To The Death

[Muezzin]

to boil it down a bit more:
the main thing i am curious about what do the muslim members think of making a distinction between "traditional islam" and its "radical form - islamism."
do you think it is a completely false distinction?
thanks.

It's not an entirely false distinction, provided it is understood on the basis that such beliefs stem from a particular mindset, rather than a particular religious rule book. Bad mindsets lead certain Muslims to grossly misinterpret Quranic verses and Ahadith in order to further their own agendas. The fault lies with the subject (the individual) rather than the object (the teachings).

Saying that Islamic society is not flawless - but no other society is - is not an argument against criticism, it's just a apathetic state of mind, lazy bones! I'm not going to excuse rising inequalities in life expectancy in the UK - just because Iran executes gay teenagers and I think that's worse. Hope

Yes, but comparing one system's perceived strengths with another system's perceived weaknesses is fundamentally unfair. I'm not saying Muslims should do nothing to improve our flaws.

 

[Keltoi]

Those hatred towards the Jews in Islam is only focused on the bad Jews... not the good Jews..... (majority of them are good)

Who decides who is a good Jew and who decides who is a bad Jew?

 

[Skywalker]

Hmm. It doesn't fill me full of confidence that "you discussed it on another thread and decided that most apostates are not to be killed, only some that meet certain criteria".

Then perhaps reading through the thread to its conclusion could be more enlightening. Most people read the first post (mine ) and are automatically interested in the thread. But if you want a quick summary, here's the deal. Apostates do not and never did get killed for simply changing their religion or adopting a new belief. This is a personal choice, and if a religion other than Islam is what cooks your noodle, then that's your choice to make. The Qur'an explicitly states in many places that nobody can choose your religion for you, and that there is no compulsion in religion, but warns those who turn away from the truth of a punishment in the hereafter.
The times that apostates ARE threatened with execution is when they publically announce their conversion and go on to say how Islam is such a bad religion, or when they leave the Islamic community and join opposing forces (at times of war). For reasons behind these rulings, see the thread.

But to address the point of antisemiticism (and I don't think you need the "-"), it's absolutely my understanding that Islam and antisemiticism are linked, so I'd be very hopeful to find out I was wrong. One of the things I will do is read the Koran at some point.

That would be a good start. It's anti-semitism by the way. And yes, it easy to pick up that feeling, but it's not against Jews in general, just those who are currently causing opression and injustice, namely those in control of the Israel situation, or those who support it. A lot of Jews I know are embarrassed by Israel and their government and stand side by side with Muslims in many positive events and demonstrations. How can we hate someone like that?

And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected.

I don't see what's wrong with this verse. A portion of the Jews at that time transgressed after receiving multiple signs from Allah, and He punished them by turning them to pigs and monkeys. This doesn't talk about today's Jews or Jews in general in the slightest.
It's actually quite interesting, when you think about it. If you look at the anatomies of both pigs and monkeys, you'll find that they greatly resemble those of humans, both internally and externally...well maybe more internally for pigs. Pig hearts are sometimes even used for transplants into humans. Things like this just make you go "Wow, look at the power of Allah."

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.

Well if you're not a big fan of capital punishment, chances are you're not going to like that very much. Nevertheless, God says that those who wage war against you or create mischief in tha land (murder, rape, theft, molestation, etc, etc) that they should suffer the punishment for those crimes, which are execution or decapitation depending on the crime. I don't see anything wrong with a criminal paying for his crime, and I personally don't have anything against proper and just Islamic capital punishment.

And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones: this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

Allah forbid a group of Jews living thousands of years ago from eating certain types of meat becaused they rebelled against Him. I don't see the problem.

What are the hadiths? Are these not taken so seriously? They appear to include statements like:
"A Jew will not be found alone with a Muslim without plotting to kill him."
"The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.'"

Hadiths are sayings of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh), and while a lot of them are authentic, some aren't. The ones you refer to describe some of the events that will happen just before the Day of Judgement, when it is prophecized that some Jews will join the Antichrist in the battle against the believers.

It sure helps understanding these quotes when you have more Islamic knowledge.

Plus you know Hirsi Ali is a woman, right, I assume that was just a typo?

Uh...yeah I fixed that, hehe.

She came across very well on an interview I heard - very articulate, reflective and reasonable.

Well going by what I read in the first post and by what Jazzy said, I can't say I'm very encouraged. Perhaps those with limited knowledge of Islam see her that way, but those who know better see her differently.

the main thing i am curious about what do the muslim members think of making a distinction between "traditional islam" and its "radical form - islamism."
do you think it is a completely false distinction?

Hmm...this one is tricky. I can't say I really understand the term "Islamism". Is it like Islamic nationalism? All I can tell you is that we as Muslims need to work hard to incorporate the laws and teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah into the 21st century. A re-interpretation of the Qur'an in modern context could help, but it needs to be very well supervised and organised. Islam is not something traditional, but practical, and it needs to be treated as such. I don't know what "radical Islam" is supposed to be, but all I know is that there is a "right Islam" and a "wrong Islam", and each is made clear in the heart of a pure Muslim. How does killing an innocent civilian feel in the heart of any person, a Muslim or a non-Muslim? That's a start...

 

[north_malaysian]

Northmalaysian - are you then saying that a good jew actually is a muslim, after all, and there shouldn't be any real difference if there are practicing their faith properly?

If that good jew converted to Islam... then he is a good Muslim.

If that good jew remains a practicioner of Judaism ... then he is a good Jew.

 

[north_malaysian]

Who decides who is a good Jew and who decides who is a bad Jew?

God.

 

[snakelegs]

It's not an entirely false distinction, provided it is understood on the basis that such beliefs stem from a particular mindset, rather than a particular religious rule book. Bad mindsets lead certain Muslims to grossly misinterpret Quranic verses and Ahadith in order to further their own agendas. The fault lies with the subject (the individual) rather than the object (the teachings).

well said!

 

[snakelegs]

Hmm...this one is tricky. I can't say I really understand the term "Islamism". Is it like Islamic nationalism? All I can tell you is that we as Muslims need to work hard to incorporate the laws and teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah into the 21st century. A re-interpretation of the Qur'an in modern context could help, but it needs to be very well supervised and organised. Islam is not something traditional, but practical, and it needs to be treated as such. I don't know what "radical Islam" is supposed to be, but all I know is that there is a "right Islam" and a "wrong Islam", and each is made clear in the heart of a pure Muslim. How does killing an innocent civilian feel in the heart of any person, a Muslim or a non-Muslim? That's a start...

yes, i would agree.
roughly "islamism" means the kinds of muslims we don't like
on a more serious note, in recent years there seems to be a growth in the kind of muslims who think stuff like murdering van gogh (and yes, i agree the film was very offensive and was no doubt meant to be) in the name of islam is a religious act.
so, again (repeating for others to give input on who may not have read it) question is:

what do the muslim members think of making a distinction between "traditional islam" and its "radical form - islamism."
do you think it is a completely false distinction?

 

[snakelegs]

God.

great answer!!!!

 

[north_malaysian]

great answer!!!!

that's the best answer I could give... and it's the truth.... kay:

It's not a mufti or mullah to decide who goes to heaven and who is not....

 

[borboski]

It isn't "God" though, in practice, is it? It's people. Maybe after you die, but until then it's other people.

If it's so clear, and I'm relatively pleased with the answer I got - why is antisemiticsm so prevelant in muslim communities? It really is - I recently worked in a muslim school and I was just aghast how bigoted and close minded all the kids were.

The least you could say is that it is certainly ambigious in the Koran, and from the objective outstander it could well look like your grasping at straws.

Anyway, I'm pleased it's possible to think you're a muslim and to not hate jews. Hahah, unless you're wrong - you'll be gutted when you die then, eh?

Another problem was that they all believed a girl had been turned into a fish by god, but that's another story for another day.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Well if we were taught to hate Jews, then what be the point of Dawah? And I wouldnt have a Jewish friend that I've know all my life! So yea

 

[Asyur an-Nagi]

Deleted due to Link that has been blocked. it's not porn or images that are offensive. It was just a site where apostates told of their experiences.

Hmm..

OK

what has been deleted or blocked?

 

[snakelegs]

what has been deleted or blocked?

i think it was a link to one of those sites where ex-muslims talk about how awful islam is.

welcome back to your thread. since you began this thread, i would like your opinion.
from an earlier post of mine:

roughly "islamism" means the kinds of muslims we don't like.
on a more serious note, in recent years there seems to be a growth in the kind of muslims who think stuff like murdering van gogh (and yes, i agree the film was very offensive and was no doubt meant to be) in the name of islam is a religious act.
so, again (repeating for others to give input on who may not have read it) question is:

what do the muslim members think of making a distinction between "traditional islam" and its "radical form - islamism."
do you think it is a completely false distinction?

 

[- Qatada -]

Hey snakelegs.


I hope you don't mind me joining in the conversation.

roughly "islamism" means the kinds of muslims we don't like.

on a more serious note, in recent years there seems to be a growth in the kind of muslims who think stuff like murdering van gogh (and yes, i agree the film was very offensive and was no doubt meant to be) in the name of islam is a religious act.

Murdering van gogh couldn't have been an Islamic practise today since we have no Islamic state, as the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) himself prophecised:

"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah (God) wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah [caliphate] Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood," then he kept silent.

[recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273)]


We're under the underlined stage, and all the events before it have occured in our islamic history. Inshaa'Allaah the rest of the prophecy will soon come into effect.


According to the hadith, the prophet (peace be upon him) will be followed by rightly guided caliphs and after those caliphs (Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali) will come hereditary leadership (the other Caliphs) and after that will come tyrannical rule (today) and after that will come a rightly guided caliphs yet again inshaa'Allaah (God willing.)



​

Therefore if there's no Islamic State, no punishment can be applied upon people like this since there is no Islamic Judge or ruler to apply that ruling upon a certain person.

And the only way that person can be punished is if they are located within an Islamic State, and since van gogh is in Europe, then how can he get punished for a crime in a land which isn't even under Muslim rule?

so, again (repeating for others to give input on who may not have read it) question is:

what do the muslim members think of making a distinction between "traditional islam" and its "radical form - islamism."
do you think it is a completely false distinction?

The traditional Islaam is what brought the people out of the dark ages into the freedom we have today. The whole world advanced only when Islaam was applied fully, however when the muslims started taking a pick and mix of their beliefs and laws - then, only then the muslims became weak and helpless. The reason why the muslims had strength was due to the justice, because Allaah loves those who are just. When the muslims became unjust and put Islaam behind their backs, then they lost their authority.


Here's a good link to check out:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/40559-islamic-politics-forming-islamic-democracy.html


And heres a good link which explains how there was so much justice between Muslims and non muslims when the muslims applied Islaam:

At a time when London was a tiny mud-hut village that "could not boast of a single streetlamp" (Digest, 1973, p. 622), in Cordova

"there were half a million inhabitants, living in 113,000 houses. There were 700 mosques and 300 public baths spread throughout the city and its twenty-one suburbs. The streets were paved and lit." (Burke, 1985, p. 38) ​

This rich and sophisticated society took a tolerant view towards other faiths. Tolerance was unheard of in the rest of Europe. But in Muslim Spain,

"thousands of Jews and Christians lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim overlords." (Burke, 1985, p. 38)


​

The society had a literary rather than religious base. Economically their prosperity was unparalleled for centuries. The aristocracy promoted private land ownership and encouraged Jews in banking. There was little or no Muslim prostelyting. Instead, non-believers simply paid an extra tax!

​

"Their society had become too sophisticated to be fanatical. Christians and Moslems, with Jews as their intermediaries and interpreters, lived side by side and fought, not each other, but other mixed communities." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 71)


​

Muslim Spain and European Culture

Islamic history


​

And Allaah knows best.



Regards.

 

[Skywalker]

Just can't get enough of hearing about Muslim Spain

Someone should make a movie about it...

 

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Yeah, subhaan Allaah.. the history of Spain [the later part of the Ummayad Khilafah] and Damascus [the earlier part of the Ummayad Khilafah] is really interesting.

 

[snakelegs]

Hey snakelegs.


I hope you don't mind me joining in the conversation.

of course not. this isn't "my" thread, but i would like it if more muslims responded. i am more interested in comments from muslims than from me or other non-muslims.
as to the murder of van gogh - i know it was illegal according to shariah for the reasons you mentioned and my guess is that most muslims, though identifying with the anger, viewed it as the crime that it was.
i only used his murderer as an example of the muslims that think this type of practice of islam is justifiable. for lack of better words, the words "islamist" and "islamism"have been invented. i understand the words to refer to an ideology, as opposed to traditional islam (which condemns the murder of innocents like 9/11, for example). i guess you could say an ideology that uses islam. (as the zionists used judaism for their ideology, for example). in recent years, this ideology has grown and spread in reaction to "the west's" actions.
do you or other muslim members see a split here in islam between traditional islam and a islam as an ideology? is there much dialogue going on in the muslim world on this subject?
i think there is a grey area because islam is both a religion and a political system.
from what you wrote, i gather that you do see a distinction between what the article calls "traditional" islam and "radical" islam, even though the terms are questionable. do you think this distinction is becoming more and more blurred in recent years?
i would agree that hirsi ali, because she is an apostate, has absolutely no credibility when it somes to the subject of islam, but this doesn't necessarily automatically mean that everything she says is false either.
i am familar with the history of muslim spain, but i have a question about it - were the rulers practicing muslims or were they more or less secular in outlook?
your thread on islam and democracy looks interesting - i'll check it out. don't know why you posted it as closed to discussion, tho?
thanks for replying.

Murdering van gogh couldn't have been an Islamic practise today since we have no Islamic state, as the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) himself prophecised:

"The Prophethood will last among you for as long as Allah (God) wills, then Allah would take it away. Then it will be (followed by) a Khilafah [caliphate] Rashida (rightly guided) according to the ways of the Prophethood. It will remain for as long as Allah wills, then Allah would take it away. Afterwards there will be a hereditary leadership which will remain for as long as Allah wills, then He will lift it if He wishes. Afterwards, there will be biting oppression, and it will last for as long as Allah wishes, then He will lift it if He wishes. Then there will be a Khilafah Rashida according to the ways of the Prophethood," then he kept silent.

[recorded in Musnad Imam Ahmad (v/273)]


We're under the underlined stage, and all the events before it have occured in our islamic history. Inshaa'Allaah the rest of the prophecy will soon come into effect.


According to the hadith, the prophet (peace be upon him) will be followed by rightly guided caliphs and after those caliphs (Abu Baker, Omar, Uthman and Ali) will come hereditary leadership (the other Caliphs) and after that will come tyrannical rule (today) and after that will come a rightly guided caliphs yet again inshaa'Allaah (God willing.)



​

Therefore if there's no Islamic State, no punishment can be applied upon people like this since there is no Islamic Judge or ruler to apply that ruling upon a certain person.

And the only way that person can be punished is if they are located within an Islamic State, and since van gogh is in Europe, then how can he get punished for a crime in a land which isn't even under Muslim rule?






The traditional Islaam is what brought the people out of the dark ages into the freedom we have today. The whole world advanced only when Islaam was applied fully, however when the muslims started taking a pick and mix of their beliefs and laws - then, only then the muslims became weak and helpless. The reason why the muslims had strength was due to the justice, because Allaah loves those who are just. When the muslims became unjust and put Islaam behind their backs, then they lost their authority.


Here's a good link to check out:
http://www.islamicboard.com/refutations/40559-islamic-politics-forming-islamic-democracy.html


And heres a good link which explains how there was so much justice between Muslims and non muslims when the muslims applied Islaam:

At a time when London was a tiny mud-hut village that "could not boast of a single streetlamp" (Digest, 1973, p. 622), in Cordova

"there were half a million inhabitants, living in 113,000 houses. There were 700 mosques and 300 public baths spread throughout the city and its twenty-one suburbs. The streets were paved and lit." (Burke, 1985, p. 38) ​

This rich and sophisticated society took a tolerant view towards other faiths. Tolerance was unheard of in the rest of Europe. But in Muslim Spain,

"thousands of Jews and Christians lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim overlords." (Burke, 1985, p. 38)


​

The society had a literary rather than religious base. Economically their prosperity was unparalleled for centuries. The aristocracy promoted private land ownership and encouraged Jews in banking. There was little or no Muslim prostelyting. Instead, non-believers simply paid an extra tax!

​

"Their society had become too sophisticated to be fanatical. Christians and Moslems, with Jews as their intermediaries and interpreters, lived side by side and fought, not each other, but other mixed communities." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 71)


​

Muslim Spain and European Culture

Islamic history


​

And Allaah knows best.



Regards.

 

[muthenna]

When does the so called scholar murted kadhab Hirsi Ali teaches us about islam, Asyur an-Nagi if youre muslim, and i doubt, please dont post her filth, shes been disgraced enough by her kuffar protectors, and then she ran off in USA to spread her lies.

 

[Asyur an-Nagi]

i think it was a link to one of those sites where ex-muslims talk about how awful islam is.

welcome back to your thread. since you began this thread, i would like your opinion.
from an earlier post of mine:

peace snake, thanks for joining.
i believe in one islam, the islam that learn from Quran and hadith. but nowadays, people are starting to classify islam into 'peaceful islam', and 'radical islam'. both are just opinions. it is their (non muslims) right to make such thing, since probably they can not see a clear sky between those two.


there is only one islam. the other forms are merely interpretations toward our deeds (no matter what have triggered us to do so).

 

[Asyur an-Nagi]

Asyur an-Nagi if youre muslim, and i doubt, please dont post her filth

i am a muslim. anyway, it is a good question, i believe that we should always know how to doubt

but muthenna,
the best way to stand level-- face to face --toward people who hates, dislikes, or disgrace us, is by learning their background and their mental state toward us. hate is something nurtured by failures on knowing each other.

thanks for joining this thread