Can We Coexist?

[chitownmuslim]

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.

 

[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.

 

[KAding]

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.

 

[aamirsaab]

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.

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.

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

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.

 

[HeiGou]

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.

 

[HeiGou]

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.

 

[HeiGou]

Scholars Urge Juristic Battle Against Extremismhttp://islamonline.net/English/News/2005-08/21/article06.shtml

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/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543974

Do they go further and call them fard?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=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/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=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?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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

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.

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.

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,

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,

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.

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:

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/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/5111092.stm
http://www.caircan.ca/itn_more.php?id=A1789_0_2_0_M
http://salafipublications.com/sps/sLF/sLF.cfm?sc=channel&CID=3
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/GSC020003.pdf
http://www.al-athariyyah.com/Data_Files/Articles/Terrorism/CalamityofbinLaadin.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

 

[HeiGou]

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:

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?

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

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

 

[HeiGou]

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.php?/site/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.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/767/

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

 

[snakelegs]

Re: Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

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?

 

[SirZubair]

Re: Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

Ofcourse we can Coexist!

Once we get over the whole :

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

 

[snakelegs]

Re: Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

Ofcourse we can Coexist!

Once we get over the whole :

"you're a bloody amrikan!" "you jew infidel!" "You,...terrorist sand niggers!" 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?

 

[HeiGou]

Re: Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

Ofcourse we can Coexist!

Once we get over the whole :

"you're a bloody amrikan!" "you jew infidel!" "You,...terrorist sand niggers!" 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.

 

[SirZubair]

Re: Muslim leaders condemn terrorism

: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 ) 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.

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.

 

[snakelegs]

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.

 

[SirZubair]

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