and centre. They have been screaming themselves hoarse in condemnation but to no avail, because the problem is not a religious one but a political one. Thus, it merits a political solution.

Regards
Reply

snakelegs
06-26-2006, 10:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
You already have said that there are dangers or problems with our understanding of Islam, but you're not answering my counter question - please show me how my understanding of Islam is dangerous and/or problematic. You keep saying the problem is why my interpretation or the understanding we promote here (which btw to clarify is to simply follow Islam according to the Qur'an and Prophetic teachings), but when I ask you for evidence you resort to referencing individuals who's actions have been condemned by the Muslim majority.
first of all, you are personalizing this - i never said that your understanding of islam is dangerous. i don't pretend to know your understanding anymore than i would pretend to be knowledgeable about islam.

That's as good as if I were to say "we can't live peacefully with westerners because there is a problem with their mentality" and then when asked to support my claim I quote bigots who have said that Mecca should be bombed (and there are many hateful non-muslims who have said this). Does this prove my claim? No, it only shows there are some violent people, not that peace with any westeners is impossible or even difficult.
actually, there are a lot of westerners whose mentality i have major problems with myself! yes, there are indeed many hateful non-muslims. by the way, i mean "mentality" as a neutral term - maybe mindset is a better way to put it.
the type of mindset among some muslims frightens me largely because i don't know how widespread it is. it is not islam - it is a mindset shared by some muslims. maybe if there was a way to know their percentage among all muslims, i would find they are an insignificant few. this is one thing i am trying to figure out and of course, it's impossible to know for sure. my perception is that, though it may be a minority of muslims, it is not at all uncommon and their numbers are increasing and of course, u.s. foreign policy feeds this.


This isn't an interpretation, this is ignorance of Islam's teachings and when I see this on the forum I correct such people, whether publicly or privately. And in response to panatella such occurances are rare, and the people always admit their mistake.
maybe we can agree that ignorance (including mine) is the enemy. right now i am stuck in a place where the more i learn the more alarmed i get.
there are a lot of sentiments expressed here that pass without comment - such as the examples i've already given. (there are also loud silences here.)
these are the views that are incomprehensible and incompatible with western mentality, not that i mean to imply that "western mentality" is a monolith, any more than "muslim mentality".

speaking of monoliths, i understand that this forum does not allow sectarian discussions, which is no doubt a good thing. but the Official Position here seems to be that islam is one thing. i find it interesting that both western bigots and some muslims portray islam as one thing. there are many voices of islam, there are many interpretations - even down to who is a muslim, there are a lot of different rulings. i am in no position to know who is right and who is wrong, but i find much diversity among muslims, and i think this is how it should be, rather than denied. a good example is the dominant interpretation of the islamic ruling on music on this forum. (we won't go in to that!)

I already told you that you are misquoting Islamic legislation and using it support your conclusion. Muslims are not and should not be implementing Hadd punishments in non-muslim countries, so this is hardly a reason to claim that there can be no peaceful coexistence. And you have misquoted all of these laws; I provided the links earlier explaining them in context. All punishments in an Islamic state are only for the protection and preservation of society; if you want to discuss that further we can do so in another thread.
i don't understand this - how could i misquote islamic legislation when i am almost 100% ignorant on this area???? i have never[ quoted islamic law! i have made some ignorant comments on shariah, which you have corrected me on - this is how i learn.
many muslims pray for the day when the world will be run according to shariah - and from what little i do know, this would be quite frightening to a non-muslim, but i'm not really concerned about that because i don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. of course, i know that muslims are not and should not be implementing these laws in non-muslim countries. (there are a few that do, but i realize that according to islam, they should not and do not have the authority to do so - so it is not islamic law that is the problem, it is the way some interpret it. but more than this (everyone has criminals), it is the mindset - as i have given examples of before.


So if you agree that Nazis do not prove anything about coexistence with germans and that crusaders do not prove anything about coexistence with Christians, then why don't you likewise acknowledge that the criminal actions of a minority of Muslims do not prove antyhing about coexistence with Muslims? Obviously the people who we cannot coexist with is the criminal minority, so you should say that instead of saying that you cannot coexist with the majority of Muslims..
when did i say "majority" of muslims? i think it may well be a minority, but it is increasing.
of course, co-existence with germans and christians is no problem. co-existence with the 2 examples you gave - nazis and crusaders would pose an entirely different problem and co-existence with them is definitely not possible.

I have the 'mentality' and the 'interpretation of Islam' that you keep blaming. And yet I live in a non-muslim country coexisting peacefully with non-muslim neighbors. Therefore, your conclusion that is impossible is baseless. And there are millions more Muslims living in non-muslim countries coexisting peacefully.

But you're breaking the bridge yourself. You misquote Hudud punishments and use them as an excuse to conclude that it is impossible for Muslims to coexist peacefully with Non-muslims. You highlight the actions of a crminal minority and conclude from that, that peaceful coexistence is impossible.

There are NO Muslims implementing hadd punishments in non-muslim countries - you can cite a few random criminals here and there but that's the same as if I cited a non-muslim murderer to conclude that the mentality of westerners makes peaceful coexistence impossible.
i realize this. i think i have explained my self enough on this. i have not concluded that co-existence is impossible - i am siimply moving in that direction and i do not want to go there.

I notice you use the words 'views' and 'interpretations' for both the understanding of the Muslim scholars and the ignorance of the uneducated. The two are unequal in every respect. These actions that we condemn are not from scholars nor scholarly teachings, they are the result of ignorance concerning Islamic teachings.
no argument here.

Right from the start I pointed out the problem with this repeated statement from non-muslims. The Muslim scholars have been condemning such violent actions left, right and centre. They have been screaming themselves hoarse in condemnation but to no avail, because the problem is not a religious one but a political one. Thus, it merits a political solution.
i know there are some muslim scholars speaking out, but have no way of knowing how many because the media doesn't want me to know, so they silence the voices of reason.
yes, the current problems are more political than religious and they need to be addressed, as they are getting worse each day.
having said this though i must add that i view islam as not merely a religion, but also a political ideology. (we may disagree here).

if we oversimplify, the polarization is increasing rather than decreasing and every day it is fed some more by both sides. there is a building backlash and i am trying to see if this can be averted before it is too late. unfortunately, i am unable to change it from my side any more than you are from yours.
i had thought the "clash of civilizations" was b.s. but more and more i am wondering if there isn't a major clash of mindsets. i hope it can be overcome before it's too late. so all this stuff i'm saying, is motivated by that concern and not by any hatred of islam or muslims. i hope you can at least understand that.
would you agree there is an important problem between the west and islam above and beyond the obvious political one?
and now i must rest my poor brain and clean my filthy house.
peace.
Reply

snakelegs
06-26-2006, 10:33 PM
just a quickie to others who have commented - i can't reply now because ansar consumes all the brain power i can possibly muster.
but i do want as much imput as possible. this should not be "the ansar and snakelegs show".
besides, your comments would give me a rest from trying to debate/discuss with ansar, who is quite formidable.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-27-2006, 02:19 AM
Hello Snakelegs,
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
first of all, you are personalizing this - i never said that your understanding of islam is dangerous. i don't pretend to know your understanding anymore than i would pretend to be knowledgeable about islam.
Well you've commented about the understanding of Islam as presented on this forum. I believe it is reasonable to assume that I have contributed in some way to that presentation of Islam and since I share the same views with a vast majority of forum members, I don't see any stretch in mentioning my views. In fact, I think it is more appropriate to ask you to comment on my views so that I can respond, rather than you commenting on the views of others and me having to speak on their behalf.

So I've personalized it because I can speak on behalf of myself instead of others, and because I feel I have made at least some contributions to the presentation of Islam on the forum.
actually, there are a lot of westerners whose mentality i have major problems with myself!
But we don't say that because of them we Muslims and westenerners cannot live in peace.
this is one thing i am trying to figure out and of course, it's impossible to know for sure. my perception is that, though it may be a minority of muslims, it is not at all uncommon and their numbers are increasing and of course, u.s. foreign policy feeds this.
If by 'mindset' or 'mentality' you are referring to their religious views and understanding, then I would disagree, I don't think that is changing or is even the issue here. If on the other hand you are referring to their political and societal mindset, then you are right, there is an increase in hostility and the causes are socioeconomic and politcal, not religious.
a good example is the dominant interpretation of the islamic ruling on music on this forum. (we won't go in to that!)
That is a legtimate difference of opinion because it is a jurisprudential matter that has some obvious grey areas where the ruling isn't black and white. Allow me to explain.

When it comes to differences of opinion, they fall into many categories. For example, if a group says that there is no Day of Judgement, that is not a legitimate difference of opinion, as that denies a fundamental concept in Islam. The legitmate differences of opinion are only in lesser fiqhî (jurisprudential) matters, i.e. the application of the Islamic laws and fundamentals which are agreed upon. There is no difference of opinion the fundamentals of Islam or the beliefs and theology.
(there are a few that do, but i realize that according to islam, they should not and do not have the authority to do so - so it is not islamic law that is the problem, it is the way some interpret it.
It is not that they have a different interpretation of the Islamic law, it is that they are simply ill-informed and uneducated about the fundamentals of Islamic law.
when did i say "majority" of muslims? i think it may well be a minority, but it is increasing.
What is increasing is hostility rooted in the political situation, not some different interpretation of Islam.
i know there are some muslim scholars speaking out, but have no way of knowing how many because the media doesn't want me to know, so they silence the voices of reason.
yes, the current problems are more political than religious and they need to be addressed, as they are getting worse each day.
Yes.
having said this though i must add that i view islam as not merely a religion, but also a political ideology. (we may disagree here).
Islam is a complete way of life and consequently it contains guidance in political affairs as well, including a complete system of governance. But the political views of some people (eg. american foreign policy is this or that) are not the same as the political legislation of Islam (eg. the khalifa is to do this or that).
would you agree there is an important problem between the west and islam
Yes.
above and beyond the obvious political one?
You'll have to elaborate on one that entails. What kind of conflict did you have in mind?

Regards
Reply

Asyur an-Nagi
06-27-2006, 03:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
this is a very sad comment. what's even more sad is that i am gradually and reluctantly coming to a similar conclusion.
our mentalities are just too different.
how afraid of differences are you?
Reply

syilla
06-27-2006, 03:40 AM
i was wondering...why so afraid of the differences. Since i've seen so many types of culture and religion can coexists...in peace and harmony
Reply

catmando
06-27-2006, 04:59 AM
Ansar hit the nail on the head; Islam is a complete religous AND political system. Islam has not divorced itself from political domination. This is antithetical to America's Democratic traditions. As long as this state of affairs exists in Islamic countries, you cannot expect that we will give up our freedoms for Sharia.

We are fighting the Christian Dominionists who also want to bring America under the control of their religion. They will not succeed. We welcome all people who want to abide by our Constitution, which recognizes that Secular Law is dominant over religous law. That is how it must be in America.
Reply

muslim_friend
06-27-2006, 05:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
We are fighting the Christian Dominionists who also want to bring America under the control of their religion.
I thought Christian groups had America by the collar? :rollseyes

By the way, the ten commandments.. aren't they a part of American law?
Reply

north_malaysian
06-27-2006, 08:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syilla
i was wondering...why so afraid of the differences. Since i've seen so many types of culture and religion can coexists...in peace and harmony
Asians and Africans are not afraid of diversities, usually.
Reply

Sis786
06-27-2006, 08:42 AM
Snakelegs i know what you saying But i dont think its come to us having to divide paths.

Muslims have lived in this country and many other non-muslim countries for years and years, and we have lived in peace.

But 9/11 changed all of that all of a sudden "Muslim Terrorist" have emerged and thats it all Muslims are tarnished with the same brush. Im living in the Uk and i didnt find that 9/11 changed the way people looked at me, yeah u get the odd look but the same look is given when they see a black person or when we see a white person with an england shirt on. Media has printed in our minds these certain "types" and we all abide by that and presume as they are Muslim they are like this.

As for the placcards in that Denmark Demonstration what you have was a really small number of people going on street stating something. Thats it. Now if a few England fans caused trouble in Germany with the Football we cant blame ALL the thousands of fans there can we. Same thing here.

And what people forget is that MAJORITY of the Demonstartiosn were peaceful But this wasnt shown in the Media. And those that did turn nasty were people who were frustrated and people whos goverment wasnt willing to listen and sometimes sometimes it takes a bad demonstartion to get some attention and to be heard. Suppose freedom of speech has to work both ways.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-27-2006, 09:30 AM
:salamext:

We're on the internet and discussing if we can co-exist... wat the?

I happen to work with and socialise with plenty of non-muslims, my imaan is still strong (Alhamdullilah) and the people respect me and i in return respect them! Whats all this about moving out? Its all about the ability to endure and compromise, if you cant do that then... you got issues coz u really need it for every aspect of life!!

:wasalamex
Reply

north_malaysian
06-27-2006, 09:58 AM
If Non Muslims leave my country, it'll be very confusing. Who'll take care of their big pagodas, cathedrals, cemeteries, businesses? It's illogical!
Reply

KAding
06-27-2006, 10:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by muslim_friend
I thought Christian groups had America by the collar? :rollseyes
They don't. Why do you believe so? Can you think of any specific legislation that was passed at the federal level that would confirm this Christian dominance?

By the way, the ten commandments.. aren't they a part of American law?
Absolutely not! Not formally, nor informally!

Lets review the 10 commandments shall we?

1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me
Not part of any Western law, since atheism, polytheism or any other religion is completely legal in the US

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Obviously not part of the law, we can make any image we want to.

3. Thou shalt not thake the name of the Lord thy God in vain
It's absolutely legal to take Gods name in vain. Blashepemy is completely legal

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Nope, you can do virtually anything you want on Sunday, including work or for doing unholy things

5. Honour they father and thy mother
Not part of law. I have no obligation to honor my father or mother

6. Thou shalt not kill
Yes, that is part of the law. But then again, it is also part of law of any society, even those that existed before the Old Testament existed

7. Thou shalt not commit adultry
Adultery is absolutely legal, I can commit adultery any time I like

8. Thou shalt not steal
Part of law, duh ;)

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Not in a court of law no.

10. Thou shalt not covet
Coveting is perfectly legal. I can desire whatever I like

So, at best 2-3 of the 10 commandments are part of US law. And those are so completely obvious that they would also be part of US law without knowledge of the 10 commandments. :thankyou:
Reply

KAding
06-27-2006, 10:28 AM
Can we coexist?

I have to admit I am slowly coming to the same conclusion as HeiGou and snakelegs. Sure, we can coexist, but the chance of civil strife just increases dramatically. The question is not if we think it should be possible to coexist peaceful in one nation, but whether it giving human nature is likely to be possible over the course of centuries. I am increasingly doubtful of this.

Look, practically all Muslims here know that there primary allegiance is to the umma, not to their country. Clearly, historically this has frequently been a source of civil wars and other unrest. When I hear practically unanimous voices on this forum for example that serving in their countries armed forces is bad, mainly on principle of it being a kufr army, then I worry. Nations need somekind of common identity to function properly, nations are more then just a set of rules worked out in their constitutions and a random piece of territory.

I am a great fan of immigration, but only if eventually the immigrants get absorbed into the existing society. Lets be honest here, Muslims are a proud people, much prouder then virtually any other people. They have absolutely not intention of assimilating, and frankly that is their right. Yet, then we must admit that striving for such a multi-religious nation where people have different loyalties has consequences. We are already blowing eachother up for Gods sake! :offended:

Should we be able to coexist? Yes!
Are we able to coexist on the long term? I strongly doubt it :(.
Reply

KAding
06-27-2006, 11:05 AM
I am also wondering. Are there countries with significant Muslim minorities (10+% of the population or regions with local Muslim majorities) that are not experiencing somekind of civil strife? It's not important whether Muslims are to blame or other peoples, but we must be realistic on this.

I mean, just of the top of my hat going from West to East:
Ivory Coast: Civil war largely along religious lines
Nigeria: unrest in the Muslim north
Serbia: Kosovo
Russia: Don't even have to mention Chechnya
India: frequent riots and clashes between Hindus and Muslims, thousands of dead each year
Thailand: We all know about the troubles in the south
Phillipines: In the south there is a small civil war in progress
China: Always issues in the far west about its Muslim minorities

I mean, knowing human nature and seeing all these examples, why would we even want to live in the same territory? Are we really so naive to think all will be well?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-27-2006, 12:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
Ansar hit the nail on the head; Islam is a complete religous AND political system. Islam has not divorced itself from political domination. This is antithetical to America's Democratic traditions. As long as this state of affairs exists in Islamic countries, you cannot expect that we will give up our freedoms for Sharia.
No doubt there is an ideological incompatibility. Muslims believe that God has ordained the appropriate way of life for human beings, while secularists believe that man can formulate his own way of life in accordance with his subjective inclinations. That difference is ideological, not methodological. The latter referring the to the methodology which we employ to bring about ideological changes. Muslims are not allowed to impose their beliefs on others or compel others to follow the same path. So a Muslim may live next door to a Christian and an Atheist, and while all three have ideological differences, their methodology allows for peaceful coexistence. That is exactly the case here.
We welcome all people who want to abide by our Constitution, which recognizes that Secular Law is dominant over religous law. That is how it must be in America.
Islam commands us to follow the laws of the country in which we abide. As Shaykh Salmân Al-'Awdah mentions:
Muslims living in non-Muslim countries have to comply with laws and regulations of the country they have been entrusted though valid visas to enter. At the same time, they have to avoid whatever contradicts Islamic teachings. In case they are obliged by law to uphold something contrary to Islamic teachings, they have to adhere to the minimum that the law requires of them. (Full Fatwâ here)
Regards
Reply

muslim_friend
06-28-2006, 01:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
They don't. Why do you believe so? Can you think of any specific legislation that was passed at the federal level that would confirm this Christian dominance?
I said that because during the 2004 election campaigning, Bush and Kerry focussed a lot on gaining support from Christian groups. Actually, the reason for Bush's victory in the last elections was supposed to be his usage of the word 'God' in his campaigns.

So, at best 2-3 of the 10 commandments are part of US law. And those are so completely obvious that they would also be part of US law without knowledge of the 10 commandments. :thankyou:
I suppose your'e right :thankyou:
Reply

nimrod
06-28-2006, 03:34 AM
The answer to the question is, yes we can peaceably co-exist.
The other answer is, no, we can’t peaceably co-exist with terrorist.

If Islam wants to peaceably co-exist with the world, then it will have to do a better job of coughing up folks like Bin Ladin.

We can’t co-exist with folks like him.

Ansar say's that Bin Ladin’s groups don’t have their own interpretations of what Islam is, only ignorance. I would have to figure they have a different opinion of what is ignorance and what isn’t.

It can’t be left up to the western world to do the lion’s share of the work to corral those who abuse Islam.

Until there is a truly Islamic state in today’s world and they take over and LEAD the fight against those who abuse Islam, we can’t peaceably co-exist.

Ansar, I am assuming that if a person went back and examined the threads concerning the theories that Bush/Blair brought down the Twin Towers themselves, we will see your corrections all over the place correcting ignorance?

The United States will not suffer through another 9-11 without raining bad news down on a very large part of the Muslim world.
That would be terrible.

Iraq has shown the American public that spending money and lives on changing middle-eastern countries simply isn’t worth it. It is cheaper to bomb than it is to pay to gain the Middle East’s help.

Many, many more folks will die in the next western answer to a 9-11 event.

No one benefits from that.

There is an answer though.
Correcting Muslim’s thinkings and understandings of Islam MUST come from Islamic countries, in a loud and prolonged manner.

Recent history, the past 80 or so years hasn’t seen that.

Show the web-site that is in turmoil due to all the millions of Muslims that are condemning the suicide bombers in Iraq right now. I haven’t managed to find one.

Does any thinking person doubt that the think tanks, that form the opinions that result in government actions, aren’t watching the events un-fold in Somalia right now?


Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-28-2006, 05:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
If Islam wants to peaceably co-exist with the world, then it will have to do a better job of coughing up folks like Bin Ladin.
Stop inventing a fictitous person and calling him 'Islam'. Islam is a religion, not a person that needs to this or wants to do that. As for what Muslims are doing, I have already pointed out that there has been universal condemnation of such atrocities by the Muslim scholars, they have taken the initiative to combat extremism in educational institutes, the Muslims are doing as much as they can from a religious perspective. But since the origin of the problem is not religious but rather political, it merits a political solution as it is the current global politics which is breeding this hatred and hostility.
Ansar say's that Bin Ladin’s groups don’t have their own interpretations of what Islam is, only ignorance. I would have to figure they have a different opinion of what is ignorance and what isn’t.
If all these people simply have a different interpretation of Islam, then were on earth was this interpretation just a few decades ago? Why has there suddenly been an outburst in recent years of this kind of violence and alleged violent ideology? Why do all these actions which cast a negative image on Islam seem to happen continuously in a convenient pattern? Coincidence or conspiracy?

And yes, I do maintain that those who commit such actions are ill-informed of Islamic teachings, they have been rejected by the scholars of the Muslim Ummah, and there is not a scholar from amongst them.
It can’t be left up to the western world to do the lion’s share of the work to corral those who abuse Islam.
They only need to put a stop to the causes of political hostility on their side.
Until there is a truly Islamic state in today’s world and they take over and LEAD the fight against those who abuse Islam, we can’t peaceably co-exist.
So because there is not a united government in the middle east, you say I am not allowed to peacefully coexist with my non-muslim neighbors? I'm sorry but that doesn't follow logically.
Ansar, I am assuming that if a person went back and examined the threads concerning the theories that Bush/Blair brought down the Twin Towers themselves, we will see your corrections all over the place correcting ignorance?
I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are implying that I have some kind of duty to study and research the facts and the fiction in conspiracy theories, then no, that is not my duty. My duty is to condemn unislamic acts, regardless of who the perpetrators were, and to spread the correct teachings of Islam. Whatever the reality of these events may be, people are free to believe what they want. NASA doesn't compel people to believe that they landed on the moon.
Iraq has shown the American public that spending money and lives on changing middle-eastern countries simply isn’t worth it.
Is that why they went in?
Correcting Muslim’s thinkings and understandings of Islam MUST come from Islamic countries, in a loud and prolonged manner.
Wake up, nimrod.
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLi...mism_May04.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ds/5111092.stm
http://www.caircan.ca/itn_more.php?id=A1789_0_2_0_M
http://salafipublications.com/sps/sL...=channel&CID=3
http://www.salafipublications.com/sp.../GSC020003.pdf
http://www.al-athariyyah.com/Data_Fi...fbinLaadin.pdf
Thousands of condemnations are listed here. But since the origin of the problem is political and not religious, it merits a politcal solution, not a religious one.
Reply

seek.learn
06-28-2006, 05:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
...universal condemnation of such atrocities by the Muslim scholars, they have taken the initiative to combat extremism in educational institutes, the Muslims are doing as much as they can from a religious perspective. But since the origin of the problem is not religious but rather political, it merits a political solution as it is the current global politics which is breeding this hatred and hostility....
...But since the origin of the problem is political and not religious, it merits a politcal solution, not a religious one.
Salaam o alaikum,
Peace,

I could never have said that in any better way.

No doubt we muslims have alot to do as an ummah. And scholars are certainly trying to do their part by trying to educate the average muslim. But that isnt the only thing wrong here.

It takes two. Always.

WAllahu Alam. And Allah knows best.

May Allah forgive and guide me and us all. Aameen.

Alaikum Salaam
Peace
Reply

chitownmuslim
06-28-2006, 06:03 AM
The claim that Muslims and non Muslims cannot coexist in a society is absurd..
I was born and raised as a Muslim in Chicago, I lived around other Muslims and non Muslims all my life, never have I seen a Muslim brother or sister try to harm or hurt a non Muslim.. Ive seen people attacking mosques and pulling hijabs off the heads of Muslim sisters after September 11 and no one really cared about that, ive seen and heard politicians and evangelists insult Islam and Muslims with little or no condemnation from anyone, Yet we as a minority in the US respect the country that opened its arms for us and many of us (including me ) consider the US as our country. We consider ourselves part of the Muslim Ummah as American Muslims. I personally know 2 Muslim brothers serving in the US military, Im not saying its right or wrong im just saying that true Muslims who follow Quran and Sunnah do not disrespect the countries they live in.. I wonder if the people making these claims have ever even dealt with the Muslim communties in their countries, Im sure if they had they wouldnt have this negativaty towards Muslims.
Reply

Mr. Baldy
06-28-2006, 12:01 PM
salam,

if we look back in time history reminds us, that when islam was implemented properly, muslims and non-muslims lived together very peacefully, infact the non-muslims loved to have the islamic rule over them, so the souloution is not that we should leave, but rather lies in something else.
Reply

KAding
06-28-2006, 12:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mr. Baldy
salam,

if we look back in time history reminds us, that when islam was implemented properly, muslims and non-muslims lived together very peacefully, infact the non-muslims loved to have the islamic rule over them, so the souloution is not that we should leave, but rather lies in something else.
Sorry, I don't believe non-Muslims would 'love' to have islamic rule over them. I would not love to have Islamic rule over me. In fact, I don't think any non-Muslim on this forum would agree with you.

By all means, implement Islamic Rule in a homogenous Muslim country first. If it truly is that good I might consider it.
Reply

aamirsaab
06-28-2006, 12:23 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
It can’t be left up to the western world to do the lion’s share of the work to corral those who abuse Islam
Then why does the West keep taking it on?

Can We Coexist?
Yes we can - we aren't extra terrestrials from the planet mars you know. We are all humans seperated by faith and that should be the only difference.

From what it seems though, a large majority on this planet do not share that view, but passing the buck onto muslims (or anyone for that matter) is not the way to go as it doesn't solve anything. However, as I said before, this isn't a commonly shared view. I'm beggining to think SirZubair was correct in saying that common sense is dead.

format_quote Originally Posted by seek.learn
No doubt we muslims have alot to do as an ummah. And scholars are certainly trying to do their part by trying to educate the average muslim. But that isnt the only thing wrong here
I agree fully.
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 03:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Sometimes I get the feeling from some of these comments that there are some non-muslims who will never be satisfied with Muslims no matter what we do. Especially when someone says something like, "I came on this forum looking for dialogue but the more I read the more negative my view of Muslims and Islam and the more I think we can't live peacefully with them!"

Excuse me? How? What has there been on this forum except for Muslims promoting peace, condemning injustice and violence, spreading the moral teachings of Islam on respect, kindness, humility, mercy, justice, tolerance, patience, and all forms of virtuous conduct. What do people want to read??
As the author of those comments I suppose I should reply. I do not deny that this is the best of the Islamic sites I know. At least the best of the, how does one put it, more traditional Muslim sites. And yet, people here openly praise murderers. They openly denounce efforts by law enforcement in the West. They openly support people like Zarqawi and Bin Laden. They openly look forward to killing me in the near future in some rare cases. There are much worse Islamic sites, but that is not a comfort to me.

No, we don't want to impose our laws on you, we don't demand that you submit to Islamic laws, all we ask is that we have mutual respect and understanding.
Well yes, you, or at least a significant number of you, do want to impose your laws on me. Everyone here says they look forward to the day when Islam will rule the world. You do not demand I submit to all Islamic laws, but you do demand that I submit to some - and more of you look forward to the day when I'll have to submit to more. This is reasonable given it is your website, but I do not look forward to the day when Islam rules the West. Mutual respect is somewhat limited here.

Secondly, it is interesting you would raise this example as if to say, "We want to live peacefully with you and without hostility but we reserve the right to revile, defame, malign, slander and abuse you, your religion and whatever you hold sacred." Sorry, but there's no peace in that, only hostility and hatred. There will only be peace when both sides agree to respect eachother, not defend their right to spread hatred against eachother.
In theory I would agree with that and I would like to think it is possible. The problem is the utter unreality of what some Muslims here, probably most of them in fact, regard as "spread[ing] hatred". The Egyptian government jails people for "insulting" the President. I see this same one-sided unreasonable attitude here. I don't think that people ought to insult Islam (although I think they ought to have the right to do so), but what I mean by "insult" and what you, or some of you, think of as "insult" are two different things and they cannot be reconciled. There is peace in agreeing that we will not care what each of us says about the other. What cannot bring peace is to allow one side or the other to define what an "insult" is and then enforce it.

You cannot call for peace while permitting hatred and oppression.
That works both way for both of us.
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 03:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mr. Baldy
if we look back in time history reminds us, that when islam was implemented properly, muslims and non-muslims lived together very peacefully, infact the non-muslims loved to have the islamic rule over them, so the souloution is not that we should leave, but rather lies in something else.
Have you asked any Dhimmis about this or have you only read Muslim history books?

You are aware that some of the biggest haters of Muslim culture and laws on the internet are from Dhimmi backgrounds aren't you? Sharon was repeatedly elected by the Arab Jews, not by the European Jews.
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 03:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by syilla
i was wondering...why so afraid of the differences. Since i've seen so many types of culture and religion can coexists...in peace and harmony
I don't mind differences. I just don't like suicide bombings. Different cultures and religions can co-exist, but not with suicide bombs. It so happens that a small number of people from a particular Faith community have decided that their religion tells them to carry out such attacks. This is not a viable long-term option. The cause of those bombs has to go. I would prefer if the Muslim community made the effort to get rid of that small number of people but as they flatly will not, another solution has to be found.

I spent years working for justice in Palestine. And by justice I mean the destruction of Israel. I marched for the refugees' right of return. But I see that Wall and I see the number of suicide bombings drop and I see a solution. If there is another one please let me know.
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 04:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SirZubair
You quote islamonline about extremism. But what does that mean in reality?

Are they opposed to suicide bombs for instance?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503543974

Do they go further and call them fard?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503546498

4-The Islamic Fiqh Council stresses that martyr operations are a form of jihad, and carrying out those operations is a legitimate right that has nothing to do with terrorism or suicide. Those operations become obligatory when they become the only way to stop the aggression of the enemy, defeat it, and grievously damage its power.

Are they opposed to attacks on civilians?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503544354

In light of the above, exactly what can "Extremist" mean in this context? If Islamonline is not extreme, and I do not think it is relative to the rest of the Islamic world, what do you have to do to be extreme?

If you disagree with their views, and I hope but not expect you do, can you give me some idea of where they went wrong in their theology?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-28-2006, 04:25 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by seek.learn
No doubt we muslims have alot to do as an ummah. And scholars are certainly trying to do their part by trying to educate the average muslim. But that isnt the only thing wrong here
format_quote Originally Posted by chitownmuslim
We consider ourselves part of the Muslim Ummah as American Muslims. I personally know 2 Muslim brothers serving in the US military, Im not saying its right or wrong im just saying that true Muslims who follow Quran and Sunnah do not disrespect the countries they live in.. I wonder if the people making these claims have ever even dealt with the Muslim communties in their countries, Im sure if they had they wouldnt have this negativaty towards Muslims.
format_quote Originally Posted by Mr Baldy
if we look back in time history reminds us, that when islam was implemented properly, muslims and non-muslims lived together very peacefully, infact the non-muslims loved to have the islamic rule over them, so the souloution is not that we should leave, but rather lies in something else.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Yes we can - we aren't extra terrestrials from the planet mars you know. We are all humans seperated by faith and that should be the only difference.

From what it seems though, a large majority on this planet do not share that view, but passing the buck onto muslims (or anyone for that matter) is not the way to go as it doesn't solve anything.
JazakAllah khayr seek.learn, chitownmuslim, Mr. Baldy and aamirsaab for your comments; I'm in full agreement with what you have mentioned here.

Hello KAding,
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
By all means, implement Islamic Rule in a homogenous Muslim country first. If it truly is that good I might consider it.
I agree completely. We will not demonstrate to non-muslims the beauty of the Islamic way unless we implement it properly ourselves. In light of all this negative media, no non-muslim would want to live in an Islamic state, but if they could see it for themselves then they could make an informed decision. So by no means will we try to impose a state or our laws on non-muslims.

Hello HeiGou,
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I do not deny that this is the best of the Islamic sites I know. At least the best of the, how does one put it, more traditional Muslim sites. And yet, people here openly praise murderers.
Where? I have seen people raise skepticism about the involvement of a person in such a crime, but I have never seen them praise someone for committing murder! And do you realize that we also have a lot of young members here? It would be unfair to judge Muslim sentiments from the emotions of a 12 year old.
Well yes, you, or at least a significant number of you, do want to impose your laws on me. Everyone here says they look forward to the day when Islam will rule the world.
I look forward to the spread of Islam because I believe Islam is the true path of submission to God and the way of tranquility for all human souls. But I recognize the absurdity in compelling someone to follow the path of tranquility. So by no means am I going to try to impose Islamic laws on non-muslims. This idea is completely foreign to the Muslim community.
but what I mean by "insult" and what you, or some of you, think of as "insult" are two different things and they cannot be reconciled.
It is not impossible for us to come to an agreement on an objective criterion. That is what lawmakers do. Currently there are efforts in the US to amend the constitution to prevent flag desecration because it is the symbol of the US and means so much to them. I would welcome that so long as they gave the same rights to other religious groups and allowed everyone the protection of their sacred icons.
That works both way for both of us.
Absolutely.
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Have you asked any Dhimmis about this or have you only read Muslim history books?

You are aware that some of the biggest haters of Muslim culture and laws on the internet are from Dhimmi backgrounds aren't you?
That is the image you will get from Anti-Islamists but we find the reality to be starkly different when we turn to what the Dhimmis have said.

Dr. Habib Siddiqui says in response to one Anti-Islamist:
Scores of Jewish scholars and historians can be cited, including Ben-Sasson[27] and Abba Eban[28] to prove him unreliable, hostile and lying.

Let me quote from the scholarly work, A History of the Jewish People, edited by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson (Harvard University Press, 1976), an Israeli historian:
"The height of magnificence and luxury was reached by the wealthy Jews in the lands of Islam, particularly in Moslem Spain. We know that the court bankers of Baghdad in the tenth century kept open house for numerous guests and for the poor. Similarly, the ceremonies of the Jewish leaders in Babylonia [Iraq] and the patronage of the leading Jews in Moslem Spain, indicate conditions of ease and plenty.

"The attitude toward these non-Moslems in the Islamic territories was shaped in principle in accordance with the concept of dhimma, meaning protection granted to them by agreement or treaty… In return, their lives and property were protected and, in accordance with the general attitude of Islam to infidels, they were assured liberty of faith and worship. They were also permitted to organize themselves as they wished, and the Jews fully availed themselves of that permission.

"From the Jewish viewpoint, this conglomerate of Moslem attitudes to infidels was easier to live with than the one that had been established by Christianity, particularly in the Byzantine Empire. As we have noted above, for hundreds of years the overwhelming majority of Jews lived in the Islamic territories. Although it is possible to perceive some Christian impact on the Moslem attitude towards non-believers and even towards the Christians themselves, the moderation with which the Moslems applied this influence proved to be of great importance to the majority of Jewry over a long period. Unlike the masses of Christians and pagans who joined the Moslems over the first half century or so, the overwhelming majority of the Jews under Moslem rule held firmly to their own faith."[29]
As to the settlement and economic activity in the 16th and 17th centuries and the establishment of the Sephardic Diaspora in the Ottoman Empire, the above book states:
"A considerable stream of exiles from Spain overflowed into the Ottoman Empire. Once the latter had annexed Erez Yisrael, it became a lodestone for Marranos who wished to repent and return to their former faith…. The sultan at the time of the expulsion, Bayezid, welcomed the refugees fleeing from the fanatical Christians. As recorded by a Jewish contemporary ‘the Sultan sent men ahead, and spread the word through his kingdom in writing as well, declaring that none of his officers in any of his cities dare to drive the Jews out or expel them, but all of them were to welcome the Jews cordially.’ It can be assumed that this imperial protection and the order granting right of domicile were issued through the influence of the leaders of the long-established Jewish community in the Ottoman Empire… Success was not restricted exclusively to medical and court circles. It seems that in the Ottoman Empire it was felt that the absorption of the exiles from the West provided social, cultural and even military advantages… The exiles gradually dispersed throughout the main cities of the Empire. Many synagogues were to be found in Constantinople during the sixteenth century. In this city they settled in quarters where Jews had not formerly resided. Salonika also became one of their main centres, and similarly Adrianople and Smyrna (Izmir). The exiles also established themselves in smaller cities. Expulsions from southern Italy helped to diversify the Jewish community and increase the various congregations in the Empire."[30]
What is clear is that historically the relationship between Jews and Muslims living under Muslim Sultans was rather amicable and, that even in places like Palestine, Muslim people did not have any problem with Jews living there. The relationship soured only after the Balfour Declaration (1917) when the British allowed European Jews to colonize Palestine.[31]
_______
[27] A History of the Jewish People, edited by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson.
[28] Heritage: Civilization and the Jews by Abba Eban.
[29] For a brief review of the book, see: http://www.muhajabah.com/jewsofislam.htm
[30] op. cit., pp. 631-3
[31] See this author’s article: The Case of Jerusalem – for a detailed treatment of the holy city.

The cause of those bombs has to go. I would prefer if the Muslim community made the effort to get rid of that small number of people but as they flatly will not, another solution has to be found.
The problem is not that the Muslim community does not want to do anything, as I said earlier:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
As for what Muslims are doing, I have already pointed out that there has been universal condemnation of such atrocities by the Muslim scholars, they have taken the initiative to combat extremism in educational institutes, the Muslims are doing as much as they can from a religious perspective. But since the origin of the problem is not religious but rather political, it merits a political solution as it is the current global politics which is breeding this hatred and hostility.
[...]
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLi...mism_May04.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ds/5111092.stm
http://www.caircan.ca/itn_more.php?id=A1789_0_2_0_M
http://salafipublications.com/sps/sL...=channel&CID=3
http://www.salafipublications.com/sp.../GSC020003.pdf
http://www.al-athariyyah.com/Data_Fi...fbinLaadin.pdf
Thousands of condemnations are listed here. But since the origin of the problem is political and not religious, it merits a politcal solution, not a religious one.
Regards
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
quote=HeiGou]I do not deny that this is the best of the Islamic sites I know. At least the best of the, how does one put it, more traditional Muslim sites. And yet, people here openly praise murderers.
Where? I have seen people raise skepticism about the involvement of a person in such a crime, but I have never seen them praise someone for committing murder! And do you realize that we also have a lot of young members here? It would be unfair to judge Muslim sentiments from the emotions of a 12 year old. [/quote]

The point about the 12 year old is taken and very persuasive. Except of course one of the best posters around here is just 14. But I take that point. I did not say they praised someone for committing murder, I said they praised murderers. Denial is another problem. In this this forum is not untypical of Muslims the world over - in the latest Pew research not a single surveyed Muslim country could muster a majority for the simple proposition that 9-11 was carried out by Arabs.

Well yes, you, or at least a significant number of you, do want to impose your laws on me. Everyone here says they look forward to the day when Islam will rule the world.
I look forward to the spread of Islam because I believe Islam is the true path of submission to God and the way of tranquility for all human souls. But I recognize the absurdity in compelling someone to follow the path of tranquility. So by no means am I going to try to impose Islamic laws on non-muslims. This idea is completely foreign to the Muslim community.
Quite a few of you wish to impose your views on blasphemy on me. I do not know how far you intend to go with that, but the trend seems to be to treat all non-Muslims as close to Muslims as possible and so I think it is reasonable to assume quite a few more norms would be imposed on me if Islam controlled the West.

but what I mean by "insult" and what you, or some of you, think of as "insult" are two different things and they cannot be reconciled.
It is not impossible for us to come to an agreement on an objective criterion. That is what lawmakers do. Currently there are efforts in the US to amend the constitution to prevent flag desecration because it is the symbol of the US and means so much to them. I would welcome that so long as they gave the same rights to other religious groups and allowed everyone the protection of their sacred icons.
Theoretically I would agree with you, but some practical experience here tells me otherwise. For instance, to Christian ears much of what Muslims believe is insulting. That Jesus was not the Son of God is an insult to Christians. That Moses was not a Jew is insulting to Jews. To claim that Jews and Christians have falsified their Scriptures is insulting. Muslims are not willing to give up those claims (and why should they?), and so it is clear that there can be no objective criteria here. The US effort will fail but notice it is a one-sided effort - an imposition by the State on the people, not an attempt to balance two Faith community's claims.

Have you asked any Dhimmis about this or have you only read Muslim history books?

You are aware that some of the biggest haters of Muslim culture and laws on the internet are from Dhimmi backgrounds aren't you?
That is the image you will get from Anti-Islamists but we find the reality to be starkly different when we turn to what the Dhimmis have said.
Actually it is true. Robert Spencer comes from a Middle Eastern background as does Bat Yeor.

The cause of those bombs has to go. I would prefer if the Muslim community made the effort to get rid of that small number of people but as they flatly will not, another solution has to be found.
The problem is not that the Muslim community does not want to do anything, as I said earlier:
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
As for what Muslims are doing, I have already pointed out that there has been universal condemnation of such atrocities by the Muslim scholars, they have taken the initiative to combat extremism in educational institutes, the Muslims are doing as much as they can from a religious perspective. But since the origin of the problem is not religious but rather political, it merits a political solution as it is the current global politics which is breeding this hatred and hostility.
Actually that looks exactly like the Muslim community does not want to do anything to me. You gave me a site of the al-Maghrebi Institute and the only statement I could find on their web site, dates June 6th 2006 I think, said that it was wrong to claim that the Institute supported terrorism. Hence, I assume, the need for the press release - why June 2006 and not June 2001? However that aside, what does that passage above mean? Condemnation? Well that is a little complex but let's pass over it. Initiative in combating extremism in education insitutes? What have they actually done? Where are the programs to solve this problem launched by the British Muslim community for example? The origin of the problem is political, ie the West's fault, and current global politics breeds this, ie the West does. That looks exactly like what I said - the Muslim communities are denying they are to blame and insisting the West is and hence they do not have to do anything.

Thousands of condemnations are listed here. But since the origin of the problem is political and not religious, it merits a politcal solution, not a religious one.
Can you explain to me how Qardawi can, in Islamic terms, condemn terrorism but insist that it is obligatory to carry out suicide attacks in Israel?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-28-2006, 05:00 PM
Quite a few of you wish to impose your views on blasphemy on me.
No, we ask for mutual respect in that all religious are protected from such abuse.
and so it is clear that there can be no objective criteria here.
No, what is clear is that that would not be an objective criteria. But there is nothing to prevent is from coming up with one. There are some things that are quite clearly an insult no matter how you look at it.
Robert Spencer comes from a Middle Eastern background
And it is specifically his lies which Dr. Siddiqui is refuting.
Hence, I assume, the need for the press release - why June 2006 and not June 2001?
Because they had always been combatting extremism but recent baseless allegations against them created a need to issue a public statement to say what they were doing.
Initiative in combating extremism in education insitutes? What have they actually done?
They promote the true Islamic teachings and refute the false views of extremists, showing why they are flawed from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Thus, they are spreading proper Islamic education to the Muslim youth.
That looks exactly like what I said - the Muslim communities are denying they are to blame
Prove that they are to blame.
Can you explain to me how Qardawi can, in Islamic terms, condemn terrorism but insist that it is obligatory to carry out suicide attacks in Israel?
It states clearly in the links you posted that they believe these actions are allowed as a last resort in the face of aggression. Though most scholars would disagree with this, eliminate the agression and you've eliminated the cause of the problem.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 05:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
No, we ask for mutual respect in that all religious are protected from such abuse.
The Muslims of Victoria asked for such a law and they got it. They sued some Christians. Those Christians sued them right back. They now want the law repealed and are calling on Britain not to pass a similar one. See

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p...e/article/767/

So let us assume we had a law that protected Islam and Christianity equally. It would be a crime to say Jesus was not crucified and did not rise from the Dead, it would be a crime to say that Jesus was not the Son of God, it would be a crime to say that the Bible has been manipulated and faked by Christians. Is this what you want? How can you have an objective and fair definition of abuse that does not ban core teachings of both religions?

And it is specifically his lies which Dr. Siddiqui is refuting.
I am not interested in defending or even discussing what he has to say. I simply point out again he has a Dhimmi background and yet seems to be rather bitter about Islam.

Because they had always been combatting extremism but recent baseless allegations against them created a need to issue a public statement to say what they were doing.
What does it say they are doing?

It states clearly in the links you posted that they believe these actions are allowed as a last resort in the face of aggression. Though most scholars would disagree with this, eliminate the agression and you've eliminated the cause of the problem.
So they are not opposed to terrorism, just terrorism in certain specific circumstances. Those are two very different claims. Last resort? Is there an objective measure for "last resort"? Is it a matter of individual judgement or objective criteria? Aggression? That's a whole subject in itself. Do you know of a case where a Muslim state has committed wrongful aggression against non-Muslims or a single case where non-Muslims have rightly and justly used force against Muslims?

I agree we need to eliminate the aggression. But I suspect we mean very different things by that.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-28-2006, 05:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Because you cannot have a single-sided approach; you need to address these issues from all angles. Not only must you prevent hate but you need to replace it with love and understanding. You need to facilitate dialogue amongst the different groups and positive education.
Is this what you want?
I already informed you in my previous post that that was not the criteria. There are somethings which are clearly insults or hateful which need to be prohibited, such as the cartoons. Then there are somethings which clearly aren't, such as a statement of religious beliefs as you mentioned. Then there are somethings which fall in the grey area in the middle. You seem to think that the entire issue is only grey, but that is clearly not the case. Together we can come to an agreement over an objective set of criteria.
I am not interested in defending or even discussing what he has to say. I simply point out again he has a Dhimmi background and yet seems to be rather bitter about Islam.
And to assume a connection there would be a case of very weak inductive reasoning.
What does it say they are doing?
Combatting extremism in their curriculam.
So they are not opposed to terrorism, just terrorism in certain specific circumstances.
No, they don't believe that is terrorism.
I agree we need to eliminate the aggression. But I suspect we mean very different things by that.
Hence the need for public dialogue rather than the isolation you call for.

Regards
Reply

snakelegs
06-28-2006, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hello Snakelegs,

Well you've commented about the understanding of Islam as presented on this forum. I believe it is reasonable to assume that I have contributed in some way to that presentation of Islam and since I share the same views with a vast majority of forum members, I don't see any stretch in mentioning my views. In fact, I think it is more appropriate to ask you to comment on my views so that I can respond, rather than you commenting on the views of others and me having to speak on their behalf.

So I've personalized it because I can speak on behalf of myself instead of others, and because I feel I have made at least some contributions to the presentation of Islam on the forum.
valid point.

But we don't say that because of them we Muslims and westenerners cannot live in peace.

i did not say we cannot live in peace. until fairly recently my experience has been quite positive with muslims and there haven't been any problems. differences, sure. and that in itself, is a good thing, not a bad thing.
but there are certain ideologies that do conflict. can this conflict be resolved or is the conflict inevitable? i don't know, but i hope the former.


If by 'mindset' or 'mentality' you are referring to their religious views and understanding, then I would disagree, I don't think that is changing or is even the issue here. If on the other hand you are referring to their political and societal mindset, then you are right, there is an increase in hostility and the causes are socioeconomic and politcal, not religious.
it is very difficult with islam, to determine where the dividing line is between political and religious - they are too intertwined. i think you would agree that islam is much more than "just a religion".

The legitmate differences of opinion are only in lesser fiqhî (jurisprudential) matters, i.e. the application of the Islamic laws and fundamentals which are agreed upon. There is no difference of opinion the fundamentals of Islam or the beliefs and theology.
yes, i realize there are certain basic things that are not in dispute, but apply to all muslims.

What is increasing is hostility rooted in the political situation, not some different interpretation of Islam.
would you agree that the "political situation" has led many muslims to join the more conservative, fundamentalist branches of islam?
Reply

SirZubair
06-28-2006, 07:10 PM
Ofcourse we can Coexist!

Once we get over the whole :

"you're a bloody amrikan!" "you jew infidel!" "You,...terrorist sand ------s!" crap,yes,we can coexist.
Reply

snakelegs
06-28-2006, 07:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SirZubair
Ofcourse we can Coexist!

Once we get over the whole :

"you're a bloody amrikan!" "you jew infidel!" "You,...terrorist sand ------s!" crap,yes,we can coexist.
:giggling: :giggling: ;D

i feel a little stupid for having put it so dramatically. but there are some major problems.

by the way, the article you posted about exclusivism - wouldn't you say that both islam and christianity practice it? they are both "the one true religion", aren't they?
Reply

HeiGou
06-28-2006, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SirZubair
Ofcourse we can Coexist!

Once we get over the whole :

"you're a bloody amrikan!" "you jew infidel!" "You,...terrorist sand ------s!" crap,yes,we can coexist.
Well apropos nothing very much, "bloody amrikan" is simply a statement of prejudice against Americans. As is "you jew infidel" against Jews. You can deal with that simply by betting rid of the bigotry and hatred. As you can with "sand n******" as well. But there is no getting around "terrorist". That has real existance. People really get hurt. They bleed in real life. They die and they die forever. So getting over that requires getting rid of terrorism.
Reply

SirZubair
06-28-2006, 07:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
:giggling: :giggling: ;D

i feel a little stupid for having put it so dramatically. but there are some major problems.
Oh definetly,there are ALOT of major problems out there,i never have and never will deny that.

But at the end of the day,it all comes down to Us,are we (im not talking about you and i :p ) willing to do anything about it,or sit on our behinds and point the finger at each other.

This is where interfaith dialogue comes in.

format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well apropos nothing very much, "bloody amrikan" is simply a statement of prejudice against Americans. As is "you jew infidel" against Jews. You can deal with that simply by betting rid of the bigotry and hatred. As you can with "sand n******" as well. But there is no getting around "terrorist". That has real existance. People really get hurt. They bleed in real life. They die and they die forever. So getting over that requires getting rid of terrorism.
What can i say,..people need to be educated.

Heck,..dare i say,...Muslims before the rest of the world.

That is the reason i have been against cyber-terrorists/jihadists from the day i started posting on this forum.

there are alot of misguided teens...even adults out there who need to learn their religon properly,they read 1 or 2 verse from the Holy Quran and strap themselves with a bomb thinking "...my beautiful 7 virgins,im coming to getcha!" well,it doesnt work that way.

anyway,before i go too-far-off topic and offend anyone,i will shut up.

wa'salaam.
Reply

snakelegs
06-28-2006, 07:57 PM
when you stop and think about it, it is really sad.
most people throughout history have just wanted to be able to live in peace, to provide for their families and feel secure.
in that, we are all the same.
but all we do, is kill, kill, kill - divide, divide, divide.
we never seem to learn anything.
Reply

SirZubair
06-28-2006, 08:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
we never seem to learn anything.
Im not sure wether that is what makes us Humans,..or if that is what makes us Idiots.

:rollseyes
Reply

Ghazi
06-28-2006, 08:27 PM
:sl:

we never seem to learn anything.
If the whole world came back to the pure message of islam then there would be no problems.
Reply

Geronimo
06-28-2006, 08:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
:sl:

If the whole world came back to the pure message of islam then they're would be no problems.
You can say the same for Christianity, Judiaism, Budhism, Hinduism and so on.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-28-2006, 08:38 PM
Hi Snakelges,
Thanks for your post. I agree with most of what you've said. Yes the political situation can cause people to take up the methodology of deviants groups like the khawarij.

Regards
Reply

KAding
06-28-2006, 08:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islam-truth
:sl:

If the whole world came back to the pure message of islam then there would be no problems.
And how likely is that to happen do you think? Before the coming of the Mahdi that is?

Considering even Muslims can't resist killing eachother I doubt mass conversions by Christians will fix much.
Reply

searchingsoul
06-29-2006, 04:39 AM
Can we coexist? What a great question.

I think we can coexist once our world becomes more secular.
Reply

syilla
06-29-2006, 04:45 AM
that is why...we muslims are trying hard to make them understand what is islam...and making them understand we do not support any type of terrorism.

We are trying our best...but it seems no one can see that.
Reply

searchingsoul
06-29-2006, 04:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by syilla
that is why...we muslims are trying hard to make them understand what is islam...and making them understand we do not support any type of terrorism.

We are trying our best...but it seems no one can see that.

In all honesty, I took a break from this forum because many of the views expressed here are anything but peaceful. Notice I said many, not ALL views. I have found the articles from Load Islam peaceful, intelligent, and respectful.

What disturbs me is the interpretation of Islam from many Muslims. Of course Christian extremists disturb me as well. But the question is can we coexist? Since we seem to have a good number of extremists from both faiths then I tend to think that we cannot coexist.
Reply

abdmez
06-29-2006, 05:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
In all honesty, I took a break from this forum because many of the views expressed here are anything but peaceful. Notice I said many, not ALL views. I have found the articles from Load Islam peaceful, intelligent, and respectful.

What disturbs me is the interpretation of Islam from many Muslims. Of course Christian extremists disturb me as well. But the question is can we coexist? Since we seem to have a good number of extremists from both faiths then I tend to think that we cannot coexist.
There are extremists everywhere.
Reply

searchingsoul
06-29-2006, 05:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by abdmez
There are extremists everywhere.

I agree. This is why I lean toward the notion that we can't coexist.
Reply

snakelegs
06-29-2006, 05:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
What disturbs me is the interpretation of Islam from many Muslims. Of course Christian extremists disturb me as well. But the question is can we coexist? Since we seem to have a good number of extremists from both faiths then I tend to think that we cannot coexist.
well both religions claim a monopoly on The Truth and both are proselytizing.
there is an inherent problem in this, is there not?
living in the u.s., i have to admit that the christian extremists scare me more than their muslim counterparts.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-07-2006, 07:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
well both religions claim a monopoly on The Truth and both are proselytizing.
there is an inherent problem in this, is there not?
living in the u.s., i have to admit that the christian extremists scare me more than their muslim counterparts.

I think that there is a problem with both religions claiming that they are the only true religion. Such inflexibility creates tensions and hatred throughout the world. We will not be able to live as a peaceful world until the foundations of all organized religions are altered.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-07-2006, 02:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I think that there is a problem with both religions claiming that they are the only true religion. Such inflexibility creates tensions and hatred throughout the world. We will not be able to live as a peaceful world until the foundations of all organized religions are altered.
I don't think that's the problem. I believe that Islam is the true way of life ordained by God to the exclusion of all other ways, but Islam has likewise commanded me to respect people of those other ways and be good to them and share my beliefs with them in a gentle manner. My belief that Islam is the true path of submission to the one God does not in any way negate peaceful coexistence. Besides, saying that all religions are equal is the same as saying they are false. If one religion says there is 1 God and another says there isn't 1 God, they can't both be true. If one says there is no hereafter and another says there is, they can't both be true. In reality, what you are asking for is for people to abandon all such religions, not in the interest of truth, but in the interest of futile assimilation. I say futile because people are only deluding themselves when they think that once all religions are gone the world will be in peace.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-07-2006, 04:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
I don't think that's the problem. I believe that Islam is the true way of life ordained by God to the exclusion of all other ways, but Islam has likewise commanded me to respect people of those other ways and be good to them and share my beliefs with them in a gentle manner. My belief that Islam is the true path of submission to the one God does not in any way negate peaceful coexistence. Besides, saying that all religions are equal is the same as saying they are false. If one religion says there is 1 God and another says there isn't 1 God, they can't both be true. If one says there is no hereafter and another says there is, they can't both be true. In reality, what you are asking for is for people to abandon all such religions, not in the interest of truth, but in the interest of futile assimilation. I say futile because people are only deluding themselves when they think that once all religions are gone the world will be in peace.
I think that religious people such as yourself are able to co-exist peacefully. You are well read, intelligent, and seem to be a caring individual. I do not find these traits in most highly religious people. Instead, I find a lot of people who are unwilling to examine the history of their religions and formulate their own beliefs. Let's face it, it is far easier to let others determine what we believe and tell us why we should believe it. I find people with this mentality to be incapable of providing unconditional love and mutual respect. I fail to see how such people can co-exist with people of different beliefs.

I don't feel that there is one true religion. I do understand that many people believe this, but I think that this type of thinking causes more harm than good. Why does this cause more harm than good? Because I see it creating hatred, discrimination, war, etc... Like I mentioned above, most people are too lazy to examine their religious beliefs and understand how such beliefs affect people unlike them.

I agree that it is naive and delusional to think that eradicating the world of all religions would lead to peace. Humans are spiritual beings. They need a spiritual connection. So I'm not suggesting that we do away with religion. I'm suggesting that we do away with the highly structured institutions of religion. I'm also suggesting that a world in which religious institutions held little political influence would be more peaceful. Personally, I see secular governments being a positive for this reason. I see us possibly being able to co-exist if such actions are taken. But in reality, I don't see this happening in our lifetime which is why I say we can't co-exist.
Reply

searcheroftruth
07-07-2006, 05:59 PM
the west and islam can coexist but the west needs to get out of the middle east and not get invovled in countries which they have no business in
Reply

searchingsoul
07-07-2006, 06:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by searcheroftruth
the west and islam can coexist but the west needs to get out of the middle east and not get invovled in countries which they have no business in
We now have a global world. Why does the West have to get out of the Middle East? I think it's fair to say that the Middle East is greatly influencing and enjoying the liberties of the West.
Reply

Woodrow
07-07-2006, 06:05 PM
Coexisting is not only possible, it is what we have been doing. What we have not always been doing is Peacefully Coexisting.

Peacefull coexistance can come through tolerance of each other or total isolation from each other.



Edit note: I just noticed I had "We we" instead of "What we". Corrected it.
Reply

HeiGou
07-07-2006, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by searcheroftruth
the west and islam can coexist but the west needs to get out of the middle east and not get invovled in countries which they have no business in
As long as there is a quid pro quo - Islam has to get out of the West and not get involved in countries where they have no business.

(And they should build a big wall between the two)

I think we have a basis for agreement here.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-07-2006, 06:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
As long as there is a quid pro quo - Islam has to get out of the West and not get involved in countries where they have no business.

(And they should build a big wall between the two)

I think we have a basis for agreement here.
I agree with you. But I don't find a lot of people willing to accept this fair plan.

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me why the West should get out of the Middle East but the Middle East shouldn't get out of the West?
Reply

aamirsaab
07-07-2006, 06:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I agree with you. But I don't find a lot of people willing to accept this fair plan.
Like me. I think people just need to be tolerant of others. That could solve a number of problems.

Although, your point is valid.

Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me why the West should get out of the Middle East but the Middle East shouldn't get out of the West?
Cus the West has no reason to be in the middle east other than oil purposes. There are no other economical advantages save cheap employment. Those from the West that are in the middle east for purposes other than those stated are there either for escapism/vacation etc or to help fund charity. Other than that, no reason for the west to be in the middle east.

Now, i'm assuming someone will innevitable reply "what aboot the middle east in ze west?" - well, the west is pretty dang good to live in in terms of education and finance, so that's probably the only reason the middle east is in the west.

Please feel free to add to the discussion or what-not.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-07-2006, 06:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Like me. I think people just need to be tolerant of others. That could solve a number of problems.

Although, your point is valid.


Cus the West has no reason to be in the middle east other than oil purposes. There are no other economical advantages save cheap employment. Those from the West that are in the middle east for purposes other than those stated are there either for escapism/vacation etc or to help fund charity. Other than that, no reason for the west to be in the middle east.

Now, i'm assuming someone will innevitable reply "what aboot the middle east in ze west?" - well, the west is pretty dang good to live in in terms of education and finance, so that's probably the only reason the middle east is in the west.

Please feel free to add to the discussion or what-not.
The oil purpose is a legitimate business practice. What has Western business in the Middle East done for the economies of Middle Eastern countries? I think many people in Middle Eastern countries can appreciate the affects the oil business has brought.

I agree that the West offers a nice lifestyle. I'm happy to share such a lifestyle with Middle Easterners. Since Western societies are open to the Middle East it is only rational for the Middle East to be open to the West.
Reply

HeiGou
07-07-2006, 06:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Those from the West that are in the middle east for purposes other than those stated are there either for escapism/vacation etc or to help fund charity. Other than that, no reason for the west to be in the middle east.
You forget that most of the West's important religious sites are in the Middle East.

Now, i'm assuming someone will innevitable reply "what aboot the middle east in ze west?" - well, the west is pretty dang good to live in in terms of education and finance, so that's probably the only reason the middle east is in the west.
Umm Shaheed says the only reason to be in the West is Dawa. That may appeal to you all but it does not really apeal to me. Think, if you went to Saudi Arabia you would not have to lower your gaze all the time!

The longer I am here the more I think coexistence is not possible or at least not worth it. Not worth one more suicide bomb.
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
07-07-2006, 07:00 PM
All u guys come to INDIA, all the religions in the world are present in INDIA......... only very very rarely communal collision occurs........ except that INDIA = UNITY IN DIVERSITY
Reply

aamirsaab
07-07-2006, 07:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
The oil purpose is a legitimate business practice. What has Western business in the Middle East done for the economies of Middle Eastern countries? I think many people in Middle Eastern countries can appreciate the affects the oil business has brought.
I am in agreement with you. When it comes to financial stuff, at this present moment in time, it does seem that the West is better at it.

However, that ruling doesn't always include Western Law - applying different laws (this can be applied to all types of law) to different cultures is not a clever move; if however the people decide and vote for it, then fine, no problem.

format_quote Originally Posted by Heigou
You forget that most of the West's important religious sites are in the Middle East.
Valid point, but very few will actually go out of their way to go these sites. Additionally, if the western religious sites are in the middle east, perhaps the west should move back into the middle east, no? but they do not, just as those from the middle east in the west do not "go back" to the middle east - bringing religion into it will lead into the same argument.

Umm Shaheed says the only reason to be in the West is Dawa. That may appeal to you all but it does not really apeal to me. Think, if you went to Saudi Arabia you would not have to lower your gaze all the time!
Again valid points, but I live in the west for other reasons - namely education and finance. Sure, it's probably easier to practice my religion in the middle east, but no single muslim is representative of every muslim - do not forget we are human beings and all human beings are different. Though our similarites are plentifull, we each have differences.

The longer I am here the more I think coexistence is not possible or at least not worth it.
The fact that I'm living peacefully in my home in Leicester England indicates that coexistence (including peaceful) is possible - all it takes is tolerance.
Not worth one more suicide bomb.
Whether Islam is in the west or not, suicide bombing will occur - the two aren't positively correlated since suicide bombing has no place in Islam.

Although, the follow up/counter reply is probably going to say: "er...only muslims are suicide bombers" - in recent events, yes. But as I said earlier, one follower is not representative of all followers and those that do commit these actions, are wrong.
Reply

HeiGou
07-07-2006, 07:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
format_quote Originally Posted by Heigou
You forget that most of the West's important religious sites are in the Middle East.
Valid point, but very few will actually go out of their way to go these sites. Additionally, if the western religious sites are in the middle east, perhaps the west should move back into the middle east, no? but they do not, just as those from the middle east in the west do not "go back" to the middle east - bringing religion into it will lead into the same argument.
I wonder how many go to Jerusalem or Bethlehem each year? Israel tried moving back but I don't think that worked out for them.

Again valid points, but I live in the west for other reasons - namely education and finance. Sure, it's probably easier to practice my religion in the middle east, but no single muslim is representative of every muslim - do not forget we are human beings and all human beings are different. Though our similarites are plentifull, we each have differences.
I never asked - how did your exams go?

As for the comment itself, well, I take your point. But really in the end your education and your finances are about you. Not about, say, me. If we can't co-exist, well, it wouldn't directly affect me. Of course you may grow up to be the guy who cures cancer. I assume you would have to do that in the West. But then the guy down the road may end up cutting my throat.

The longer I am here the more I think coexistence is not possible or at least not worth it.
The fact that I'm living peacefully in my home in Leicester England indicates that coexistence (including peaceful) is possible - all it takes is tolerance.
It proves that you and me can coexist. For now anyway. As long as nothing else changes.

Not worth one more suicide bomb.
Whether Islam is in the west or not, suicide bombing will occur - the two aren't positively correlated since suicide bombing has no place in Islam.
Suicide bombing may have no place in Islam but the two are correlated. If Britain had no Muslims it would also have no suicide bombings. It is noticable that the three of the four large non-Muslim European countries with the most significant Muslim communities, France, Britain and Spain have had a problem. Germany hasn't but then its Muslims are mainly Turks. In terms of percentage the Western countries with the most Muslims are France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Again three out of the four have had problems.

But as I said earlier, one follower is not representative of all followers and those that do commit these actions, are wrong.
I would not deny that but still suicide bombers in the West come from one community and one community alone. They may not represent that Faith community, but they do not originate in other Faith communities.
Reply

Geronimo
07-07-2006, 07:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muzammil
All u guys come to INDIA, all the religions in the world are present in INDIA......... only very very rarely communal collision occurs........ except that INDIA = UNITY IN DIVERSITY
Same here in the US. I guess that's why we get along with India so well now.
Reply

bint_muhammed
07-07-2006, 07:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by SirZubair
Oh definetly,there are ALOT of major problems out there,i never have and never will deny that.

But at the end of the day,it all comes down to Us,are we (im not talking about you and i :p ) willing to do anything about it,or sit on our behinds and point the finger at each other.

This is where interfaith dialogue comes in.



What can i say,..people need to be educated.

Heck,..dare i say,...Muslims before the rest of the world.

That is the reason i have been against cyber-terrorists/jihadists from the day i started posting on this forum.

there are alot of misguided teens...even adults out there who need to learn their religon properly,they read 1 or 2 verse from the Holy Quran and strap themselves with a bomb thinking "...my beautiful 7 virgins,im coming to getcha!" well,it doesnt work that way.

anyway,before i go too-far-off topic and offend anyone,i will shut up.

wa'salaam.

quite suprising bro i agree with you on this matter!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-07-2006, 10:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
As long as there is a quid pro quo - Islam has to get out of the West and not get involved in countries where they have no business.
One's a religion and one is a political entity!!
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me why the West should get out of the Middle East but the Middle East shouldn't get out of the West?
The Middle East is in the West?? ;D Which Middle Eastern country is manipulating western politics in the way the west is manipulating middle eastern politics?

It seems poor analogies are the major obstacle to peaceful coexistence. :rollseyes

Regards
Reply

aamirsaab
07-07-2006, 10:40 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I wonder how many go to Jerusalem or Bethlehem each year? Israel tried moving back but I don't think that worked out for them.
Fair point, but it;s not like every christian or jew goes, do they? And on a similar note, it is not as if every muslim goes for hajj. Yes, i'm aware that there are individual circumstances involve, and that is actually part of the point i'm making: the "solution" that is being suggested (west go back to west, middle east go back to middle east) wouldn't work.

I never asked - how did your exams go?
Pretty well actually - i'm predicted two C's and an A.

As for the comment itself, well, I take your point. But really in the end your education and your finances are about you. Not about, say, me. If we can't co-exist, well, it wouldn't directly affect me. Of course you may grow up to be the guy who cures cancer. I assume you would have to do that in the West. But then the guy down the road may end up cutting my throat.
Ah but you see, the very fact that i'm here for the education means that I have been able to put my differences aside - if i hadn't, then i'd probably have moved by now. And just for the record, i'm hoping to work in the business section - so heck maybe you'll purchase from me in the not too distant future.

It proves that you and me can coexist.
I can say the same for about 90% of people I know.
For now anyway. As long as nothing else changes.
Then you have nothing to worry about. The West will not change unless the people vote for it.

Suicide bombing may have no place in Islam but the two are correlated. If Britain had no Muslims it would also have no suicide bombings. It is noticable that the three of the four large non-Muslim European countries with the most significant Muslim communities, France, Britain and Spain have had a problem. Germany hasn't but then its Muslims are mainly Turks. In terms of percentage the Western countries with the most Muslims are France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Again three out of the four have had problems.
I'm wondering if anyone else noted that these bombings only occured after 9/11. Perhaps, the connection lies there.

I would not deny that but still suicide bombers in the West come from one community and one community alone. They may not represent that Faith community, but they do not originate in other Faith communities.
Valid point. However, sending all muslims back to the middle east wouldn't solve the problem - suicide bombings still occur in Iraq and Israel/Palestine. The solution to this problem is not as simple as you make it out to be - sure if you send all the muslims back to the middle east, the West won't get suicide bombed etc, but will it stop people like OBL (for example)?

Passing a problem onto someone else is all very easy and works in the short term. But it doesn't solve the problem as it is still there.
Reply

HeiGou
07-07-2006, 10:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
As long as there is a quid pro quo - Islam has to get out of the West and not get involved in countries where they have no business.
One's a religion and one is a political entity!!
Well technically one is a religion and a political entity, while the other is just a political entity with an indigenous form of philosophy and quasi-morality.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-07-2006, 10:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well technically one is a religion and a political entity
I'm afraid not; Islam is a religion that provides guidance in political affairs, it is not a political entity that makes decisions, passes laws, invades countries, etc.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-08-2006, 02:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
One's a religion and one is a political entity!!

The Middle East is in the West?? ;D Which Middle Eastern country is manipulating western politics in the way the west is manipulating middle eastern politics?

I was referring to Middle Eastern people being in the West. This in theory is fine but when they challenge Western practices it seems out of line.

It seems poor analogies are the major obstacle to peaceful coexistence. :rollseyes

Regards
:) :) :)
Reply

nimrod
07-08-2006, 04:37 AM
Aamirsaab, you present a number of, very nice sounding, points.

However I can’t help but feel that you, like Ansar Al-‘Adl, are offering the same sort of thinking (I will leave it at that).

The most important thing, at the end of day, is the personal right to pursuit of happiness.

Islam is the biggest threat to that, in the West, right now. You seem to gloss over the suicide bomber.

England and Ireland fought a war for a very long time. There were many acts of terror carried out by the IRA. I don’t recall any (although there may have been one or two) suicide bombings.

It does seem, to me, that suicide bombing is a product of Islamist militants. The Western world has asked for Muslims help in dealing with this.

For a large part of the Muslim world, judging by the posts I have seen on this site (It is saddening to note that this is one of the milder Islamic message boards, yet the, seemingly, supporters of Bin Laden types, are here are at least 30% of the group), Islam is not ready or willing or able to deal with that problem.

Those that support such things, such as suicide bombing, like to point to Palestine and say “Well those poor folks don’t have any other means to fight the Zionist with”, well that leads me to this.

That same statement doesn’t hold true for those in Iraq blowing their selves up in the name of Islam, surely they have many other means to carry on the fight.

There are a number of posts on this site stating, that what these folks are doing is against the teachings of Islam. Fine, Great, Glad to hear it. But there always seems to be a “but”.

It is like when someone say’s “I am sorry, but”. That isn’t an “I’m sorry” at all. What it is, is an attempt to justify the actions that are being apologized for, as in “I am sorry for what I did, but, what you did drove me to it”.

What I find so sad about all that is going on right now is this.

The amount of money and lives that is being wasted on both sides, in disagreeing could have had such better results with just a few changes on both the East and the West’s parts.

Never before, in my life time, has the West been more willing to spend hard earned dollars on helping things in the East. Never before, in my life time, has the East been so quick to reject and condemn the West (take a look at Rou’s posts on his thread Bringing Democracy to the East, or however it is titled).




I don’t know, perhaps it has always been this way, and only the fact we have the internet to see it for our selves just makes it seem like a recent development, I don’t know.

What I do know is that there are three groups of folks in this world, those that are part of the solution, those that are part of the problem, and those that are not helping one way or the other.

Today, Islam seems (if this site is any indication) to be made up, by and large, of the latter two groups.

Why is Islam fighting with Russia over Chechnya???? What does it have to do with any ancient Islamic land ownership?
That is the justification given for the Palestine’s isn’t it, that is also the justification given by some on this site in their support of Somalia’s threats to Ethiopia right now, isn’t it?

As I have stated in a number of my posts, reform of Islam will have to be lead by Muslims, or, this will only get uglier and uglier, and many folks will suffer needlessly for it, both in the East as well as the West.

The East is, today, making the same sorry mistake as the West did over the last 50 or 60 years. The West supported many bad people like the Shaw<sp> of Iran, and Marcos, and Noriega, and any other number of other despots, just as long as they were willing to play ball.

If Saddam had been willing to play ball with the West, he would still be sitting pretty (that say’s many sad things about the West).

For all of GWB’s faults (believe me, I am not a supporter of his), at least he has seen that parts of our/USA’s foreign policy has, for a long time now, been wrong headed. He has also faced up to the fact that the Bin Ladens of the world are not going away by them selves.

What I have came to understand about the Bin Ladens of the world is this, either quit breathing or convert.

I don’t freely choose to do either.

Until all the Bin Ladins are gone and those that support Bin Ladin, or refuse to help fight the Bin Ladins, and the West will not peacefully co-exist with the Middle East.

It is a shame that we spend some much time arguing, instead of trying to find common ground. But it is rather like what I was told on the “Comparative Religion” section when I tried to find common ground, “Anything that disagrees with Islam, WE disagree with”.

Aamirsaab, as an aside, two things that I have found amazing to me is this:

Jesus was opposed by the Jewish folks because of his contradictory teachings.
Islam is opposed to my understandings of Jesus’ teachings as well….. yet the Muslims on this site can’t even tell me what the teachings of Jesus were. Amazing.

The second thing I find amazing is this, the number of folks that post “I wish the whole world was ruled by Shira Law/Islam, yet when we look at how quick Islam descended into bickering after Muhammad’s passing……. Look at the thread “The last truly Islamic State?” and all the examples given…..sad….. just really sad.

Sorry about my post sort of being a scatter-gun approach Aamirsaab, it just seems that you may be a reasonable enough of a person for it to have been worth while.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

aamirsaab
07-08-2006, 08:36 AM
:sl:
Oh boy this is fun.
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
The most important thing, at the end of day, is the personal right to pursuit of happiness.
Indeed it is.

Islam is the biggest threat to that, in the West, right now. You seem to gloss over the suicide bomber.
Islam is perceived as the biggest threat, yes. The reality of it is Islam isn't - but that's another story for another time. About the suicide bombings - of course it's a problem - i just don't like going into details of it - death and anything connected are not things that I like talking about as it causes anger and thus clouds judgement.

England and Ireland fought a war for a very long time. There were many acts of terror carried out by the IRA. I don’t recall any (although there may have been one or two) suicide bombings.
True.

It does seem, to me, that suicide bombing is a product of Islamist militants. The Western world has asked for Muslims help in dealing with this.
This is true, and the help is appreciated - it may not be said, but it is definately felt.

For a large part of the Muslim world, judging by the posts I have seen on this site (It is saddening to note that this is one of the milder Islamic message boards, yet the, seemingly, supporters of Bin Laden types, are here are at least 30% of the group), Islam is not ready or willing or able to deal with that problem.
Again valid points - it's a case of not enough muslims doing enough - a point that has been regularly told in the mosques since this whole thing started.

Those that support such things, such as suicide bombing, like to point to Palestine and say “Well those poor folks don’t have any other means to fight the Zionist with”, well that leads me to this.

That same statement doesn’t hold true for those in Iraq blowing their selves up in the name of Islam, surely they have many other means to carry on the fight.
And you will find many muslims say the same - the ones that don't will be now refered to as "the crazy ones" - who are much disliked.

There are a number of posts on this site stating, that what these folks are doing is against the teachings of Islam. Fine, Great, Glad to hear it. But there always seems to be a “but”.

It is like when someone say’s “I am sorry, but”. That isn’t an “I’m sorry” at all. What it is, is an attempt to justify the actions that are being apologized for, as in “I am sorry for what I did, but, what you did drove me to it”.

What I find so sad about all that is going on right now is this.

The amount of money and lives that is being wasted on both sides, in disagreeing could have had such better results with just a few changes on both the East and the West’s parts.
Again, I agree with you. Killing innocent civilians should never be justified though. I know we get a few crazy freaks on here that are "pro anything that hurts non muslims" on this forum - i've seen my fair share of them.

Never before, in my life time, has the West been more willing to spend hard earned dollars on helping things in the East. Never before, in my life time, has the East been so quick to reject and condemn the West (take a look at Rou’s posts on his thread Bringing Democracy to the East, or however it is titled).
There is a large amount of anger amongst many muslims nowadays as they perceive they are being attacked, which is understandable given the current climate.

Many of the muslim community however are appreciative of the fact - there are substantial benefits of living in the west - which i'm sure everyone will agree with.

I don’t know, perhaps it has always been this way, and only the fact we have the internet to see it for our selves just makes it seem like a recent development, I don’t know.
It probably is actually - the more we see, the more we know. The internet is great at letting people see.

What I do know is that there are three groups of folks in this world, those that are part of the solution, those that are part of the problem, and those that are not helping one way or the other.
That's definately true.

Today, Islam seems (if this site is any indication) to be made up, by and large, of the latter two groups.
Then I guess i'm in the minority group that is part or trying to be part of the solution.

Why is Islam fighting with Russia over Chechnya???? What does it have to do with any ancient Islamic land ownership?
Probably very little if anything at all - a trigger happy attitude seems common amongst certain muslims who keep using Islam as a way to do things - this is wrong. so very wrong. As a result, this thread has started.
That is the justification given for the Palestine’s isn’t it, that is also the justification given by some on this site in their support of Somalia’s threats to Ethiopia right now, isn’t it?
The sad thing is, the muslims that are "leading" are not the most level-headed/intelligent ones. This only makes my life more difficult - I already have to work twice as hard as everyone else (face it, if you ain't white in the UK, you gonna have to work extremely hard - it's a fact of life), and now these freaks cause trouble which means I have to work even harder - not enough people realise this.

As I have stated in a number of my posts, reform of Islam will have to be lead by Muslims, or, this will only get uglier and uglier, and many folks will suffer needlessly for it, both in the East as well as the West.
I and many muslims alike will agree with you on this. In fact, I often have this discussion with my brother

The East is, today, making the same sorry mistake as the West did over the last 50 or 60 years. The West supported many bad people like the Shaw<sp> of Iran, and Marcos, and Noriega, and any other number of other despots, just as long as they were willing to play ball.

If Saddam had been willing to play ball with the West, he would still be sitting pretty (that say’s many sad things about the West).
The truth both sucks and hurts.

For all of GWB’s faults (believe me, I am not a supporter of his), at least he has seen that parts of our/USA’s foreign policy has, for a long time now, been wrong headed. He has also faced up to the fact that the Bin Ladens of the world are not going away by them selves.

What I have came to understand about the Bin Ladens of the world is this, either quit breathing or convert.

I don’t freely choose to do either.
Ditto.

Until all the Bin Ladins are gone and those that support Bin Ladin, or refuse to help fight the Bin Ladins, and the West will not peacefully co-exist with the Middle East.
True, but that doesn't mean Islam and muslims can't coexist.

It is a shame that we spend some much time arguing, instead of trying to find common ground. But it is rather like what I was told on the “Comparative Religion” section when I tried to find common ground, “Anything that disagrees with Islam, WE disagree with”.
I too dislike that attitude. But the problem lies on both sides (this is not justification by the way, just saying :))

Aamirsaab, as an aside, two things that I have found amazing to me is this:

Jesus was opposed by the Jewish folks because of his contradictory teachings.
Islam is opposed to my understandings of Jesus’ teachings as well….. yet the Muslims on this site can’t even tell me what the teachings of Jesus were. Amazing.
lol, that's true. Not many muslims that I know do know all the teachings - but that's were we need to start learning - sadly, not enough want to learn.

The second thing I find amazing is this, the number of folks that post “I wish the whole world was ruled by Shira Law/Islam, yet when we look at how quick Islam descended into bickering after Muhammad’s passing……. Look at the thread “The last truly Islamic State?” and all the examples given…..sad….. just really sad.
lol, again, i've had the same conversation with my brother and the conclusion is the same: "it's a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch"

Sorry about my post sort of being a scatter-gun approach Aamirsaab, it just seems that you may be a reasonable enough of a person for it to have been worth while.
Ah nothing to apologise for - I like trying to find common grounds with people and sometimes, scatter-gun approaches are the most effective way :).

Thanks
Nimrod
You're most welcome.

p.s; if there is anything that I haven't covered in this post, please feel free to ask and i'll do my best to answer.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-08-2006, 12:22 PM
Hi SearchingSoul
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
I was referring to Middle Eastern people being in the West. This in theory is fine but when they challenge Western practices it seems out of line.
:) :) :)
There is a manifest difference between calling for the west, as a political entity, to cease its manipulation of middle eastern politics, versus calling for the deportation of all middle eastern people from the west. The first is not racist while the latter is.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 01:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
There is a manifest difference between calling for the west, as a political entity, to cease its manipulation of middle eastern politics, versus calling for the deportation of all middle eastern people from the west. The first is not racist while the latter is.
I am not calling for either. I think that simply stopping manipulation of Middle Eastern politics does not go far enough and I reject the claim that the West manipulates Middle East politics anyway. This is just paranoia. And I am not calling for the deportation of all Middle Eastern people. On the contrary, I think it is time to recognise that Christians have no future in the Middle East (or Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia) and they all should be given asylum if they want it. It is that I think convivencia does not work. I think this place shows it cannot work. Time to accept the inevitable logic of that.
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 01:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I never asked - how did your exams go?
Pretty well actually - i'm predicted two C's and an A.
Well good luck!

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
As for the comment itself, well, I take your point. But really in the end your education and your finances are about you. Not about, say, me. If we can't co-exist, well, it wouldn't directly affect me. Of course you may grow up to be the guy who cures cancer. I assume you would have to do that in the West. But then the guy down the road may end up cutting my throat.
Ah but you see, the very fact that i'm here for the education means that I have been able to put my differences aside - if i hadn't, then i'd probably have moved by now. And just for the record, i'm hoping to work in the business section - so heck maybe you'll purchase from me in the not too distant future.
Sure but you have not put your differences aside because you like me, or us, or Britain as a whole, or appreciate the way of life or your rights or whatever. You're here for your personal gain and what you can get here that you can't get anywhere else. You're using us. OK. I can live with that. I may buy something from you in the future, but the guy down the road may still cut my throat. If there was, say, a mass population transfer with the Middle East, I would still be able to buy whatever I could have bought if you were here (but I'd buy it from an Egyptian Copt or an Israeli Jew), but it is unlikely that a Maronite would cut my throat.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I'm wondering if anyone else noted that these bombings only occured after 9/11. Perhaps, the connection lies there.
Perhaps. You will notice that not all things that change here change because the British vote for them.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I would not deny that but still suicide bombers in the West come from one community and one community alone. They may not represent that Faith community, but they do not originate in other Faith communities.
Valid point. However, sending all muslims back to the middle east wouldn't solve the problem - suicide bombings still occur in Iraq and Israel/Palestine. The solution to this problem is not as simple as you make it out to be - sure if you send all the muslims back to the middle east, the West won't get suicide bombed etc, but will it stop people like OBL (for example)?
It will solve my one of my problems in so far as fear of being blown up is a problem. If suicide bombings happen in the Middle East I don't mind much. It is wrong, but it is none of my business and if we're all getting out of the Middle East it won't be an issue for us to get involved in. This is the great thing about the fence around Gaza. It is unilateral. It does not require co-operation with Gazans and, let me stress, it works very effectively. There have been virtually no suicide bombings from Gaza. OBL may wish to blow up people in the West, but if he is on his side of the fence all he can do is blow up people in the Middle East. His co-operation is not required. Any other solution would require massive amounts of co-operation from Muslims and I do not see any evidence of that. How can we prevent every single Mosque being used to preach terror? How can we prevent young Muslims watching those stuff videos the radicals make? But we can build walls. Unilaterally.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Passing a problem onto someone else is all very easy and works in the short term. But it doesn't solve the problem as it is still there.
Maybe. I suspect that Muslims are better placed to deal with these issues. They are, after all, rarely the targets of suicide bombings. They tend to cross religious or sectarian lines. By and large Muslims do not care if Muslims torture and kill other Muslims. Only if the West does. I can't change the world, but I can work to change my corner of it.
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 01:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
I'm afraid not; Islam is a religion that provides guidance in political affairs, it is not a political entity that makes decisions, passes laws, invades countries, etc.
Well surely is it. Islam is, after all, a complete way of life isn't it? And you do have more than just guidance in political affairs, it is just that a lot of that is impossible to implement at the moment, isn't it? The Ummah exists as a legal concept wouldn't you agree? The Muslim community, as a whole, does make decisions and pass laws through the scholarship of the ulama. It does not, as yet, invade countries in a normal sense, but Muslims working as individuals on behalf of the Ummah, do. The Chechens did before the Second Chechen War which has got a lot of support around here. The Somalis, with even more support around here, are talking about doing it too. Clearly Islam is not quite a state-entity as the West thinks of it, but just as clearly it is not just a religion like Methodism. The fact that the original poster could define the two opposing concepts as "the West" and "Islam" is proof of that. How can the West get out of the lands of Islam if Islam is not political?
Reply

bint_muhammed
07-08-2006, 01:40 PM
isnt it ironic how the minority makes life for the majority so hard! the terrorist, leaders which are the minority against the rest of the poulation, these cause teh diversities, or negative diversities, stereotypes etc. and the rest suffer due to thiis! i agree there is always a risk of getting on a bus being blown up or railway or whatever, however muslims are at the same risk! making the west seperate from the east or middleeast isnt going to calm things down however its gonna cause more diversities as psychologically more outgroup stereotypes occur when there si more seperation between groups! also what your asking is an ideoloy which isnt very practicle!
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 01:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
isnt it ironic how the minority makes life for the majority so hard! the terrorist, leaders which are the minority against the rest of the poulation, these cause teh diversities, or negative diversities, stereotypes etc. and the rest suffer due to thiis! i agree there is always a risk of getting on a bus being blown up or railway or whatever, however muslims are at the same risk! making the west seperate from the east or middleeast isnt going to calm things down however its gonna cause more diversities as psychologically more outgroup stereotypes occur when there si more seperation between groups! also what your asking is an ideoloy which isnt very practicle!
Why is that ironic? I don't think that Muslims are at the same risk. I think they are trying to kill me. I don't think they are trying to kill you. As long as you wear your hijab I think any potential bomber would probably get up and move to the next carriage. You can see the relative risks by the calm with which those leaders deal with terrorism. The kafir ones are active if not frantic. The Muslim ones are utterly relaxed.

It won't calm things down but it will take the problem from here and put it over there. No doubt there will be more hate, but it will be futile hate. I assume that Gazans hate Israelis a lot, perhaps even more than Palestinians on the West Bank, but because of the fence there is not a lot they can do about it. How else do you deal with hate? It is not very practical, but we can work on that too.
Reply

bint_muhammed
07-08-2006, 01:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Why is that ironic? I don't think that Muslims are at the same risk. I think they are trying to kill me. I don't think they are trying to kill you. As long as you wear your hijab I think any potential bomber would probably get up and move to the next carriage. You can see the relative risks by the calm with which those leaders deal with terrorism. The kafir ones are active if not frantic. The Muslim ones are utterly relaxed.

It won't calm things down but it will take the problem from here and put it over there. No doubt there will be more hate, but it will be futile hate. I assume that Gazans hate Israelis a lot, perhaps even more than Palestinians on the West Bank, but because of the fence there is not a lot they can do about it. How else do you deal with hate? It is not very practical, but we can work on that too.
its ironic because a terrorist seeing me in a cabin wont think oh better not thats my sis! he probably think oh what the hell i'm getting blown she might aswell! no muslim has been enjying it since 9/11 you know! many muslims have died in these attacks, and are going to if they carry on!
why look at things so negatively aswell! i understand that your worried about being blown up, but its like worrying about being knocked over by a bus tomorro! why not get rid of hate, and i'm talking of myself here aswell, what do you think your going to achieve? seperating the muslims due to the few extremists, seperating the christians due to their extremeist, or is it just the muslims you want seperated?:?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-08-2006, 02:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well surely is it. Islam is, after all, a complete way of life isn't it?
Yes, it is a complete way of life. 'way of life' is not synonymous with political entity. A politcal entity may draw its guidance from a way of life but the two are distinct. Democracy is the analogous political way/ideology in the west to Islam. Democracy is a political ideology of the political entity known as the west. Islam [was] the political ideology of political entities in the Middle East. Neither Islam nor Democracy can be considered a group of individuals who make decisions, mistakes, are influenced and so on.
Clearly Islam is not quite a state-entity as the West thinks of it, but just as clearly it is not just a religion like Methodism.
People in the west have pieced together their own way of life too. In political matters their way is democracy. It economic it is capitalism. In spiritual it may be christianity. In etiquettes it may be that of european culture. For Muslims it is Islam, Islam, Islam in every aspect. Capitalism, Democracy, Christianity and European culture are not political entities individually, so why would they become political entities when they are added together??
The fact that the original poster could define the two opposing concepts as "the West" and "Islam" is proof of that.
I went back to the start of the thread to see if you were referring to a specific statement, but I couldn't find one. Pairing "the west" with "islam" has a different meaning depending on the context, but here it is refering to the collective ideologies of the west and the ideology of Islam and whether the two can coexist at any point, irrespective of the poltical entities in power. Neither of the terms are being used as a political entity in this sense.
How can the West get out of the lands of Islam if Islam is not political?
'lands of Islam' normally refers to the lands that are predominantly Muslim or are ruled by Muslims.

Regards
Reply

seek.learn
07-08-2006, 02:10 PM
Salaam o alaikum,
Peace,

Fear makes strangers of people who would be friends.
In full agreement with your sig. Isn't that some what the reason people here think we can't live together?

Anyhows.

Peace,
Alaikum Salaam
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 03:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
its ironic because a terrorist seeing me in a cabin wont think oh better not thats my sis! he probably think oh what the hell i'm getting blown she might aswell! no muslim has been enjying it since 9/11 you know! many muslims have died in these attacks, and are going to if they carry on!
Actually I think he is likely to do precisely that - he would want to kill kafirs after all, not Muslimas. I disagree that no Muslims have been enjoying since 9-11. I have heard many many comments from people I take to be Muslims that suggest the contrary including Muhammed Atta's Father who said that he wished he had more sons to send to do the same. I don't judge all Muslims by a few, but you can't excuse all Muslims either.

why look at things so negatively aswell! i understand that your worried about being blown up, but its like worrying about being knocked over by a bus tomorro! why not get rid of hate, and i'm talking of myself here aswell, what do you think your going to achieve? seperating the muslims due to the few extremists, seperating the christians due to their extremeist, or is it just the muslims you want seperated?:?
It is a serious issue and yet it is not the issue. It is the utter refusal of virtually all the Muslims I come across to accept there's a problem or that something has to be done. It is not their fault, it is my fault, or Blair's fault or Britain's fault, or anyone but anything to do with them. This is pretty much the message you get from most Muslim communities except when someone leans on them. I hate to say it but the problem is not just with a small number of terrorists, but also a wider community that is indifferent to what they did. I am all for getting rid of the hate but my experience here suggests that it is impossible. We do not even begin to speak the same language. I do not know of any Christians who want to kill me right now although there are some. Christians have changed. I do not want any more suicide bombings in London and I am prepared to think of radical solutions to achieve that end. Do you have any ideas?
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 03:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Yes, it is a complete way of life. 'way of life' is not synonymous with political entity. A politcal entity may draw its guidance from a way of life but the two are distinct. Democracy is the analogous political way/ideology in the west to Islam. Democracy is a political ideology of the political entity known as the west. Islam [was] the political ideology of political entities in the Middle East. Neither Islam nor Democracy can be considered a group of individuals who make decisions, mistakes, are influenced and so on.
Well yes but a way of life needs to be implemented and I take it Islam needs to be implemented in full. It is not enough to be a Muslim on Friday. Let's go with the analogy to Democracy (although that is a poor analogy as breakfast is nothing to do with democracy). The West thinks democracy is a good way of life and so westerners tend to support its extention in other countries and at home. Muslim obviously feel the same. Democracy can only exist at a State level after all. Why can't they be considered as groups of individuals? Islam may have some objective existence separate from Muslims, but clearly Islam exists in so far as Muslims think it exists.

People in the west have pieced together their own way of life too. In political matters their way is democracy. It economic it is capitalism. In spiritual it may be christianity. In etiquettes it may be that of european culture. For Muslims it is Islam, Islam, Islam in every aspect. Capitalism, Democracy, Christianity and European culture are not political entities individually, so why would they become political entities when they are added together??
They compell political existence. Democracy cannot exist without a State. I am told that a full and proper Islamic way of life cannot exist without a State. It is part of being a Muslim to work for an Islamic State. You have said as much yourself. I am happy for you to do that. Somewhere else.

'lands of Islam' normally refers to the lands that are predominantly Muslim or are ruled by Muslims.
And two solutions suggest themselves to me based on the Roman experience of the Jews: separation or exile. That is, the two ways of life are radically different. Either we agree on a "divorce" and move into separate lodgings, or the other solution is what Hadrian did to the Jews. No one wants that.
Reply

aamirsaab
07-08-2006, 03:34 PM
:sl:
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well good luck!
Cheers.
Sure but you have not put your differences aside because you like me, or us, or Britain as a whole, or appreciate the way of life or your rights or whatever.
But I do appreciate it actually - I am fully aware that there are differences and always will be differences. Whether or not I like someone has no link between their political or religious stance or anything for that matter. It comes down to their actions.
You're here for your personal gain and what you can get here that you can't get anywhere else. You're using us. OK. I can live with that.
Everybody is using somebody else - it's inherent in human nature to do so. Show me a human being that doesn't do that, and i'll show you a liar.
I may buy something from you in the future, but the guy down the road may still cut my throat. If there was, say, a mass population transfer with the Middle East, I would still be able to buy whatever I could have bought if you were here (but I'd buy it from an Egyptian Copt or an Israeli Jew), but it is unlikely that a Maronite would cut my throat.
So, basically I have to suffer? look, if anything, the freak that wants to cut your throat should have to suffer - noone else.

Perhaps. You will notice that not all things that change here change because the British vote for them.
I very much doubt that the government will at any time soon implement sharia law - so there really isn't any need to feel threatened.

Change requires two things: time and patience - in the world of the West, these two are often small in quantities. Not that this is neccesarily a negative thing might I add.

It will solve my one of my problems in so far as fear of being blown up is a problem. If suicide bombings happen in the Middle East I don't mind much. It is wrong, but it is none of my business and if we're all getting out of the Middle East it won't be an issue for us to get involved in. This is the great thing about the fence around Gaza. It is unilateral. It does not require co-operation with Gazans and, let me stress, it works very effectively.
There have been virtually no suicide bombings from Gaza. OBL may wish to blow up people in the West, but if he is on his side of the fence all he can do is blow up people in the Middle East. His co-operation is not required. Any other solution would require massive amounts of co-operation from Muslims and I do not see any evidence of that. How can we prevent every single Mosque being used to preach terror? How can we prevent young Muslims watching those stuff videos the radicals make? But we can build walls. Unilaterally.
Ah the wall strategy would be usefull. However, what makes you think that the wall will not fall? If people want in the West, they will find a way.

I suspect that Muslims are better placed to deal with these issues. They are, after all, rarely the targets of suicide bombings. They tend to cross religious or sectarian lines. By and large Muslims do not care if Muslims torture and kill other Muslims.
The truth is, that yes, it is a muslim problem - quite clearly. However, the problem is at present in the west - simply moving muslims into the middle east won't change that. Yeah, it'll work for maybe a few months or so, but certain muslims will always dislike the West and so will always find a way to attack the west - now, i'm not supporting or justifiying their actions, no. But, i'm telling you as a human being, your solution that has been proposed wouldn't work in this case. As much as I would like it to, i'm afraid it would only make certain muslims even more angry, thus the attacks would intensify - a definate bad thing for all of us.

Sure they built the wall around Gaza - but has the conflict between Israel and Palestine ended? It's been a warzone for the better half of this century - what makes you so certain that by simply moving every muslim back into the middle east will solve it?
I can't change the world, but I can work to change my corner of it.
And you will find that many muslims feel the same way.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-08-2006, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Well yes but a way of life needs to be implemented and I take it Islam needs to be implemented in full. It is not enough to be a Muslim on Friday.
Okay,
Let's go with the analogy to Democracy (although that is a poor analogy as breakfast is nothing to do with democracy).
How did breakfast get into this conversation?
The West thinks democracy is a good way of life and so westerners tend to support its extention in other countries and at home.
Okay,
Muslim obviously feel the same. Democracy can only exist at a State level after all.
Okay,
Why can't they be considered as groups of individuals?
Why can't who? Sorry I'm not following you.
Islam may have some objective existence separate from Muslims, but clearly Islam exists in so far as Muslims think it exists.
Not sure what you mean here.
They compell political existence. Democracy cannot exist without a State.
The ideology called democracy still exists whether there is a state or not. A state is necessary for its implementation.
I am told that a full and proper Islamic way of life cannot exist without a State.
Likewise, a state is necessary for the implementation of Islamic guidance on politics and governance.
It is part of being a Muslim to work for an Islamic State. You have said as much yourself. I am happy for you to do that. Somewhere else.
Not a problem.
That is, the two ways of life are radically different.
But so long as the conflict is in ideology and not methodology, then peaceful coexistence remains a viable option. This is a fact established by those of us living peacefully in non-muslim countries.

Regards
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 03:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
So, basically I have to suffer? look, if anything, the freak that wants to cut your throat should have to suffer - noone else.
Well no. It depends if you think of it as suffering. You would have more time to practice your religion as it should be! I agree that the freak who wants to do it should suffer, but if he blows himself up, or wants to die in jail, there is little chance of that. So the ideal solution would be to make sure that he is caught first or better yet not even "created" in the sense of radicalised. How to do that? Again you would need massive co-operation from the UK Muslim community. Any sign that this is forthcoming? Not that I can see. They are all too busy blaming Blair and telling the British they had it coming for Iraq. Thus the need for unilateral solutions.

I very much doubt that the government will at any time soon implement sharia law - so there really isn't any need to feel threatened.
I do not want Sharia for myself, any children I might have, any children they might have, or any grandchildren those grandchildren of mine might have. It is not enough to say it is not going to happen soon. Happening at all is a problem. But it is not Sharia that I find threatening. It is bombings and terrorism. I do not wish to become an internet video star like Nick Berg.

Change requires two things: time and patience - in the world of the West, these two are often small in quantities. Not that this is neccesarily a negative thing might I add.
And Pakistan has these in abundance? I can think of a few changes that would not require a lot of time. I don't think the West has much patience left. I used to think this was a bad thing. I think tolerating the intolerable is worse.

Ah the wall strategy would be usefull. However, what makes you think that the wall will not fall? If people want in the West, they will find a way.
Well against a purely kafir background Muslims would tend to stand out. The problem with the radicals is that at the moment, against the background of an angry and bitter Muslim community, they do not stand out. Someone who thinks British people deserve to die has no problems fitting into British Muslim life and no one much notices. See the Sunday Times last week?

Even if a few of them get in, it would radically reduce the number of attacks. Look at the dive in Israel. It is not 100 percent effective there, but it is still very good.

During the twelve month period from August 2003 to July 2004 three suicide bombers launched attacks from areas where the fence has been completed which resulted in no deaths or injuries. In contrast during the preceding twelve months, from September 2002 to August 2003, 73 attacks were successfully carried out from these areas, in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1,950 were wounded. The decrease in casualties was not due to a decrease in attempted terrorist attacks; from August 2003 to July 2004 Israeli security forces prevented dozens of planned attacks in the final stages of their implementation and uncovered 24 explosive belts and charges intended to be used for these attacks. From July 2004 to October 2004 only one suicide bombing has resulted in casualties in areas where the barrier has been built. [17]

There is general agreement that effects to date have coincided with improved Israeli security. The cease-fire agreement of December 2005 has naturally led to a decrease in Palestinian militant attacks and has offered less opportunities for Israel to test the barrier's efficacy. The Palestinian NGO MIFTA speculates that long-term effects will create more Palestinian hostility towards Israel and that the current security benefits will be "only an illusion": "although the wall may give some immediate relief from the relentless series of terrorist attacks inflicted on the state and people of Israel, building the fence on Palestinian territory will inflame tensions in the region and do nothing to solve the crisis. ... it will give only an illusion of security to the people of Israel in the longer term." [18] On the other hand, Israeli Ambassador to U.S. Daniel Ayalon speculates that the barrier will "save the political process" and lead to long-term security because otherwise "terrorist groups have the ability to hold that process hostage because of their capability to conduct these devastating acts." [19] Lt. Col. Dotan Razili of the Israeli Defense Forces speculates that the long-term effects of a security barrier around the West Bank will be similar to the long-term security effects of the security barrier around Gaza. In an interview on the PBS program The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, he says that "we have experience in other borders... since 1996 if I'm not mistaken, no suicide bombers went out of the Gaza because we have fenced it."

[quite]The truth is, that yes, it is a muslim problem - quite clearly. However, the problem is at present in the west - simply moving muslims into the middle east won't change that. Yeah, it'll work for maybe a few months or so, but certain muslims will always dislike the West and so will always find a way to attack the west - now, i'm not supporting or justifiying their actions, no. But, i'm telling you as a human being, your solution that has been proposed wouldn't work in this case. As much as I would like it to, i'm afraid it would only make certain muslims even more angry, thus the attacks would intensify - a definate bad thing for all of us. [/quote]

The Middle East is full of Muslims who hate the West. Look at the Pew figures. Few of them get to attack the West. The 9-11 attacks happened because the US made it so easy for Saudis to visit. So imagine a situation in which Britain now has no Muslims at all. In fact no Muslims to the West of Thrace in Europe. The Middle East to the East of Thrace is full of angry and bitter Muslims. I'd hope some of them would think about why this disaster has happened, but let's not get too optimistic. Sure some Muslims would try to cross the border with Greece with the intent of doing damage. But most would fail. Those that did would have, what?, 1500 miles to cross before they reached the Channel which they would have to do undetected without anyone recognising them as Muslims? I think that Britain would be safer.

Sure they built the wall around Gaza - but has the conflict between Israel and Palestine ended? It's been a warzone for the better half of this century - what makes you so certain that by simply moving every muslim back into the middle east will solve it?
I agree that the conflict has not ended. But I no longer think it can end except in utter defeat for one side or the other. I used to think that would be Israel. The fence may make Muslims angry and frustrated, but once they see there is no effective path forward they might just start to think about peaceful solutions to their problems. Or at least alternatives. After all enough oppression and most Muslims do stop fighting. Saddam did not suffer suicide bombs. Syria is one of the safest countries in the Middle East. You mess with those governments and you pay a terrible price. It is certainly true that when Muslims were oppressed by the British they did not resort to terrorism - all those years ruling India and no Islamist terrorism. It is only once they have been invited to Britain, welcomed into the family, treated as equals that the response of some of them has been violence.

And you will find that many muslims feel the same way.
It does no good unless it achieves something. Four Muslim boys did this. Four others tried to copy them. How can we stop another four boys from doing it again? Apart from not leaving even four Muslim boys in the country.
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 04:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
How did breakfast get into this conversation?
Well presumably there are Islamic rules on breakfast?

The ideology called democracy still exists whether there is a state or not. A state is necessary for its implementation.
Well OK, on the level of ideology it exists whether it is implemented or not. But we really need it to be implemented in a way that you do not for Islam. After all you can be a Muslim, even a good Muslim, in a non-Islamic state. Democracy is meaningless if it is not implemented. There is not even a democratic concept of Heaven! This world is all there is for most democrats.

Likewise, a state is necessary for the implementation of Islamic guidance on politics and governance.
Indeed. Implementation of Islam properly or fully requires a State. It is not exactly just a religion or just an ideology.

But so long as the conflict is in ideology and not methodology, then peaceful coexistence remains a viable option. This is a fact established by those of us living peacefully in non-muslim countries.
As long as the conflict remains abstract, it can be peaceful. But it has not remained simply abstract and eight boys have taken the argument from the internet and conference papers to the streets of London. Now we have a problem.
Reply

bint_muhammed
07-08-2006, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Actually I think he is likely to do precisely that - he would want to kill kafirs after all, not Muslimas. I disagree that no Muslims have been enjoying since 9-11. I have heard many many comments from people I take to be Muslims that suggest the contrary including Muhammed Atta's Father who said that he wished he had more sons to send to do the same. I don't judge all Muslims by a few, but you can't excuse all Muslims either.



It is a serious issue and yet it is not the issue. It is the utter refusal of virtually all the Muslims I come across to accept there's a problem or that something has to be done. It is not their fault, it is my fault, or Blair's fault or Britain's fault, or anyone but anything to do with them. This is pretty much the message you get from most Muslim communities except when someone leans on them. I hate to say it but the problem is not just with a small number of terrorists, but also a wider community that is indifferent to what they did. I am all for getting rid of the hate but my experience here suggests that it is impossible. We do not even begin to speak the same language. I do not know of any Christians who want to kill me right now although there are some. Christians have changed. I do not want any more suicide bombings in London and I am prepared to think of radical solutions to achieve that end. Do you have any ideas?

i take it your white am i right? the christian group KKK or whatever its called, david duke is it, hates black other religions etc. they use the same type of terror on them however the victims arent against all christians! why would they be? i can tell some white christians, probably agree with whta they are doing whilst other don't! what i am getting at is if you see me walking down a street for example, you'll probably cross over, thinking i'm a threat, from that i will think your a racist, then if i see another person who seems similar to you will give them a dirty look or something it will lead to a long cycle of hate etc. (its just an example) from this you'l come up with a stereotype believing we are all terrorist and we will that your all racist. i see this is what has happend to the british society, we jump to coclusion to much! when really there isnt much to it, just some misunderstanding! you ask me if i have any radicle ideas and the only one i can come up with is bringing both communities and coming up with a mutual understanding, this i dont mean you stay that side of the world and i stay this side! to be honest at the moment i dont have any idea, but i know that seperation, won't work! i admit praising the terrorist should stop, however the negativity in the media about muslims should also stop!
Reply

HeiGou
07-08-2006, 04:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
the christian group KKK or whatever its called, david duke is it, hates black other religions etc. they use the same type of terror on them however the victims arent against all christians! why would they be? i can tell some white christians, probably agree with whta they are doing whilst other don't!
It is likely that some do, but the Christian Churches, the mainstream American community, have done what no Muslims have done yet - they have said clearly, loudly and often that this is unacceptable and wrong. They have thrown such people out of their Churches. The KKK has faded away as most people in the KKK have agreed with their religious leaders and left.

In an ideal world this is what the Muslim communities of the West would do. But they haven't.

what i am getting at is if you see me walking down a street for example, you'll probably cross over, thinking i'm a threat, from that i will think your a racist, then if i see another person who seems similar to you will give them a dirty look or something it will lead to a long cycle of hate etc. (its just an example) from this you'l come up with a stereotype believing we are all terrorist and we will that your all racist.
I don't see that this is valid. After all White British people have bent over backwards to make Muslims and other ethnic minorities happy here. They have changed their entire culture. They have banned racial discrimination. They have educated the population. They fund Muslim community groups and encouraged children to learn about Islam so on. The response has been the bombings. The irony is that when the British did oppress Muslims they were happier. What does fuel my views is constant pictures of Muslims carrying signs that say bad things and constant posts here calling for violence.

when really there isnt much to it, just some misunderstanding!
52 people died and over 700 were maimed. I go past the BMA building all the time. It was not a misunderstanding.

you ask me if i have any radicle ideas and the only one i can come up with is bringing both communities and coming up with a mutual understanding,
I have called for that all this year here. But "mutual understanding" seems to me an excuse for Dawa. We are to do the understanding (of the correctness of Islam and the victimhood of Muslim needless to say), not you.

this i dont mean you stay that side of the world and i stay this side! to be honest at the moment i dont have any idea, but i know that seperation, won't work! i admit praising the terrorist should stop, however the negativity in the media about muslims should also stop!
You call it negativity. I think the media tries to be fair. It gives Muslims air time. Name me a Muslim country that gives Jews anywhere near as much air time as Muslims get here. Why won't separation work?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-08-2006, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
Let's go with the analogy to Democracy (although that is a poor analogy as breakfast is nothing to do with democracy).
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
How did breakfast get into this conversation?
Well presumably there are Islamic rules on breakfast?
So you're essentially saying that the analogy is flawed because democracy is a system that only addresses the political aspect while Islam is a system that addresses every aspect of life. I answered this in my earlier post as well - the analogy was comparing solely the component of Islamic guidance relevant to politics with that of democracy to evaluate the claim that an ideology of system of political guidance is a political entity.
Well OK, on the level of ideology it exists whether it is implemented or not. But we really need it to be implemented in a way that you do not for Islam. After all you can be a Muslim, even a good Muslim, in a non-Islamic state. Democracy is meaningless if it is not implemented. There is not even a democratic concept of Heaven! This world is all there is for most democrats.
Okay.
Indeed. Implementation of Islam properly or fully requires a State. It is not exactly just a religion or just an ideology.
Right.
As long as the conflict remains abstract, it can be peaceful. But it has not remained simply abstract and eight boys have taken the argument from the internet and conference papers to the streets of London. Now we have a problem.
This is methodological not ideological. And you're being vague - what 'argument'?
Reply

bint_muhammed
07-08-2006, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
It is likely that some do, but the Christian Churches, the mainstream American community, have done what no Muslims have done yet - they have said clearly, loudly and often that this is unacceptable and wrong. They have thrown such people out of their Churches. The KKK has faded away as most people in the KKK have agreed with their religious leaders and left.

In an ideal world this is what the Muslim communities of the West would do. But they haven't.
many mosques have actually also claimed it to be wrong! terrorist dont just come into a mosques and claims they are terrorists, noone knows about them! when the 7/7 happened in our local mosque and with the rest, people were very upset! there were sermons against it and prayers for the victims!



I don't see that this is valid. After all White British people have bent over backwards to make Muslims and other ethnic minorities happy here. They have changed their entire culture. They have banned racial discrimination. They have educated the population. They fund Muslim community groups and encouraged children to learn about Islam so on. The response has been the bombings. The irony is that when the British did oppress Muslims they were happier. What does fuel my views is constant pictures of Muslims carrying signs that say bad things and constant posts here calling for violence.

oh i'm sorry, it must be my imagination all the crap i get sometimes, even before 9/11! racism is universal i admit, but believe me dont call it bending over backwards for us! you give that all the ethnic groups have it ever so nice in this country, believe me mate its not like that at all! i'll tell you what the bombing came from was the war in iraq! its not right, it actually shows their coward, stupid side, however thats how strongly some people felt about the war! and what fuels your view is once again the media that can be so bias!

52 people died and over 700 were maimed. I go past the BMA building all the time. It was not a misunderstanding.

i agree, this is no misunderstanding but an awful shame!:hiding:

I have called for that all this year here. But "mutual understanding" seems to me an excuse for Dawa. We are to do the understanding (of the correctness of Islam and the victimhood of Muslim needless to say), not you.

hey maybe some muslims get away with it trying to convert you, but serious some mutual understanding both ways would work wonders!


You call it negativity. I think the media tries to be fair. It gives Muslims air time. Name me a Muslim country that gives Jews anywhere near as much air time as Muslims get here. Why won't separation work?
yet this country calls itself democratic! and in my book democracy is giving everyone equal rights, what muslim calls themselves democratic! which muslim country goes to another to help them become democratic!:? :thankyou:
Reply

nimrod
07-09-2006, 02:02 AM
Ya_Giney, I understand the point you are trying to make.

I am not so sure you understand things from the other side of the street though.

One of the things the West is seeing in Iraq right now is this, if there isn’t a Kafir<sp> to blow up, then they will blow up their fellow Muslims.

Part of the world still believes that the killings, by Muslims, going on over there right now are those who are punishing the folks that are, in even the smallest of ways, supporting the desires of the West.

The smart folks who are looking beyond that see it as, at least in part, Sunnis killing Shiites and visa versa.

The point being:

If Muslim can’t see their way past wanting to kill a fellow Muslim…… then what will they want to do to the non-Muslim?

I wish I knew what the answer is.

Lots of folks are going to die in search of it.

The only answer I know is this, Love your fellow man as you love your self.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

SirZubair
07-09-2006, 02:09 AM
nimrod,i can sum all that up in a short simple statement.

What is the cause of all that?

The lack of religon in so called religous people.

Wa'salaam.

-Zubair
Reply

nimrod
07-09-2006, 02:31 AM
Ansar Al-‘Adl, do you not, by now, understand that it is the “methodology” that the West is having problems with???

Do you also not understand that it is the “Ideology” of some Muslims that are a large part of the problem?

When Bin Laden is handed over to the West, by Muslims, I may begin to believe you and what you post.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

nimrod
07-09-2006, 02:39 AM
Sir Zubair, I would agree with you except for this:

According to Islam, you can pursue you beliefs. If I do the same, according to Islam, I might be be-headed.

You did notice I believe in Jesus’ Christian message, I am assuming.

I guess I am just being silly though, Ansar says that the State will not put folks to death for Religious reasons though, because Islam is religion and not governmental.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-09-2006, 02:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Ansar Al-‘Adl, do you not, by now, understand that it is the “methodology” that the West is having problems with???
Not only do I understand this, but I feel it is so important that I am trying to convey it to others. This should be evident from my posts in this thread. I have repeatedly said that it is the methodological deviation of some which will cause the problems in the west.
Do you also not understand that it is the “Ideology” of some Muslims that are a large part of the problem?
I am using ideology in a restricted sense of the word; technically one's methodology is part of their ideology. But what I am highlighting here is that the problems the west is facing are not from the religion of Islam, i.e. the ideology of the Muslims. Rather they aise from the actions of ill-informed ignoramuses and deviants who employ a false methodology to bring about political change in the world.
When Bin Laden is handed over to the West, by Muslims, I may begin to believe you and what you post.
You need to have something to hand it over. You may beginto believe me?! So I'm a liar when I say we can live in peace, until I figure out the location of some unknown man on the other side of the world? This kind of nonsense does not even deserve a response.

Please stick to the topic.

format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
According to Islam, you can pursue you beliefs. If I do the same, according to Islam, I might be be-headed.
Typical fabricated anti-islamic drivel.
I guess I am just being silly though, Ansar says that the State will not put folks to death for Religious reasons though, because Islam is religion and not governmental.
If you want to attribute something to me provide the exact quote. The nonsensical jumble above is not from me.
Reply

nimrod
07-09-2006, 02:53 AM
Aamirsaab, thanks to you for your kind actions.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

nimrod
07-09-2006, 03:06 AM
Ansar, “Yes, it is a complete way of life. 'way of life' is not synonymous with political entity”.

What exactly is a “complete way of life” if it doesn’t entail politics?

Looking for having the cake and eating too?

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

nimrod
07-09-2006, 03:13 AM
Ansar “Please stick to the topic”. With the exception of my before last post, I thought I had.

You say what I have posted is anti-Islamic drivel, I would refer you to “Is this true” or any number of other threads such as Apostasy in Islam.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

searchingsoul
07-09-2006, 09:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by seek.learn
Salaam o alaikum,
Peace,



In full agreement with your sig. Isn't that some what the reason people here think we can't live together?

Anyhows.

Peace,
Alaikum Salaam
I agree with my signature as well. lol Let me clarify something: I think that I can co-exist with open minded people of various beliefs. Unfortunately, I do not find a lot of people with an open minded approach and mutual respect.

On a really personal level, my attempt to understand beliefs other than mine makes the world an easier place to live in.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-09-2006, 09:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Hi SearchingSoul

There is a manifest difference between calling for the west, as a political entity, to cease its manipulation of middle eastern politics, versus calling for the deportation of all middle eastern people from the west. The first is not racist while the latter is.

Regards
Even if it may be racist is still seems equitable to me.
Reply

HeiGou
07-09-2006, 12:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
It is likely that some do, but the Christian Churches, the mainstream American community, have done what no Muslims have done yet - they have said clearly, loudly and often that this is unacceptable and wrong. They have thrown such people out of their Churches. The KKK has faded away as most people in the KKK have agreed with their religious leaders and left.

In an ideal world this is what the Muslim communities of the West would do. But they haven't.
many mosques have actually also claimed it to be wrong! terrorist dont just come into a mosques and claims they are terrorists, noone knows about them! when the 7/7 happened in our local mosque and with the rest, people were very upset! there were sermons against it and prayers for the victims!
Sure. They have claimed it was wrong. What have they done in practice? Well they savaged the police over Forest Gate - clearly proving they have no interest in helping the British government deal with terrorism. They have not shared information - the Forest Gate raid would not have been such a bungle if they had good intelligence. They are not getting any.

Terrorists may not claim they are terrorists, but no one is born a terrorist. They are born innocent. Someone has to teach them that violence is an acceptable solution. Someone has to teach them that the British public deserves to pay. Someone has to pursuade them that British lives are not worth anything. Young men make a transition from normal to radical over time and through interaction with others. They don't do that at school or at McDonalds. These boys attended the same mosque and the same Muslim-run youth centre. It is likely that this is where they learnt to hate. Why did the Muslim community let their mosque and their young centre be used in this way? If these places were used to preach Christianity I do not doubt that the elders would have been on to it in no time and the person responsible kicked out. The Canadians knew that their mosque was being used to preach hatred. They did not care. I bet they did here too. Muslims have not done what the Christians did with the KKK. No one would now go to a Church and enter into any sort of activity that might lead to KKK membership. But I bet the next set of bombers are praying in mosques as we speak. I bet they are watching videos in youth centres even as I type.

format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I don't see that this is valid. After all White British people have bent over backwards to make Muslims and other ethnic minorities happy here. They have changed their entire culture. They have banned racial discrimination.
oh i'm sorry, it must be my imagination all the crap i get sometimes, even before 9/11! racism is universal i admit, but believe me dont call it bending over backwards for us! you give that all the ethnic groups have it ever so nice in this country, believe me mate its not like that at all! i'll tell you what the bombing came from was the war in iraq! its not right, it actually shows their coward, stupid side, however thats how strongly some people felt about the war! and what fuels your view is once again the media that can be so bias!
I doubt it is your imagination, but the fact that they have not succeeded 100 percent is not proof they have not tried and they have. They let your family into the country - what a gift that was! It *is* like that actually. Perhaps the difference here is that I am an immigrant and I know what the rest of the world is like while you're the child of immigrants. There is no, or few, country in the world that have been as generous to immigrants as Britain. Perhaps Canada or the US. Compare with, say, Malaysia.

How did the bombing come from Iraq? This is the basic problem with the Muslim communities and why co-existence is not possible. First of all the disloyalty means that Muslims cannot be tolerated here. Second is the idea that some people of the same faith dying half a world away justifies killing your fellow British citizens here. Third is the refusal of most Muslims to accept any responsibility at all. It is Blair's fault. It is my fault. God knows it is not the fault of any Muslim. Even if Blair was wrong to invade Iraq there is no justification for terrorism.

format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
format_quote Originally Posted by HeiGou
I have called for that all this year here. But "mutual understanding" seems to me an excuse for Dawa. We are to do the understanding (of the correctness of Islam and the victimhood of Muslim needless to say), not you.
hey maybe some muslims get away with it trying to convert you, but serious some mutual understanding both ways would work wonders!
I agree. It is not that the British have not tried. It is that British Muslims will not.

format_quote Originally Posted by ya_Giney
yet this country calls itself democratic! and in my book democracy is giving everyone equal rights, what muslim calls themselves democratic! which muslim country goes to another to help them become democratic!
And this country is democratic and at the moment Muslims are given equal rights. More rights than most Muslims have in the rest of the world. Too many rights if you listen to most Muslims in fact. If it wants to remain democratic it will have to deal with the intolerable. I don't know any Muslims who call themselves democratic. Islam and democracy, people around here tell me, are incompatible.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-09-2006, 02:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Ansar, “Yes, it is a complete way of life. 'way of life' is not synonymous with political entity”.

What exactly is a “complete way of life” if it doesn’t entail politics?
Read the rest of what I wrote:
Yes, it is a complete way of life. 'way of life' is not synonymous with political entity. A politcal entity may draw its guidance from a way of life but the two are distinct. Democracy is the analogous political way/ideology in the west to Islam. Democracy is a political ideology of the political entity known as the west. Islam [was] the political ideology of political entities in the Middle East. Neither Islam nor Democracy can be considered a group of individuals who make decisions, mistakes, are influenced and so on.

You say what I have posted is anti-Islamic drivel, I would refer you to “Is this true” or any number of other threads such as Apostasy in Islam.
'Is this true' was about insulting the Prophet pbuh - I was not aware that it is part of your beliefs to publicly revile the religion of others. I believe you are also more than familiar with the fact that in a Biblical state, insulting one's parents is punishable with execution and blaspheming God with stoning to death.

As for the thread on apostasy, I was not aware that you claimed to be an apostate or that publicly challenging the state was part of your beliefs.

If you wish to discuss this further, by all means we can go back to the thread 'is this true'.

format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
Even if it may be racist is still seems equitable to me.
Racism is never equitable.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-09-2006, 03:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

Racism is never equitable.
Perhaps racism is never equitable. I don't think that I explained my thought in enough detail in my original post, so I do see how it came across as being racist. What I was referring to was the deportation of Middle Eastern people who did not wish to live peacefully in Western societies and abide by Western rules.

The deportation of such people would be due to their actions not their race.
Reply

HeiGou
07-09-2006, 03:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
Perhaps racism is never equitable. I don't think that I explained my thought in enough detail in my original post, so I do see how it came across as being racist.
I think his comments referred to me not you.

What I was referring to was the deportation of Middle Eastern people who did not wish to live peacefully in Western societies and abide by Western rules.

The deportation of such people would be due to their actions not their race.
And even if they were deported because they were Muslims, it would not be racism because Islam is not a race. There are, as people keep pointing out, Black Muslims, White Muslims, Brown Muslims, perhaps one day there may be Green ones too.
Reply

nimrod
07-09-2006, 03:53 PM
Ansar Al-‘Adl, I would assume that discussing things/teachings that prevent us from living together peacefully are more than proper for the title of this thread.

Your religion teaches that I cannot practice what my religion compels me to do.
My faith compels me to publicly peacefully spread the message of Jesus as it is recorded in the bible to those who have not heard that message.

Your religion teaches that I am to be punished if I do that.
I am to be punished, not by an individual but rather, by the leadership of the communities/State.

I do not go around reviling other icons of other religions.
I do, however, not believe Muhammad was a prophet of God.

If I go around publicly saying/teaching that, your religion teaches that I am to be punished, not by an individual but rather by the State.

If I convert a person of your religion to my religion, then that convert is to be killed if they don’t revert and they choose to do what their new found religion compels them to do. To peacefully publicly preach the message of Jesus as it is taught in the Bible.

Your religion teaches that, that person is to be put to death by the State.

I do not understand how you can maintain that, when a religion teaches that the State is to carry out punishments for religious acts, Islam isn’t political.

Perhaps the problem is how you are trying to define the word political:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/political

po•lit•i•cal
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
2. Relating to, involving, or characteristic of politics or politicians: “Calling a meeting is a political act in itself” (Daniel Goleman).
3. Relating to or involving acts regarded as damaging to a government or state: political crimes.
4. Interested or active in politics: I'm not a very political person.
5. Having or influenced by partisan interests: The court should never become a political institution.
6. Based on or motivated by partisan or self-serving objectives: a purely political decision.

I would think definition #1 would be the correct use of the word as you are using it.

As long as you teach that Christians are to be punished for peacefully doing what Christians are compelled to do, then no we can’t co-exist.

All that is left is separation.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

catmando
07-09-2006, 08:23 PM
Nimrod has got it right. However, let me say this; there may be some little room in an Islamic State for Christians, Buddhists and other faiths, but NOT Atheists. We will not be tolerated, which is why Ibn Warraq and other Muslim Atheists(few thought they are) do not live in Islamic states, but in free nations like England and America.
Reply

searchingsoul
07-09-2006, 08:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
Nimrod has got it right. However, let me say this; there may be some little room in an Islamic State for Christians, Buddhists and other faiths, but NOT Atheists. We will not be tolerated, which is why Ibn Warraq and other Muslim Atheists(few thought they are) do not live in Islamic states, but in free nations like England and America.

I neglected to remember atheists and I apologize. You are right catmando. The remote chance that we can co-exist is probably only possible in Western countries. I'm going to ponder this for a while....Currently my reaction is +o( .
Reply

Woodrow
07-09-2006, 08:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
Nimrod has got it right. However, let me say this; there may be some little room in an Islamic State for Christians, Buddhists and other faiths, but NOT Atheists. We will not be tolerated, which is why Ibn Warraq and other Muslim Atheists(few thought they are) do not live in Islamic states, but in free nations like England and America.
I'm just nit-picking. Actually doing this to clear up a fairly common misconception. It is impossible for there to be a Muslim Atheist. I believe the word Muslim is still confusing to some non-Muslims.

Islam is to submit to Allah(swt). A Man who performs Islam (Submits to Allah swt) is a Muslim. A woman would be a Musilimah.


Muslim Atheist would be an Aheist who submits to the will of God(swt). That seems to be a contradiction of terms.

Fairly common error, people seem to think Muslim is a Race or a Nationality.
Reply

KAding
07-09-2006, 09:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Fairly common error, people seem to think Muslim is a Race or a Nationality.
Which is quite understandable since Islam is highly nationalistic. All the attributes of nationalism can be found in Islam.

1. A collective identity. All Muslims think they are part of the ummah.
2. It seeks to unite it's 'people' under the banner of one state. In Islam an Islamic State. In this it has territorial ambitions. It wants to be not just a 'people' but also a country.
3. There is a mythical view on certain major historical events which supposedly define the character of the nation.

Muslims essentially form a nation, whose members seek to live in a fully sovereign state. Ironically, I often see it claimed that nationalism is haram in Islam, but that is an incorrect view IMHO. Islam is simply intolerant of nationalism based on a different base, which is not religious, like ethnic nationalism or nationalism based on a civic ideology (think of the 'American dream').

This is another reason why coexistance is hard. Many Muslims are struggling with this requirement of dual nationalism: on the one hand loyalty to the nation in which they reside and on the other to the nation that is Islam.
Reply

Woodrow
07-09-2006, 09:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Which is quite understandable since Islam is highly nationalistic. All the attributes of nationalism can be found in Islam.

1. A collective identity. All Muslims think they are part of the ummah.
2. It seeks to unite it's 'people' under the banner of one state. In Islam an Islamic State. In this it has territorial ambitions.
3. There is a mythical view on certain major historical events which supposedly define the character of the nation.

Muslims essentially form a nation, whose members seek to live in a fully sovereign state. Ironically, I often see it claimed that nationalism is haram in Islam, but that is an incorrect view IMHO. Islam is simply intolerant of nationalism based on a different base, like ethnic nationalism or nationalism based on a civic ideology (think of the 'American dream').

This is another reason why coexistance is hard. Many Muslims are struggling with this requirement of dual nationalism: on the one hand loyalty to the nation in which they reside and on the other to the nation that is Islam.
Parodoxoly, many of us live in relative Peace outside of Islamic Countries, Support our countries and follow the secular laws of the land. True our loyalty is with Islam, but that is not a place.

While we are living in this physical realm, we do live by the law of the land, except for when it would be sinfull in Islam. Then we either leave or live with the consequences. Being an American, I will say that the laws do not require me to do anything I view as sinfull, although many things I view as sinfull are legal. My role is to strive for peacefull changes of those things, yet understand that I must abide by the laws or accept the consequences as enforced by the laws.
Reply

bint_muhammed
07-09-2006, 09:42 PM
ok heigu, i want to make this very simple, because you keep coming back to the same points
1) there are many muslims who hate terrorism, they havnt had it easy because of a few that do it!
2) MANY mosques do not tolerate with terrorism, believe me! MANY mosques do not teach about it, and there many places that they can learn about terrorism i.e. internet etc.!
3) i can assure you that islam can be very democratic, even with non-muslims, the only problem in out world today is that many people dont actually understand islam properly.
4) i'm a british muslim along with many many others who are willing to concieve a mutual understanding!
5) what you mentioned about racism and the people have tried but may have not suceeded 100%, this is just the same as some muslims are trying to tackle terrorist, however its pretty early and there is no guarantee that they will tackle it! BUT THEY ARE TRYING!
6) just because some muslims are against the war in iraq doesnt make them pro-terrorist!

hya nimrod! after our prophet had passed away, there cam 4 caliphas, or leaders. one of these leaders, i cannot remeba at moment, came up with a system if you like, where help were given to the less fortunate etc. he also gave freedom to the christians and jews at the time! they were allowed to leave freely practice their feligion freely, this is because he used examples of the prophet! what i am getting at is if your a christian and want to practice your faith, islamically i cannot go and behead you, that is actually what islam teaches! this has been once again misunderstood, by narrow minded people, who claim for you being of a different faith you should be killed!
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-09-2006, 09:45 PM
Hi SearchingSoul,
format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
The deportation of such people would be due to their actions not their race.
I don't have a problem with that but can you see the problem with what you initially were stating:
SearchingSoul:Out of curiosity, can anyone explain to me why the West should get out of the Middle East but the Middle East shouldn't get out of the West?
[...]I was referring to Middle Eastern people being in the West. This in theory is fine but when they challenge Western practices it seems out of line. [...]Even if it may be racist is still seems equitable to me.
Quite clearly there should be no need to call for middle eastern people to leave the west, especially when one acknowledges that it is racism. It is far more appropriate to say as you did now, that only those whose actions are contrary to the peace and order of the society should face such consequences.

Hello Nimrod,
Your religion teaches that I cannot practice what my religion compels me to do.
My faith compels me to publicly peacefully spread the message of Jesus as it is recorded in the bible to those who have not heard that message.
I see you have attempted to switch the topic again; let's look at what you originally said:
Nimrod: According to Islam, you can pursue you beliefs. If I do the same, according to Islam, I might be be-headed.
Ansar: Typical fabricated anti-islamic drivel.
Nimrod: You say what I have posted is anti-Islamic drivel, I would refer you to “Is this true” or any number of other threads such as Apostasy in Islam.
Ansar: 'Is this true' was about insulting the Prophet pbuh - I was not aware that it is part of your beliefs to publicly revile the religion of others. I believe you are also more than familiar with the fact that in a Biblical state, insulting one's parents is punishable with execution and blaspheming God with stoning to death.

As for the thread on apostasy, I was not aware that you claimed to be an apostate or that publicly challenging the state was part of your beliefs. You're not an apostate, so your comment that you would be beheaded for practicing YOUR BELIEFS was nothing short of a lie.
So not only did you raise then drop the red-herrings about apostasy and blasphemy, but now you've attempted to subtly shift to proselytism. The problem for you, nimrod, is that there is no beheading for proselytising in Islam, but there is stoning for death for proselytising in the Bible:
Deuteronomy 13:7-12. If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nation, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. YOU SHALL STONE HIM TO DEATH, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.
I do not go around reviling other icons of other religions.
In which case your intial comment that you would be beheaded for your beliefs is exactly as I said - typical fabricated anti-islamic drivel. If you did not revile the sacred icons of other religions you would not be punished in an Islamic state regardless of whether you believed in the Prophet pbuh or not or shared your religious teachings or not. So your comments on what my religion teaches are false.
I do not understand how you can maintain that [...] Islam isn’t political.
Even after reading a paragraph twice you still do not understand it? FOR A THIRD TIME I wrote:
Yes, it is a complete way of life. 'way of life' is not synonymous with political entity. A politcal entity may draw its guidance from a way of life but the two are distinct. Democracy is the analogous political way/ideology in the west to Islam. Democracy is a political ideology of the political entity known as the west. ISLAM [was] the POLITICAL ideology of political entities in the Middle East. Neither Islam nor Democracy can be considered a group of individuals who make decisions, mistakes, are influenced and so on.
So I did not say that Islam was not political, I said it was not a political entity, but that it contained a political ideology. You clearly understood none of that and somehow imagined that I "maintained Islam isn't political" ! The problem is not with definitions nimrod, the problem is that you obstinately choose to block out the voices of others and refuse to even read their posts properly.

You have repeatedly taken this thread away from the topic of peaceful coexistence to living under a Shari'ah state; your next post that does so will be moved to the appropriate thread.

Regards
Reply

Eric H
07-09-2006, 10:09 PM
Greetings and peace to you all,

We must pray for each other, nothing worthwhile can happen without prayer and coexistance requires God's help in a big way.

We must pray for justoce for all people, the poor and oppressed need justice the most.

We muxt pray for peace on Earth, a peace for all of God's creation.

We have a need to love all people so that we might openly acknowledge that the same God created all of us

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

bint_muhammed
07-09-2006, 10:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace to you all,

We must pray for each other, nothing worthwhile can happen without prayer and coexistance requires God's help in a big way.

We must pray for justoce for all people, the poor and oppressed need justice the most.

We muxt pray for peace on Earth, a peace for all of God's creation.

We have a need to love all people so that we might openly acknowledge that the same God created all of us

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
i agree!:)
Reply

catmando
07-09-2006, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I'm just nit-picking. Actually doing this to clear up a fairly common misconception. It is impossible for there to be a Muslim Atheist. I believe the word Muslim is still confusing to some non-Muslims.

Islam is to submit to Allah(swt). A Man who performs Islam (Submits to Allah swt) is a Muslim. A woman would be a Musilimah.


Muslim Atheist would be an Aheist who submits to the will of God(swt). That seems to be a contradiction of terms.

Fairly common error, people seem to think Muslim is a Race or a Nationality.
What would you call Ibn Warraq and others who have converted to Atheism(actually, we are all Atheists at birth)? Could they be Islamic Atheists? There are Atheist Jews who still call themselves Jews.
Reply

Woodrow
07-09-2006, 10:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by catmando
What would you call Ibn Warraq and others who have converted to Atheism(actually, we are all Atheists at birth)? Could they be Islamic Atheists? There are Atheist Jews who still call themselves Jews.
The Main difference is the Jews are both a religion and a Race, Many Jews are both, of the Jewish race and of the Jewish faith. We who are Muslim are from all ethnic backgrounds. All skin colorings, all languages. If you were to see and hear me in Person you would most likely assume I was of Polish or German ancestry and from New York City. I get more static over being a transplanted Yankee, then for being Muslim.

Ibn Warraq I would call an Arab or Mid-eastern Atheist if I were to try to tie on a specific label.
Reply

snakelegs
07-09-2006, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
The Main difference is the Jews are both a religion and a Race race, Many Jews are both, of the Jewish race and of the Jewish faith. We who are Muslim are from all ethnic backgrounds. All skin colorings, all languages. If you were to see and hear me in Person you would most likely assume I was of Polish or German ancestry and from New York City. I get more static over being a transplanted Yankee, then for being Muslim.

Ibn Warraq I would call an Arab or Mid-eastern Atheist if I were to try to tie on a specific label.
woodrow,
jews are not a race. they come in all colours.
Reply

catmando
07-09-2006, 11:04 PM
Is it possible to be both an Atheist and a Muslim? Like a cultural Jew could be an Atheist?
Reply

bkzbest
07-09-2006, 11:07 PM
no how it dusnt made sence.
Reply

aamirsaab
07-09-2006, 11:08 PM
:sl:
Firstly, I'd like to apologise for my late reply, if anyone actually cared :p.

secondly, i'd like to point out something: if anyone noticed, the conversation i had with Heigou contained none of the following: racism, slagging/insults, one-upmanship.

What it did contain was a large amount of respect and many peacefull and logical requests.

What this means is it is possible to build bridges and have a conversation with a non-muslim without having to shout "Kafir" at every oppurtunity.
It also means it is possible to disagree with someone, but still retain the highest amount of respect.

Now, I'm not going to go through each individual section of the latest reply - I can summarise it right now:

Heigou, what you ask for is impossible. As noble and respectable a request it was, the reality is that to send every middle easterner out of the West into the middle east is impossible. Why?
* Many middle easterners are happy with their life in the West. Infact, most of them moved from the middle east to the west because the lifestyle was actually significantly better.
* If they were to move back to middle east, they wouldn't survive a week - the culture is massively different.
* Many middle easterners uppon hearing your request would probably take the violent approach (I don't think it is neccesary to elaborate, I'm sure we all know by now what is meant)
* Many middle easterners don't actually have a problem with the west. It's the western governments foreign policy that seems to tick many non-westerners off.

There really is nothing else left for me to say. If you do reply, I will read - but there comes a time when the discussion is no longer a discussion, instead it turns into a fight. Heigou, you have attained both my respect and admiration, I wish that we part on these good terms.
format_quote Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace to you all,

We must pray for each other, nothing worthwhile can happen without prayer and coexistance requires God's help in a big way.

We must pray for justoce for all people, the poor and oppressed need justice the most.

We muxt pray for peace on Earth, a peace for all of God's creation.

We have a need to love all people so that we might openly acknowledge that the same God created all of us

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
I thank God that this forum is blessed with your presence. I can only hope others in time will share your view like I do. You bring with your posts something unique: hope - and this is needed amongst human beings today. Infact, now more than ever.

To fellow muslims: listen - for God's sake, please, I cannot stress this enough, please listen. Listen to what non-muslims are saying, and converse with them. Find out what "the problem" is, and come to a solution.
Reply

Woodrow
07-09-2006, 11:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
woodrow,
jews are not a race. they come in all colours.
Apparently you have never tried to tell a Jew that Judaism is not a race.
Reply

snakelegs
07-09-2006, 11:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Apparently you have never tried to tell a Jew that Judaism is not a race.
the nazis viewed jews as a race.
the jews view themselves a "people" - ahm or ahm yisrael - in hebrew. so in that sense they are like the ummah.
Reply

Woodrow
07-09-2006, 11:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
the nazis viewed jews as a race.
the jews view themselves a "people" - ahm or ahm yisrael - in hebrew. so in that sense they are like the ummah.
OK, I'll agree to that.
Reply

seek.learn
07-10-2006, 02:55 AM
Peace,

format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
... can co-exist with open minded people of various beliefs. Unfortunately, I do not find a lot of people with an open minded approach and mutual respect.
A sad truth.

format_quote Originally Posted by searchingsoul
... to understand beliefs other than mine makes the world an easier place to live in.
Very true.

May God guide us all. May we open our eyes. Aameen.

I really dont think shipping off muslim non-westerner's off back to their homelands is really going to happen. Guess we'll just have to find another way and work it through. Patiently. Peacefully.

God guide us all. Aameen.

Peace
Reply

nimrod
07-10-2006, 03:41 AM
Ansar Al-‘Adl, “You're not an apostate, so your comment that you would be beheaded for practicing YOUR BELIEFS was nothing short of a lie”.

I have as always done my best to not Lie.

What you say I posted is this:

The problem for you, nimrod, is that there is no beheading for proselytizing in Islam, but there is stoning for death for proselytizing in the Bible” (corrected for spelling).

Let’s look at what I have posted:

Your religion teaches that I cannot practice what my religion compels me to do.
My faith compels me to publicly peacefully spread the message of Jesus as it is recorded in the bible to those who have not heard that message.

Your religion teaches that I am to be punished if I do that.
I am to be punished, not by an individual but rather, by the leadership of the communities/State
”.

Now just to be clear to everyone, do you Ansar Al-‘Adl, agree that Islam prescribes punishment for those who publicly teach/preach faiths other than Islam?

If I lied, please show me where.

I believe what I stated is that under Islam I would be punished for practicing what my faith compels me to do. I did not say, even once, that I would be be-headed.

I reserved my statements, concerning be-heading, for those that convert away from Islam.

Your statement “I would agree that the punishment for apostasy should only be done within the parameters of the Shari'ah law, which would eliminate any problems.”

That overlooks the inherent problems from the get-go.

The problem is this, even if a truly Islamic State existed, the convert would still be killed, by the State.

Do you agree or disagree that the prescribed Islamic punishment for those that convert, to my faith and they do what their new found faith compels them to do, is death, most likely by beheading?


Ansar Al-‘Adl, “Even after reading a paragraph twice you still do not understand it? FOR A THIRD TIME I wrote:
Yes, it is a complete way of life. 'way of life' is not synonymous with political entity
”.

Yes, I read your statement, more than once. However, your statement makes no sense to me, then, nor now.

I gave you several examples of the Islamic faith acting in the capacity of the State, prescribing punishments for offenses committed by the citizenry, yet Islam and the State in a truly Islamic state are not synonymous?

Yet you don’t see how any of this has any impact on our capacity to co-exist?

I guess I am just not getting it.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-10-2006, 04:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Now just to be clear to everyone, do you Ansar Al-‘Adl, agree that Islam prescribes punishment for those who publicly teach/preach faiths other than Islam?
NO. There is no prescribed punishment for preaching other faiths, it is a discretionary (ta'zir) issue, not a prescribed (hadd) issue.
I believe what I stated is that under Islam I would be punished for practicing what my faith compels me to do. I did not say, even once, that I would be be-headed.

You said:

According to Islam, you can pursue you beliefs. If I do the same, according to Islam, I might be be-headed. [*]
This is an inescapable contradiction. You clearly spoke about yourself here, saying that beheading could befall you for practicing your beliefs, and now you claim that you never spoke about beheading with regard to yourself. I hope you will admit your error rather than attempting to conceal it.
The problem is this, even if a truly Islamic State existed, the convert would still be killed, by the State.
But the problem is that you fail to realize we are not talking about what it is like to live under an Islamic state or the Shari'ah punishments. We are talking about whether the peaceful coexistence of Muslims and Non-Muslims is possible or not. The fact that there are practicing muslim communities living and contributing in non-muslim countries is proof that peaceful coexistence is possible, just as the countless testimonies of non-muslims in an Islamic state are. I have provided the quotes before and I have no problem providing them again.
Welldiorant:
The people of dhimma: Christians, Zaradishts, Jews and Sabi'a; enjoyed a degree of tolerance during the Umayyad rule which can never be assimilated to Christian countries nowadays. They were free to practice their rituals. (History of Civilization, 131/12)
A History of the Jewish People, edited by Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson (Harvard University Press, 1976), an Israeli historian:
"The height of magnificence and luxury was reached by the wealthy Jews in the lands of Islam, particularly in Moslem Spain. We know that the court bankers of Baghdad in the tenth century kept open house for numerous guests and for the poor. Similarly, the ceremonies of the Jewish leaders in Babylonia [Iraq] and the patronage of the leading Jews in Moslem Spain, indicate conditions of ease and plenty.

"The attitude toward these non-Moslems in the Islamic territories was shaped in principle in accordance with the concept of dhimma, meaning protection granted to them by agreement or treaty… In return, their lives and property were protected and, in accordance with the general attitude of Islam to infidels, they were assured liberty of faith and worship. They were also permitted to organize themselves as they wished, and the Jews fully availed themselves of that permission.

"From the Jewish viewpoint, this conglomerate of Moslem attitudes to infidels was easier to live with than the one that had been established by Christianity, particularly in the Byzantine Empire. As we have noted above, for hundreds of years the overwhelming majority of Jews lived in the Islamic territories. Although it is possible to perceive some Christian impact on the Moslem attitude towards non-believers and even towards the Christians themselves, the moderation with which the Moslems applied this influence proved to be of great importance to the majority of Jewry over a long period. Unlike the masses of Christians and pagans who joined the Moslems over the first half century or so, the overwhelming majority of the Jews under Moslem rule held firmly to their own faith."
As to the settlement and economic activity in the 16th and 17th centuries and the establishment of the Sephardic Diaspora in the Ottoman Empire, the above book states:
"A considerable stream of exiles from Spain overflowed into the Ottoman Empire. Once the latter had annexed Erez Yisrael, it became a lodestone for Marranos who wished to repent and return to their former faith…. The sultan at the time of the expulsion, Bayezid, welcomed the refugees fleeing from the fanatical Christians. As recorded by a Jewish contemporary ‘the Sultan sent men ahead, and spread the word through his kingdom in writing as well, declaring that none of his officers in any of his cities dare to drive the Jews out or expel them, but all of them were to welcome the Jews cordially.’ It can be assumed that this imperial protection and the order granting right of domicile were issued through the influence of the leaders of the long-established Jewish community in the Ottoman Empire… Success was not restricted exclusively to medical and court circles. It seems that in the Ottoman Empire it was felt that the absorption of the exiles from the West provided social, cultural and even military advantages… The exiles gradually dispersed throughout the main cities of the Empire. Many synagogues were to be found in Constantinople during the sixteenth century. In this city they settled in quarters where Jews had not formerly resided. Salonika also became one of their main centres, and similarly Adrianople and Smyrna (Izmir). The exiles also established themselves in smaller cities. Expulsions from southern Italy helped to diversify the Jewish community and increase the various congregations in the Empire." (pp. 631-633)
As for the red-herring of apostasy, we are talking about the peaceful coexistence of Muslims and Non-Muslims. We are not talking about apostates. I don't mind discussing apostasy but when I discuss an issue I prefer to give it full attention and in-depth examination, so if you want to continue discussing apostasy, pm me and I'll reopen the thread on apostasy in Islam and you and I can have a complete debate there.
Yes, I read your statement, more than once. However, your statement makes no sense to me, then, nor now.
I don't see how you could have read it. You claimed that I was saying Islam wasn't political yet I CLEARLY said in that paragraph that Islam was the POLITICAL ideology of an Islamic state. I said it was not a political ENTITY. I'd like to think that you wouldn't intentionally misquote me, but your insistence that you read my paragraph multiple times coupled with your claim that I said Islam wasn't political seems to suggest otherwise.
Islam and the State in a truly Islamic state are not synonymous?
No they are not. We can say that a state passed a new law, made a good plan, or that a state declared a truce or war, or that a state is very swift in making decsions - and in all of these cases we are clearly speaking about a current political entity and not the religion of Islam.

Regards
Reply

Eric H
07-10-2006, 05:27 AM
Greetings and peace to you all
You bring with your posts something unique: hope
There is always hope aamirsaab, because there is a just God and we must trust in God to put all things right in a just and merciful way.

God will know that he put all people on Earth, God will know that he gave you an Islamic message, God will know that he gave me a Christian message, but why should the same God apparently give each of us what seems to be conflicting beliefs?

I sense that we will be judged in the same kind of way that we judge, and treat other people. In many ways I kind of sense that the bigger test for each one of us is how we relate to people who are perceived as being different to ourselves.

When God puts all things right, he must surely put things right in a greater way than mankind is able to. God will know that he created all people, and he will know that he gave each one of us the freedom to be a steward for his creation, God will know the gifts that he has given to each one of us, and he will know how we used these gifts.

Would God would want all his creation to live in peace freely and willingly. It does not make any sense at all that God should create us so that we should be in conflict with each other.

In the spirit of seeking peace on Earth

Eric
Reply

HeiGou
07-10-2006, 10:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:secondly, i'd like to point out something: if anyone noticed, the conversation i had with Heigou contained none of the following: racism, slagging/insults, one-upmanship.
Oh I don't know, I'm pretty good at all those things. I promise I will try harder in the future!

Heigou, what you ask for is impossible. As noble and respectable a request it was, the reality is that to send every middle easterner out of the West into the middle east is impossible. Why?
* Many middle easterners are happy with their life in the West. Infact, most of them moved from the middle east to the west because the lifestyle was actually significantly better.
I am sure that many Muslims were happy in Spain in 1491 as well. After all the families of many of them had been there for a few hundred years. It was not impossible to remove them all from Spain. I agree it is unlikely that we can ask them nicely and they will go.

* If they were to move back to middle east, they wouldn't survive a week - the culture is massively different.
* Many middle easterners uppon hearing your request would probably take the violent approach (I don't think it is neccesary to elaborate, I'm sure we all know by now what is meant)
I don't know. They are all Muslims. Can't be that massively different. And a significant number of them actively prefer that Middle Eastern way of life to the British alternative. God knows I hear it all the time around here. I think that if they take a violent approach it will not change the outcome. There are not enough Muslims in the West, yet, to stop Western governments doing whatever they like.

* Many middle easterners don't actually have a problem with the west. It's the western governments foreign policy that seems to tick many non-westerners off.
I used to believe that but opinion poll after opinion poll suggests otherwise. Middle Easterns basically do not like the West's way of life or culture. They say so if asked. Often. I don't think that the West's foreign policy ticks many people off besides Muslims. I think that the West has large reservoirs of support in the Hindu and Buddhist world.

Heigou, you have attained both my respect and admiration, I wish that we part on these good terms.
I am sorry that we cannot agree any more. I like many people around here. I respect many of them too. Your posts are always worth reading. But if the Muslim community will not lift a finger to do anything about terrorism - apart from blaming me and Blair of course - then something has to be done. If not this, what?
Reply

nimrod
07-11-2006, 02:23 AM
Ansar Al-‘Adl quoting myself “You said:
According to Islam, you can pursue you beliefs. If I do the same, according to Islam, I might be be-headed. “(Can We Coexist?)[*]

You are correct, I stand corrected.

I did mis-speak.

I would be punished, the convert may be be-headed.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
07-11-2006, 02:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
You are correct, I stand corrected.

I did mis-speak.
Thank you. I respect your acknowledgement of that; it makes dialogue much easier.

I also think dialogue is the key to peaceful coexistence. We need to reach out to eachother and share our beliefs and values with eachother in a friendly manner to foster understanding and mutual respect.

Regards
Reply

scentsofjannah
07-15-2006, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
ansar,
you will see what i am saying as being islamophobic or anti-islam, all i am trying to do is be honest about why some westerners regard this extremist trend with alarm.
you counter these statements with stuff like "there is no vigilante justice in islam"
"the punishments for apostasy and blasphemy can only be carried out by an islamic government, and only after certain criteria have been met." (not an exact quote).
while this may be true, it has nothing to do with facts "on the ground". the fact is there are many muslims who have these sentiments, including many right here on forum. how many people here said the cartoonists deserved to die? how many said that an apostate must be killed? for that matter, how many have said homosexuals should be killed?

as i've said, it is not a matter of right and wrong - it is that this mentality is incomprehensible and totally foreign to the western mindset.
so what good is citing the shariah when the issue is this kind of interpretion of shariah.

look at some of these placards in protests in london. (by people living in the west!)

"slay those who insult islam"
"europe, you will pay. demoliton is on its way"
"whoever insults a prophet kill him"
"democracy go to hell"
"europe your 9/11 will come"
"massacre those who insult islam"
"behead those who insult islam"
"freedom go to hell"

yes, these views are probably not the majority and were condemned, but the fact is, that a number of people hold them. people living in the west.
this mindset is incomprehensible to the average westerner.
if the rift is this wide, i do wonder if we can live together, and sadly, i am coming around to thinking that maybe we can't and i do not like feeling this way.

We can coexist if we reject the extreme fringes from all traditions and backgrounds..those people who made that demonstration were no more than 100 frustrated young men..it was wrong i was disgusted ..two or three major demonstrations ensued..it was peaceful representing mainstream Islam more than 40,000 attended absolutely no inflammatory placards..and the media covered it Alhamdullilah.

We see demonstrations and protests by racists from the BNP(UK) or the Neo Nazis in Scandinavia and Germany..does this mean a muslim will just generalise all white people? and say 'i cannot live with these white people anymore'?

Homosexuality as you know is totally forbidden in Islam ..however we cannot establish anything until there are atleast 4 witnessess..so if it's done publicly..then the punishment is the same for a hetrosexual couple doing a sexual act in public...what goes on behind closed doors only Allah knows and He will see to them on the Last Day...also anything that promotes premarital/extramarital sex or such deviant behaviour will be punished in an Islamic State...here in the west its totally permissable and I was even shocked to find out there are real wife swapping clubs in my city...where the couples exchange spouses and actually watch each other doing the act with a total stranger...all in the name of 'fun'...

about Apostates ..they shouldnt be killed if they pose no threat..ie they dont work as spies etc

read the following Q& A from Islamonline.net

Name of Questioner
Hossam

Title
Should an Apostate Be Put to Death?

Question

Respected scholars, as-salamu `alaykum. Is it true that in Islam a person must be put to death if he or she converts to another religion? Jazakum Allahu khayran.

Date
27/Mar/2006

Name of Counsellor
Ahmad Kutty

Topic
Apostasy



Answer



Wa`alaykum as-salamu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear brother in Islam, thanks a lot for your question, which reflects your care to have a clear view of the teachings of Islam. Allah commands Muslims to refer to knowledgeable people to learn more about the teachings of Islam.

It is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who choose to leave Islam. To kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is against the fundamental teachings of the Qur'an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur'an that is clearly stated. Thus, if apostates cause no harm to the Muslim community and do not call for spreading hostility towards Islam, they should not to be punished; rather they should be advised kindly and wisely to learn the truth about Islam.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states the following:

Freedom of conscience is one of the fundamental rights of humans enshrined in the Qur'an; it is therefore, absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam allows putting people to death just because they convert to another religion.

Even a casual reader of the Qur'an will not fail to be impressed by its emphasis on the freedom of conscience as a cornerstone of its moral structure. To cite a few verses as follows:

[There shall be no compulsion in religion. Distinct has now become the right way from [the wayof] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing] ( Al-Baqarah 2:256)

[If it had been your Lord's will, all who are in the earth would have believed. Will you, then, force the people to become believers?] (Yunus 10:99)

[And if they surrender themselves unto Him (i.e. God), they are on the right path; but if they turn away – behold, thy duty (O Muhammad,) is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.] (Aal `Imran 3:20)

[Hence, pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Messenger, and be ever on your guard [against evil]; and if you turn away, then know that Our Messenger's only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him].] (Al-Ma'idah 5:92)

[But if they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, know that] Wehave not sent thee to be their keeper: thou art not bound to do more than deliver the message [entrusted to thee] .] (Ash-Shura 42:48)

I should further state that all of the moral teachings of the Qur'an are based on the notion of moral responsibility, which entails the freedom of choice. Therefore, to state that one must be put to death for choosing to disbelieve would only undermine the entire moral edifice of the Qur'an.

Furthermore, the Qur'an does not allow anyone to harm those who are leaving in peace, no matter what religion they hold on to. This principle has been clearly stated in the Qur'an as follows:

[Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.] (An-Nisaa' 4:90)

In pursuance of this policy, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) issued clear directives to his soldiers never to disturb those who are engaged in any form of worship. The policy of living and letting others to live is firmly enshrined in the following verses:

[Say: O disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship, Nordo you worship what I worship. ... to you your religion, and to me, mine.] (Al-Kafirun 109:1-3, 6)

In full conformity with the above teachings, neither the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) nor any of the four rightly guided caliphs who succeeded him were in the habit of hunting down people and executing them for merely changing their religions. Rather, they refrained from doing so except in rare cases involving treason. Treason, however, is another matter. The punishment for treason in the Qur'an is as strict as it is in the Hebrew Bible. But it must never be confused with mere change of religion.

In conclusion, it is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who covert to another religion.

Source http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1141277529583

also check these links

Islam & freedom of belief
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...EAskTheScholar

Apostates should they be killed or saved? http://answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm


hope that allays your fears.


Peace
Reply

scentsofjannah
07-15-2006, 01:01 AM
Also may i add i didnt see your post as islamophobic or anti Islam..you had genuine concerns..

Ive had Muslims tell me that people who leave Islam should be killed..and then i tell them i know an exapostate brother from belgium who is now a practising muslim and then they have no answer.

Sadly many speak without knowledge and also ive noticed that this forum has a lot of young people who would rather just spend too much time on the net than gaining knowledge.
Reply

nimrod
07-15-2006, 02:54 AM
Scents of Jannah “about Apostates ..they shouldn’t be killed if they pose no threat..ie they don’t work as spies etc”

Tell me exactly what that means. Can I stand on the street corner and say to folks passing by that “The founder of Islam wasn’t a prophet, he lied and Islam is false”?

Would you defend my right to say such things?

Did you defend the recent apostate from Afghanistan either in word or deed?

Perhaps you did, I don’t know.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

nimrod
07-15-2006, 02:58 AM
Scents of Jannah, have you read this thread from front to back?

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...-apostasy.html

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

Keltoi
07-15-2006, 05:52 AM
I see the main hurdle to co-existence as political more than religious. Western society has "progressed" or "declined", depending upon your point of view, into a secular society. The freedom of speech is one of the most important tenets of this secular philosophy. I understand that the insulting cartoons were just that, insulting. Christians face ridicule and insults from publications and individuals on a daily basis, and it has weakened the Christian character of the U.S.. However, I want my government to be secular, and I want speech protected. My advice would be, if you don't like secular freedoms, don't move to a secular country.
Reply

scentsofjannah
07-15-2006, 03:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Scents of Jannah “about Apostates ..they shouldn’t be killed if they pose no threat..ie they don’t work as spies etc”Tell me exactly what that means.
I hope you have read the links i posted...basically if people just leave the faith then that in itself shouldnt warrant any 'death penalty' however we have seen in the history of Islam , instances where the apostates pretend to be muslims and then later go to the other side and help them in their aggression against the muslims.

Can I stand on the street corner and say to folks passing by that “The founder of Islam wasn’t a prophet, he lied and Islam is false”?Would you defend my right to say such things?
Islam is for criticism and debate..we dont want to stifle either but there should be a fine line drawn between whats considered criticism and whats considered insult..you have the complete right to believe what you want to believe about Islam. We should seek to make our societies more tolerant and understanding of others so we can live harmoniusly and i seriously dont see how standing on a street corner and shouting to people that 'Islam is this or that' or 'Christianity is this or that' would contribute to community relations.What would be better is to have a mature discussion/dialogue between the various different faithgroups in a respectable place.

Did you defend the recent apostate from Afghanistan either in word or deed?

Perhaps you did, I don’t know.

Thanks
Nimrod
I dont think they chopped off his head and i certainly couldnt care less who left Islam or who embraced it..Islam isnt in need of people, its people who are in need of Islam...especially in these very dark days..like i said earlier i know an exapostate..who is now a muslim..it is possible that God will guide back whoever strayed from His path, especially if they want to be guided.

Christian missionaries have admitted that muslims are the most stubborn people to convert and while the colonialists have suceeded in converting, nearly the entire SouthAmerican continent and many African nations , parts of Eastern Asia etc..they have never succeeded in converting a single muslim country. They have achieved some success lately (not mass conversions mind you) when the Aid organisations who are mostly christian go to deprived muslim areas and help the muslims.

As Muslims we should find out why they do convert ..if it for material gain etc then we ought to be helping them out...not threatening them with concepts alien to Islam such as 'convert or die'.

Peace
Reply

nimrod
07-16-2006, 02:56 AM
Scents of Jannah “I seriously don’t see how standing on a street corner and shouting to people that 'Islam is this or that' or 'Christianity is this or that”, thanks for the positive answer, although I said nothing about “shouting”.

I don’t think they chopped off his head and I certainly couldn’t care less who left Islam or who embraced it”, that is rather a bit of a non-answer.

Most certainly, if the Western world had assumed your position, the poor fellow would have had his head chopped off.

One thing some folks seem to missing is this:

That fellow was peacefully doing what he was doing. He wasn’t hurting anyone, nor calling for anyone to be hurt. Yet, due to Islam, he almost lost his life.

He could not peacefully co-exist with Muslims, although he was living and acting perfectly peaceful.

Snake-Legs, personally, I consider that a very powerful statement. Think about it.

I just can’t bring myself to side with folks that would murder people who are acting peacefully.

The time for that has passed, God’s commands to Israel was for a certain people, living in a certain time.

We are not those people. We are not living in those times.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

scentsofjannah
07-16-2006, 01:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by nimrod
Scents of Jannah “I seriously don’t see how standing on a street corner and shouting to people that 'Islam is this or that' or 'Christianity is this or that”, thanks for the positive answer, although I said nothing about “shouting”.
ello ello!..apologies heh you did mention 'street' and people do usually raise their voice much higher than normal etc when they want people to hear them.

I don’t think they chopped off his head and I certainly couldn’t care less who left Islam or who embraced it”, that is rather a bit of a non-answer.
let me remind you once again of the Q&A on the Islamonline.net site

format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmad Kutty Islamonline.net
It is absurd for anyone to suggest that Islam advocates killing people who choose to leave Islam. To kill anyone who chooses to follow a religion other than Islam is against the fundamental teachings of the Qur'an. Freedom of conscience is a fundamental principle of the Qur'an that is clearly stated.
nimrod i agree with him 100% ..hope that is clear to you!:)

Most certainly, if the Western world had assumed your position, the poor fellow would have had his head chopped off.

errm didnt understand this..care to explain?

One thing some folks seem to missing is this:That fellow was peacefully doing what he was doing. He wasn’t hurting anyone, nor calling for anyone to be hurt. Yet, due to Islam, he almost lost his life.
you're right that he was just living his life ..doing his thing..but then again why do you blame Islam? Islam is absolutely clear that there is no compulsion in religion..we cannot force people to be muslims nor can we force them to remain muslims ..the person should be a muslim out of conviction not out of fear or pressure/compulsion...they should believe in Islam wholeheartedly otherwise its useless for them to be muslim..Islam is absolutely clear about that.

He could not peacefully co-exist with Muslims, although he was living and acting perfectly peaceful.
The whole thing has been mishandled ..it was really a shame..they had no right to treat him that way like he was some kind of criminal.

I just can’t bring myself to side with folks that would murder people who are acting peacefully.
and Islam is against that.

Peace
Reply

nimrod
07-16-2006, 03:42 PM
Scents of Jannah, please take the time to look at the thread I linked in post #156 on this thread.

I do hope you can convince your brothers and sisters to see it as you do. I would feel much better about Islam if you can.

Thanks
Nimrod
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 08:27 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!