# Is Islam being misunderstood?



## macta123

Hello friends,
             Islam is a very good religion. Though I am not a Muslim. Is it because the religious book is little difficult to be understood, is it the reason that some tend to be radical? I really think it may be because of the radicalism that the world misunderstands Islam? What is your thought on it?


----------



## grumpus

macta123 said:
			
		

> Hello friends,
> Islam is a very good religion. Though I am not a Muslim. Is it because the religious book is little difficult to be understood, is it the reason that some tend to be radical? I really think it may be because of the radicalism that the world misunderstands Islam? What is your thought on it?



Hi Macta123,

I don't have a very positive view of religion in general, I think they all are "bad"  and harmful as Bertrand Russell once said.  I don' t think Islam is particularly radical.  The views of the evangelical Christians where I live are every bit just as "radical" as those of Islam.  It is just the West has more more power, so they/we  can determine what is  radical, what is not, what is good, what is bad etc.    

The radicalism that you see in Islam parallels that which you see in Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism  and I think it has a lot to do with the desperate
economic situation the vast majority of the planet finds itself in.  When (if) there is greater stability/ security in people's daily life, you will see a decrease in religious radicalism.  I don't personally see this happening in the near future, but I'm not going to lose hope.

cheers,
Grumpus


----------



## BasedowLives

This is all coming from a not-religious person.  (i tend to think they divide more than bring people together)

I don't know what to think.  Could somebody tell me if these verses actually exist in the Quran?

"Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty"

 "O you who believe!  do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;
 they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a
 friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

and if so is it comparable to some of the crazy things the bible says that most christians don't take seriously?  I mean, I really want to believe that Islam is being misunderstood but from what I have to go on it's not shown in the greatest light, especially when you have people being killed over a cartoon.

As far as radical Christianity...I don't remember the last time anybody killed a busload of innocent people in the name of the son of the Christian God Jesus Christ.  Sure a couple of abortion clinic bombings in the past and crazy people protesting but nothing to the extent with which we see happening being associated with Islam.

I really hope this doesn't get closed, I want to know what people think.


----------



## macta123

Hello,

 I haven't read the Quran (though a bit of the starting). So I can't give a very good explantion to anything.

 But still if anything has been said it is not having spite. Like in olden days there were very much religious conlicts between Christians and Jews.That is the time when Prophet came to the earth. 
   So, it just mentions that don't befriend someone who has infighting. I don't think it is as true in the modern world(to that extent) . But still there are uneasiness throught the world. The major thing is go with you rational  believes, make the world a good place and simply don't fight for useless and worthless reasons.


----------



## maxiogee

If a religion is misunderstood then it falls to the followers and hierarchy of that religion to clear up the misunderstandings - whether they be among the followers or among outsiders.

The mark of a true religion, for me, would be that it doesn't persecute unbelievers. Many fail on that simple test alone.


----------



## grumpus

*


			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		


			This is all coming
		
Click to expand...

*


			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> from a not-religious person.  (i tend to think they divide more than bring people together)
> 
> I don't know what to think.  Could somebody tell me if these verses actually exist in the Quran?
> 
> "Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty"
> 
> "O you who believe!  do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends;
> they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a
> friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
> 
> and if so is it comparable to some of the crazy things the bible says that most christians don't take seriously?  I mean, I really want to believe that Islam is being misunderstood but from what I have to go on it's not shown in the greatest light, especially when you have people being killed over a cartoon.
> 
> As far as radical Christianity...I don't remember the last time anybody killed a busload of innocent people in the name of the son of the Christian God Jesus Christ.  Sure a couple of abortion clinic bombings in the past and crazy people protesting but nothing to the extent with which we see happening being associated with Islam.
> 
> I really hope this doesn't get closed, I want to know what people think.





HI BasedowLives  et al,

I don't know what you would could all the fundy christians in the U.S. who believe god wanted us to invade Iraq/Afghanistan (100,000 dead?), assassinate Hugo Chavez, blow-up abortion clinics (you mentioned), abandon science (teach nonsense)  among many other barbarities.  Pretty "radical" if you ask me.    

Grumpus


----------



## maxiogee

Be careful not to judge developing countries by other country's standards.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

basedowLives,Those lines or some variant of them are present in the Quran. They're not very different at all from the Bible so I fail to see what makes Islam or the verses in the Quran particularly radical from early Christianity(or even modern "by the book" christianity).. 

  The reasons behind the "hatred" of these verses are quite easy to deduce if you think back to the ancient world. Early muslims were a minority in comparison to the polytheistic religions in the middle east(and the monotheistic Judaism/Christianity) so to ensure that these muslims remained muslims and spread the religion in the long run, infidel religions would obviously be chided and anyone who entertained ideas of conversion would be repelled by the consequences of becoming an infidel and "crumbling into dust". Likewise tolerating people of other religions would lead to the inevitable observation that there is very little difference between the infidels and muslims which would lead to egalitarianism/mixing and possibly the eventual dilution of hardcore/orthodox beliefs. In short the original religion would be _changed._ This process is ocurring presently all over the world as Western values are imported into every nook and cranny. This new/changed form of Islam is what makes the radicals/religious go bonkers and feel threatened...


----------



## maxiogee

Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> <big snip>
> so to ensure that these muslims remained muslims and spread the religion in the long run,
> <big snip>



May I ask why it is necessary to spread the religion?
In the Gospel of St Mark there is an instruction from Jesus:- "Go, and make disciples of all nations".
Is there a similar injunction in the Quran?


----------



## mansio

Why do the creatures have to spread the religion instead of the Creator doing it himself ?


----------



## GenJen54

*Putting on my mod hat briefly*: While I appreciate fully the merits of this discussion, might I suggest participants please take a look in THIS rather extensive thread which provides a great deal of information about Islam, both as a religion and its culture. 

Many of the verses as cited in this thread are fully explained by Muslim forer@s in the other, and I don't believe they are worth repeating here. 

Happy reading.


----------



## BasedowLives

grumpus said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> HI BasedowLives  et al,
> 
> I don't know what you would could all the fundy christians in the U.S. who believe god wanted us to invade Iraq/Afghanistan (100,000 dead?), assassinate Hugo Chavez, blow-up abortion clinics (you mentioned), abandon science (teach nonsense)  among many other barbarities.  Pretty "radical" if you ask me.
> 
> Grumpus*


* 
I see your point but I don't see how it's relevant to my saying that I can't remember the last time a Christian or Athiest blew up a bus of innocent people in the name of their belief.

Sure the fundamentals, and crazy Pat Robertsons, who said God wanted us to invade countries are radical but they aren't recruting suicide bombers.  I'm probably going to be misunderstood by somebody, but to clarify, I'm not saying that Islam=terrorism, I'm just saying that I have yet to see a level of terrorism carried out to the same extent to which has been done with Islam.




			This new/changed form of Islam is what makes the radicals/religious go bonkers and feel threatened...
		
Click to expand...

This makes sense.  But viewing it through my fixed paradigm, I can't deduce the logic in fearing for change.    All religions have been changed.  That's how the varying forms of Christianity came about, through a desire for change.

If people don't want to change their belief system they don't have to, they could just take solace in the fact that us nonbelievers will burn in hell for all eternity.*


----------



## Outsider

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> [...] I can't remember the last time a Christian or Athiest blew up a bus of innocent people in the name of their belief.


I can't remember any Muslims who blew up a bus of innocent people in the name of their beliefs, either...


----------



## BasedowLives

Outsider said:
			
		

> I can't remember any Muslims who blew up a bus of innocent people in the name of their beliefs, either...



I admit I'm not the most enlightened person on the subject but

Doesn't the whole Arab-Israeli thing all stem from beliefs?

how about killing people over the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed?


----------



## Outsider

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> I admit I'm not the most enlightened person on the subject but
> 
> Doesn't the whole Arab-Israeli thing all stem from beliefs?


While I'm not too enlightened on the subject either, it seems to be more about land to me...



			
				BasedowLives said:
			
		

> how about killing people over the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed?


That hasn't happened so far.


----------



## BasedowLives

> That hasn't happened so far.


it actually has
edit:  to add, in the form of riots.  i have no idea how these people died, i only know it was a consequence of it.


----------



## Outsider

As far as I know, the people who died in the riots over the Danish cartoons were Muslims.


----------



## grumpus

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> I see your point but I don't see how it's relevant to my saying that I can't remember the last time a Christian or Athiest blew up a bus of innocent people in the name of their belief.
> 
> Sure the fundamentals, and crazy Pat Robertsons, who said God wanted us to invade countries are radical but they aren't recruting suicide bombers.  I'm probably going to be misunderstood by somebody, but to clarify, I'm not saying that Islam=terrorism, I'm just saying that I have yet to see a level of terrorism carried out to the same extent to which has been done with Islam.
> 
> This makes sense.  But viewing it through my fixed paradigm, I can't deduce the logic in fearing for change.    All religions have been changed.  That's how the varying forms of Christianity came about, through a desire for change.
> 
> If people don't want to change their belief system they don't have to, they could just take solace in the fact that us nonbelievers will burn in hell for all eternity.




HI BasedowLives and Outsider,

Timothy Mc Veigh (atheist) blew up a building.

Also, it's equally cowardly and terroristic to use "smart bombs" and B52's as it is to
kill yourself and innocent people in a bus loaded with dynamite.

Don't let the dominant powers in our society (corporate media, goverment, etc) frame the argument, it's not a realistic view of the world.

Outsider is right on Arab-Israel conflict.  Israelis have killed Palestinians at a ratio of 3 to 1.  Many Palenstinian communists, atheists, muslims, christians have fought
against the illegal occupation by the Israelis.  The suicide bombers have existed since the civil war in Lebanon (they, the militias and suicide bombers were able to get the Israelis out of their country)

saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## Josh_

I usually don't exgage in these cultural discussions, but in spite of my better judgement, here goes:

Here's a little blurb I wrote up for another forum. It might be relevant here in order to discuss whether Islam is misunderstood and to understand why there are suicide bombers, etc. Please, remember, when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I am not trying to justify or condone the actions of either side, I am merely trying to present the facts and show cause-effect relationships.

It really isn't about about religious hatred of Jews, at least not in the beginning. For over a thousand years the Jews and Muslims of Palestine lived side by side in relative peace.

 In a nut shell:
At first, in 1948, the Arabs were upset that Israel was created and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (indiginous Arabs/Muslims) were removed out of their homes. Regardless of religion whenever anyone usurps your land, which you say is rightfuly yours, and kicks you out you will be mad. Religion playing into this is just a byproduct. Over the years, Arab countries reluctantly accepted that Israel was there (even if they did not want to recognize it diplomatically) mainly because The Israeli military was more powerful then the surrounding countries' militaries and could kick their ass (to be blunt about it). The Arab countries also thought, and rightfully so to some extext, that Israel was an expansionistic Nation and had designs of imperialism. This added to the distrust and hatred of Israel. In 1967 the Israeli's invaded Gaza, the West Bank, Sinai, and the Golan heights and occupied these territories. Despite the UN Resolution 242 which stated that Israel immediately return these lands they started to colonize them. Not many people nowadays know this, but the Israelis started implanting settlements in the Sinai including Sharm al-Sheik. When the peace treaty with Egypt was brokered they withdrew these settlements and returned the Sinai to Egypt. Anyway, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied and the Israelis started to colonize, or build settlements in these areas with the eventual hope of annexing the territories. In the process of colonizing they uprooted more Palestinians, displaced them by throwing them out of their homes, they expropriated their lands by force, tore down their houses, destroyed farms, in order to make way for the settlements. To this day thousands of Palestinians still live in refugee camps. They also implemented policies, such as identity cards and special taxes, that made it very difficult on the Palestinians. Palestinians who were suspected of organizining were routinely tortured and/or thrown in jail for years without being charged with anything. Over time the Palestinians got used to living under Israeli occupation. 

In 1977 the Israeli elections changed Israeli political landscape to one of liberalness to conservatism. In the early to mid eighties Israel still had a very conservative government that favored colonization and annexation. In preparation for such annexation the Israelis speeded up the rate of the increase of the settlements and implemented more policies that further isolated the Palestinians, made it harder for them to move around, restricted and took more rights away from them and generally made their lives miserable. At first the Palestinians reacted by civil disobedience. They refused to work, they refused to buy Israeil products, they resfused to pay the special taxes only imposed on Palestinians, and other forms of civil disobedience. The majority renounced violence at first, but they saw that Israel was still not changing its policies.

In December 1987 an Israeli army vehicle had an accident that killed four Palestinians and wounded many others. There was a peaceful Palestinian demonstration at the funeral to protest the accident and the Israeli military killed several demonstrators. Combined with continued occupation, debilitating and dehumanizing policies, this was the catalyst that started the first intifada (uprising).

 In 1990 Iraq invaded, and occupied Kuwait.  The US and the coalition, quickly went to war with Iraq to end the _occupation_. I believe George Bush Sr. said that the Kuwaitis, as well as everyone else, has the right to self-determination and to live free of occupation. As a result of this Saddam saw the irony and brought up the idea of how America was quick to end the Iraq occupation of Kuwait yet has turned a blind eye to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The US was embarrassed and promised its Arab coalition partners that it would put efforts into working towards a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 Since then the peace process has gone on, but has not been very successful. In the Oslo Accords both the PLO and Israel formally recognized each other and the PLO declared that Israel had a right to exist. Nowadays, most Palestinians, except for the ultra religion and other extremists, accept the reality of Israel and they no longer harbor hopes of reclaiming Israel. They are resigned to fact of Israel. But, they also want their own state. If Israel returned to to its pre-1967 borders, most Palestinians would be placated and things would improve. But, during this continued peace process Israel has continued to increase settlement activity and implement policies that make the lives of the Palestinians difficult.

Remember that both Islam and Judaism are exclusionist religions that view themselves apart from other human beings. As such we also must remember that it is not only the extremist Muslims/Palestinians who want the eradication of Israel. Ultra religious extremist Jews would like the eradication of Palestine and an Israel that includes all the lands of ancient Israel. There was an incident in which a Jew opened fire and killed 29 Palestinians praying at a mosque. The Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin was killed by a Jewish religious zealot who thought that giving away any Jewish land was an infringement of "God's law." There are many incidents of militant Jewish settlers harrassing and killing Palestinians and destroying their homes and farmland. They are almost never prosecuted. And we never see that on the news. When we see the news Israel is always portrayed as being on the defensive, never being the aggressor, which it has been much of the time. We also see the human element of Jews and can sympathize with them, whereas we never see the human element of Palestinians. The number of Palestinians killed is almost triple the number of Israelis killed. When Palestinians are killed, we almost never hear it on the television, or we hear brief remarks on it.

Anyway, as civil disobedient activities were unsuccessful in bringing about a change, the feeling turned to desperation and more and more Palestinians turned terrorism as a tactic. Terrorism is wrong and absolutely deplorable and despicable, but we must ask why. Why would a young man/woman want to kill him/herself in order to kill some Jews? (Read the previous paragraphs again if you have to.) These incidents do not happen in a vacuum. It is not about hated of Judaism and Jews. They are reacting to years of living under occupation and poor treatment by Israel. Religion is only a small part of it.

After the Camp David Accord in 2000 collapsed Ariel Sharon walked to the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock during Muslim prayer service in order to demonstrate Israeli control of the area and the second intifada broke out.

America has only been an obstacle to the peace process. The US gives something like 6 billion dollars a year in aid to Israel, two thirds of it military aid. The UN has devised something like 33 resolutions that would stop Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories, but America has vetoed them every time. So the idea of US neutrality is a cruel joke. This is one of main reasons why Muslims dislike America.

Anyway, to make a long story short the Palestinians are reponding to 38 years of occupation, poor dehumanizing second class treatment by the Israelis, continued settlement activity, continued US support of Israel, etc, etc. That is why they dislike America and Israel.

Also, if you really want to understand why Arabs/Muslims dislike America and the west you need to do a good study of the Crusades, and the effects of colonialism on Muslim populated land.


----------



## grumpus

Josh Adkins said:
			
		

> I usually don't exgage in these cultural discussions, but in spite of my better judgement, here goes:
> 
> Here's a little blurb I wrote up for another forum. It might be relevant here in order to discuss whether Islam is misunderstood and to understand why there are suicide bombers, etc. Please, remember, when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I am not trying to justify or condone the actions of either side, I am merely trying to present the facts and show cause-effect relationships.
> 
> It really isn't about about religious hatred of Jews, at least not in the beginning. For over a thousand years the Jews and Muslims of Palestine lived side by side in relative peace.
> 
> In a nut shell:
> At first, in 1948, the Arabs were upset that Israel was created and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (indiginous Arabs/Muslims) were removed out of their homes. Regardless of religion whenever anyone usurps your land, which you say is rightfuly yours, and kicks you out you will be mad. Religion playing into this is just a byproduct. Over the years, Arab countries reluctantly accepted that Israel was there (even if they did not want to recognize it diplomatically) mainly because The Israeli military was more powerful then the surrounding countries' militaries and could kick their ass (to be blunt about it). The Arab countries also thought, and rightfully so to some extext, that Israel was an expansionistic Nation and had designs of imperialism. This added to the distrust and hatred of Israel. In 1967 the Israeli's invaded Gaza, the West Bank, Sinai, and the Golan heights and occupied these territories. Despite the UN Resolution 242 which stated that Israel immediately return these lands they started to colonize them. Not many people nowadays know this, but the Israelis started implanting settlements in the Sinai including Sharm al-Sheik. When the peace treaty with Egypt was brokered they withdrew these settlements and returned the Sinai to Egypt. Anyway, the West Bank and Gaza were occupied and the Israelis started to colonize, or build settlements in these areas with the eventual hope of annexing the territories. In the process of colonizing they uprooted more Palestinians, displaced them by throwing them out of their homes, they expropriated their lands by force, tore down their houses, destroyed farms, in order to make way for the settlements. To this day thousands of Palestinians still live in refugee camps. They also implemented policies, such as identity cards and special taxes, that made it very difficult on the Palestinians. Palestinians who were suspected of organizining were routinely tortured and/or thrown in jail for years without being charged with anything. Over time the Palestinians got used to living under Israeli occupation.
> 
> In 1977 the Israeli elections changed Israeli political landscape to one of liberalness to conservatism. In the early to mid eighties Israel still had a very conservative government that favored colonization and annexation. In preparation for such annexation the Israelis speeded up the rate of the increase of the settlements and implemented more policies that further isolated the Palestinians, made it harder for them to move around, restricted and took more rights away from them and generally made their lives miserable. At first the Palestinians reacted by civil disobedience. They refused to work, they refused to buy Israeil products, they resfused to pay the special taxes only imposed on Palestinians, and other forms of civil disobedience. The majority renounced violence at first, but they saw that Israel was still not changing its policies.
> 
> In December 1987 an Israeli army vehicle had an accident that killed four Palestinians and wounded many others. There was a peaceful Palestinian demonstration at the funeral to protest the accident and the Israeli military killed several demonstrators. Combined with continued occupation, debilitating and dehumanizing policies, this was the catalyst that started the first intifada (uprising).
> 
> In 1990 Iraq invaded, and occupied Kuwait.  The US and the coalition, quickly went to war with Iraq to end the _occupation_. I believe George Bush Sr. said that the Kuwaitis, as well as everyone else, has the right to self-determination and to live free of occupation. As a result of this Saddam saw the irony and brought up the idea of how America was quick to end the Iraq occupation of Kuwait yet has turned a blind eye to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The US was embarrassed and promised its Arab coalition partners that it would put efforts into working towards a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
> 
> Since then the peace process has gone on, but has not been very successful. In the Oslo Accords both the PLO and Israel formally recognized each other and the PLO declared that Israel had a right to exist. Nowadays, most Palestinians, except for the ultra religion and other extremists, accept the reality of Israel and they no longer harbor hopes of reclaiming Israel. They are resigned to fact of Israel. But, they also want their own state. If Israel returned to to its pre-1967 borders, most Palestinians would be placated and things would improve. But, during this continued peace process Israel has continued to increase settlement activity and implement policies that make the lives of the Palestinians difficult.
> 
> Remember that both Islam and Judaism are exclusionist religions that view themselves apart from other human beings. As such we also must remember that it is not only the extremist Muslims/Palestinians who want the eradication of Israel. Ultra religious extremist Jews would like the eradication of Palestine and an Israel that includes all the lands of ancient Israel. There was an incident in which a Jew opened fire and killed 29 Palestinians praying at a mosque. The Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin was killed by a Jewish religious zealot who thought that giving away any Jewish land was an infringement of "God's law." There are many incidents of militant Jewish settlers harrassing and killing Palestinians and destroying their homes and farmland. They are almost never prosecuted. And we never see that on the news. When we see the news Israel is always portrayed as being on the defensive, never being the aggressor, which it has been much of the time. We also see the human element of Jews and can sympathize with them, whereas we never see the human element of Palestinians. The number of Palestinians killed is almost triple the number of Israelis killed. When Palestinians are killed, we almost never hear it on the television, or we hear brief remarks on it.
> 
> Anyway, as civil disobedient activities were unsuccessful in bringing about a change, the feeling turned to desperation and more and more Palestinians turned terrorism as a tactic. Terrorism is wrong and absolutely deplorable and despicable, but we must ask why. Why would a young man/woman want to kill him/herself in order to kill some Jews? (Read the previous paragraphs again if you have to.) These incidents do not happen in a vacuum. It is not about hated of Judaism and Jews. They are reacting to years of living under occupation and poor treatment by Israel. Religion is only a small part of it.
> 
> After the Camp David Accord in 2000 collapsed Ariel Sharon walked to the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock during Muslim prayer service in order to demonstrate Israeli control of the area and the second intifada broke out.
> 
> America has only been an obstacle to the peace process. The US gives something like 6 billion dollars a year in aid to Israel, two thirds of it military aid. The UN has devised something like 33 resolutions that would stop Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories, but America has vetoed them every time. So the idea of US neutrality is a cruel joke. This is one of main reasons why Muslims dislike America.
> 
> Anyway, to make a long story short the Palestinians are reponding to 38 years of occupation, poor dehumanizing second class treatment by the Israelis, continued settlement activity, continued US support of Israel, etc, etc. That is why they dislike America and Israel.
> 
> Also, if you really want to understand why Arabs/Muslims dislike America and the west you need to do a good study of the Crusades, and the effects of colonialism on Muslim populated land.





HI Josh
I think you've hit on most of the important points.  The American media never presents many of these facts, or at least in an clear, sequential manner.  The "angry Arab/Muslim" is a much easier story to sell  (Remember the 2 minute hate from 1984??).

Grumpus


----------



## Outsider

grumpus said:
			
		

> HI BasedowLives and Outsider,
> 
> Timothy Mc Veigh (atheist) blew up a building.


I don't think McVeigh was an atheist:



> McVeigh and his siblings lived with their father, a devout Catholic who often attended Daily Mass. Timothy McVeigh's religious beliefs seem to have been shaken somewhat, but not lost entirely, as he was visited by a chaplain while he was in federal prison in Indiana, and never renounced his faith.
> 
> source


However, *BasedowLives* could argue that McVeigh didn't blow up the building in the name of his religion (and that he didn't blow up a bus, though I'm pretty sure the bus was a rhetorical detail).

The problem is that whenever a Muslim blows up something, people in the West tend to assume that Islam made him do it. But when a Christian blows up something, no one assumes Christ made him do it.


----------



## mansio

Outsider

I don't know if MacVeigh blew up the building as a Christian.
Many Muslims who blow up things say they do it as Muslims.
Self-proclaimed Christians may blow up things, but it is strictly forbidden by Christian teaching, which says to resort by non-violence to violence (as far as I know. If you think it is not true feel free to contradict me).
There are Muslims who blow up things in the name of Islam, because Islam urges Muslims to resort to violence when they think they are attacked as Muslims.


----------



## Outsider

mansio said:
			
		

> Many Muslims who blow up things say they do it as Muslims.


Do you have any specific examples of that?



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> Self-proclaimed Christians may blow up things, but it is strictly forbidden by Christian teaching, which says to resort by non-violence to violence.


Which Christian teaching, specifically? Which Bible verses prohibit Christians from blowing up buildings? I can't think of any.



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> There are Muslims who blow up things in the name of Islam, because Islam urges Muslims to resort to violence when they think they are attacked as Muslims.


You mean the _Quran_? Which verses of it?


----------



## arodz

_Many Muslims who blow up things say they do it as Muslims._
Do you have any specific examples of that?

Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, President of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (more info about him on Wikipedia), said on Qatar TV on February 25, 2006:

"We are Fighting *in the Name of Islam*...This Jihad is an Individual Duty of the Entire Muslim Nation...We Should Fight Them With the Koran: "There is a Jew Behind Me, Come and Kill Him".


_Self-proclaimed Christians may blow up things, but it is strictly forbidden by Christian teaching, which says to *resort by non-violence to violence*._
Which Christian teaching, specifically?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek 


_There are Muslims who blow up things in the name of Islam, because Islam urges Muslims to resort to violence when they think they are attacked as Muslims._
You mean the _Quran_? Which verses of it?

"Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be *crumbled to dust*, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty"

According to that, you don't even have to attack Islam, just resist it.


----------



## mansio

Outsider

Answer to question one: 
All Muslim suicide bombers say they do it as Muslims (on the cassettes before the bombing).
Bin Laden and his cronies said it too.

Answer to question two:
Jesus taught that when you are slapped on one cheek, present the other one.
The fundament of his teaching is to do no harm to one's neighbor.

Answer to question three:
There are a number of verses in the Quran that ask for violence.
Here are two: 
5-33) Such will be the reward of those who wage war on God and his Messenger, and of those who spread mischief on earth: they shall be killed or crucified, or their opposite hands or feet shall be cut off, or they shall be expelled from the country...
48-29) Muhammad is the Messenger of God.Those who are with him are violent towards the unbelievers, benevolent towards themselves...


----------



## Outsider

arodz said:
			
		

> _Many Muslims who blow up things say they do it as Muslims._
> Do you have any specific examples of that?
> 
> Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, President of the International Association of Muslim Scholars (more info about him on Wikipedia), said on Qatar TV on February 25, 2006:
> 
> "We are Fighting *in the Name of Islam*...This Jihad is an Individual Duty of the Entire Muslim Nation...We Should Fight Them With the Koran: "There is a Jew Behind Me, Come and Kill Him".


Did he ever blow up anything, himself?



			
				arodz said:
			
		

> _Self-proclaimed Christians may blow up things, but it is strictly forbidden by Christian teaching, which says to *resort by non-violence to violence*._
> Which Christian teaching, specifically?
> 
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek


Doesn't say anything about blowing up buses...



			
				arodz said:
			
		

> _There are Muslims who blow up things in the name of Islam, because Islam urges Muslims to resort to violence when they think they are attacked as Muslims._
> You mean the _Quran_? Which verses of it?
> 
> "Those who resist Allah and His Messenger will be *crumbled to dust*, as were those before them: for we have already sent down Clear Signs and the Unbelievers will have a humiliating Penalty"
> 
> According to that, you don't even have to attack Islam, just resist it.


The passage says that those who _resist_ (not necessarily unbelievers in general) Allah and His Messenger _will be crumbled_ to dust, but it doesn't say who will make them crumble. It could be divine providence who will punish those who resist. There is no open incitation _of Muslims_ to commit violence in it.


----------



## arodz

_Did he ever blow up anything, himself?_
I don't know, you'd have to ask him that.

_Doesn't say anything about blowing up buses..._
Sorry, I don't understand your point. You asked for a specific example of a Christian teaching that says " to resort by non-violence to violence", and there you have one.

_The passage says that those who resist (not necessarily unbelievers in general) Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, but it doesn't say who will make them crumble. It could be divine providence who will punish those who resist. There is no open incitation of Muslims to commit violence in it._

Handy interpretation... What about this then (as quoted by mansio):

_Such will be the reward of those who wage war on God and his Messenger, and of those who spread mischief on earth: they shall be *killed* or *crucified*, or their opposite *hands or feet shall be cut off*, or they shall be *expelled *from the country..._

Who exactly is supposed to do the killing, crucifying, chopping off of hands and feet and expelling then?


----------



## I.C.

Outsider said:
			
		

> There is no open incitation of Muslims to commit violence in it.


 From http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/ :  Moderator Note: Please read and comply with our copyright protection limitations--four sentences may be quoted.  See the link for the remaining text.  Thanks, Cuchuflete.
 


> Edited for legal compliance:  [9.1]
> [9.5] *So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.*
> 
> 
> [9.14] *Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands* and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.





> [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah,


 Obviously I don't vouch for accuracy of translation.


----------



## GenJen54

ansio said:
			
		

> I don't know if MacVeigh blew up the building as a Christian.


 For the record, McVeigh blew up the Murrah building as a means of protesting government actions.  It had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion, so I believe we can effectively take him out of the argument here.


----------



## Ana Raquel

I.C. said:
			
		

> [9.5] *So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.*
> 
> Obviously I don't vouch for accuracy of translation.


how to leave the way free to anybody who has been slayed?


----------



## natasha2000

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> I see your point but I don't see how it's relevant to my saying that I can't remember the last time a Christian or Athiest blew up a bus of innocent people in the name of their belief.


 
This what I am going to say now will be very painful for me, but I cannot stay silent, since I cannot agree with this.

Although many of you maybe don't even know, but in my EX country, Yugoslavia, there were Cristians - Catholics and Orthodox, together with Muslims who killed each other from religious (and nacionalistic) reasons during 10 long years...
Maybe this will sount to you:
Operation Storm - where Christian Catholic Croats killed Christian Orthodox Serbs. You can see more here.

Srebrenica - where christian orthodox Serbs killed muslims....
You can see more here.

During these 10 years of devastaded war, there were many more examples of atrocities and inhuman and savage behaviours towards "the other side", but these are the most horrible ones. I feel very shamed because of all this what happened, but this would be another subject....

I only want to say that in spite of this what you will read in this links, not all Croats and Serbs are bloodthirsty beasts. But, war brings out on the surface the worst scum of one society, and even more if it is a civil war.


----------



## Outsider

Thank you very much for your moving personal testimony, *Natasha*.  



			
				arodz said:
			
		

> _Did he ever blow up anything, himself?_
> I don't know, you'd have to ask him that.


Then it isn't an example of "Muslims *who blow up things* say they do it as Muslims".



			
				arodz said:
			
		

> _Doesn't say anything about blowing up buses..._
> Sorry, I don't understand your point. You asked for a specific example of a Christian teaching that says " to resort by non-violence to violence", and there you have one.


No, let's not take my words out of context. Here's what I was replying to:



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> Self-proclaimed Christians may *blow up things*, but it is strictly forbidden by Christian teaching, which says to resort by non-violence to violence.





			
				arodz said:
			
		

> _The passage says that those who resist (not necessarily unbelievers in general) Allah and His Messenger will be crumbled to dust, but it doesn't say who will make them crumble. It could be divine providence who will punish those who resist. There is no open incitation of Muslims to commit violence in it._
> 
> Handy interpretation...


It's not my fault that you chose a bad example to make your case.



			
				arodz said:
			
		

> What about this then (as quoted by mansio):
> 
> _Such will be the reward of those who wage war on God and his Messenger, and of those who spread mischief on earth: they shall be *killed* or *crucified*, or their opposite *hands or feet shall be cut off*, or they shall be *expelled *from the country..._
> 
> Who exactly is supposed to do the killing, crucifying, chopping off of hands and feet and expelling then?


Those are very, very odd words, because, as far as I know, crucifixion has never been commonly employed as punishment in the Islamic world.

As for killing in general, and cutting off hands and feet, all those were normal forms of punishment in the medieval Christian world. I see them more as a remnant of less civilized times, than as a necessary product of this or that religion. 

Which brings me to another point. While I may not know Islam's holy book as well as you or *Mansio* or *I.C.* (apparently), I do know the Bible. And I've seen over and over how self-proclaimed Christians can ignore the parts of the Bible which don't suit them, and still consider themselves Christians, and be considered Christians by their correligionaries. This shows how following a certain religion, even a religion of the Book, doesn't necessarily imply a robotic obedience to every literal line of text in the said holy book. The reverse of this fact is that just because a book has some commandments which we now consider unacceptable (such as, say, the stoning of adulterers), it doesn't mean that the followers of the faith contained in that book must practice those outdated customs.

It just doesn't work that way in practice, and it never has. Religion, any religion, is a mixture of written doctrine with priestly authority and common custom.


----------



## natasha2000

> Thank you very much for your moving personal testimony, *Natasha*.


 
Thanks God, it's not a PERSONAL testimony, since I was lucky to be in a territory which was not reached by these horrors of war. Nevertheless, I feel ashamed because I belong to this nation... 

I really do not have any reason to defend Muslims, but when all that about the drawings happened, I couldn't avoid noticing a significant conceited attitude of the Western world. Yes, the muslim reaction was exagerated and not appropriate at all, but what did they expect from people who are still living in a stone age? Their way of looking at the world is completely different from "Cristian world"'s, not because Cristians are better (during the course of history, they also prooved they can be very bloodthisrsty and cruel, just look at the Crusades, Conquest of America, etc...), but because most population of the majority of these "radical muslim" countries are underdiveloped. Almost all of these countries still didn't separate church from the state, which was done in Europe many centuries ago.


> Religion, any religion, is a mixture of written doctrine with priestly authority and common custom.


I agree with this. If Coran and islam were wrongly interpreted, I tend to think it must be by the very same priests of Islam, in order to have the mases on their side to serve them for their aims... Low percantage of educated people opens the way to easiness of big mass seduction by the few priests. Just for a moment, put yourselves in a skin of a 15 year old boy (or a girl) in Irak or Afganistan... All that you have ever seen in your life is that some strange people that don't speak your language come and distroy everything in your country, and you don't know why. To whom you will go to ask? To a priest or to your father (who, by the way, passed the same process but a few years earlier), and the only people who can serve to you as example are already blinded by hate... You have never seen anything different, anything better, and you are young. I'm really not surprised in what these boys turn very soon, and theat they really believe that they go to heaven if they die in the name of Alah... I think the solution can be anything but what Bush & Co. did and still do...

I would also like to add that not all muslims are like that. The muslims living in Bosnia - i.e. are not fanatic people at all, I know many of them and they are not more "fanatic" than me or you... But they live in Europe, circled by an influenced by the development of other "christian countries, as a matter of fact, they lived more than 80 years in the same country with catholics and orthodox christians, and some 50 years in a moderate communist country (which means, nobody prohibited religion, but also nobody didn't propagated)....

PS: I quoted Outsider.... Sorry, I still don't know how to use properly the tools ....


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Almost all of these countries still didn't separate church from the state, which was done in Europe many centuries ago.


Not too many centuries ago. 
I agree with you.


----------



## BasedowLives

> what did they expect from people who are still living in a stone age?


I don't think it's a conceited take at all on the situation regardless of what paradigm you see the world through (be it western or other).  I don't think most people were assuming that these people were neolithic creatures as you imply.  I don't think they do now either, which is why everyone is shocked at the reaction to it.



> Not too many centuries ago.
> I agree with you.


and to reply to your question/statement/thing about how it doesn't say who carries out the punishments.  The government does.


also, unless I skimmed over something we have yet to get to the point of this thread.  We keep getting shown examples from other religions and nobody is attempting to answer the accusations without saying, "well, all religions do that."


----------



## mansio

My point is not that some Christians can be more dangerous people than Muslims or that some Muslims can be more dangerous than Christians.
I think that the "Christian" Germans have by far broken all records.

My point is that the scripture which is the most important to Christians, the New Testament, does not contain verses that call for fighting, slaughters, cutting off limbs, but the Koran does contain such verses.


----------



## Outsider

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> also, unless I skimmed over something we have yet to get to the point of this thread.  We keep getting shown examples from other religions and nobody is attempting to answer the accusations without saying, "well, all religions do that."


Sorry, but what accusations are you talking about?



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> My point is that the scripture which is the most important to Christians, the New Testament, does not contain verses that call for fighting, slaughters, cutting off limbs, but the Koran does contain such verses.


If the _Quran_ is such a powerful and evil book, then how did the Islamic world manage to be more civilised than Western Europe for so many centuries?


----------



## Fernando

Outsider said:
			
		

> If the _Quran_ is such a powerful and evil book, then how did the Islamic world manage to be more civilised than Western Europe for so many centuries?



1) Because it is not so evil. It has a very positive message, taken as a whole but I must agree it contains rather "difficult" chapters, to say the least.

2) Because Syria, Mesopotamia, Turkey, Egypt, Tunis and Spain were very civilized far before the Muslims arrived.

3) The Islam was "more civilized" in a time where W Europe did not live its best period.


----------



## natasha2000

BasedowLives said:
			
		

> I don't think it's a conceited take at all on the situation regardless of what paradigm you see the world through (be it western or other). I don't think most people were assuming that these people were neolithic creatures as you imply. I don't think they do now either, which is why everyone is shocked at the reaction to it.
> 
> 
> and to reply to your question/statement/thing about how it doesn't say who carries out the punishments. The government does.
> 
> 
> also, unless I skimmed over something we have yet to get to the point of this thread. We keep getting shown examples from other religions and nobody is attempting to answer the accusations without saying, "well, all religions do that."


 
Sorry for my poor knowledge of English, but I really do not understand what you wanted to say... Honestly, I am not sarcastic nor anything of that kind, simply I don't get the point of your post.

I didn't mean to offend anyone, I just wanted to point out that the majority of Muslims in this world live and think in a very different way from Cristian part of the world. The concept of life and world, moral and God, religion, EVERYTHING is so different, that we cannot imagine it, and the sad thing is that each day the gap between these two worlds is bigger and bigger, and honestly, neither "us" nor "they" try to do something about it. For ejample, was it *really* necessary to publish AGAIN the drawings of Muhammad in France, Spain etc? WAS IT? What is prooved by that? To whom? I only see that with that act Western world prooves to itself that "freedom of speech" is respected by the same Western world. Did the muslims understand it? NO. And if the Western world continues to insult in this way, they never will... Bcause, for me, these drawings are only this: insult to all muslim world, looking down to them, in general. How? Mohammad with the bomb on his head. Terrorist = Mohammad = All muslims. From this equation you get Western world thinks that ALL Muslims are terrorists, which, I hope you will agree with me, is not true. I will go further. Western world say. Well, our God has been ridiculized and we don't jump to cut throats. Ridiculizad by whom? By ourselves, cristians... You are free to mess with your God, but don't mess with my God, and I don't mess with you. If somebody has to mess with my God, then it should be me. 
I see it like when Spanyards came to America and found there Aztecas. Aztecas still sacrified humans, and they simply didn't understand why on Erth Spanyards kill the enemy. For Azteca world, it was ridiculous, because THEY were capturing the enemy so they can sacrify the enemy to the Gods, and not their own people... So, Spanyards thought of Aztecas as savages. But, from Aztecas point of view, the saveges were Spanyards. Two different worlds with an enormous moral, cultural and whateveryouwant gap.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> 1) Because it is not so evil. It has a very positive message, taken as a whole but I must agree it contains rather "difficult" chapters, to say the least.
> 
> 2) Because Syria, Mesopotamia, Turkey, Egypt, Tunis and Spain were very civilized far before the Muslims arrived.
> 
> 3) The Islam was "more civilized" in a time where W Europe did not live its best period.


 
you should know better the history of your own country. In 8th century, more excatly, 711, when Arabs came to Iberic Peninsula, all "christian world" including Spain, was in a lower cultural level. If not, why on Earth would Alfonso X El Sabio have Muslim and Jewish scolars translating all arabic and jewish scripts from astrology, mathematics and other sciences to "romanic" (ie. spanish) language, if "cristians" already possesed all and better knowledge? And when he did that, why would they call him Sabio (Wise) if this what he did wasn't very clever?


----------



## maxiogee

I still have the attitude that if I am being misunderstood by someone then it is up to me to sort out their confusion, if the misunderstanding is such that it is interfering with our interaction.

If Islam is being misunderstood then it is either being done wilfully by people who don't want to know (and there are those about) or it is being done by the lack of proper knowledge being put out by Islam itself.

Those within *any religion* who see fundamentalists making statements which appear to run counter to what is generally accepted by most believers owe it to themselves to make these opinions known, if they feel the religion is in danger of being traduced.

We all run the danger of making assumptions about people's actions which we don't properly understand, witness the massive outcry from people in other countries at the election and re-election of George Bush - this from countries which were unaffected by his winning. The assumptions made about those who voted for him were most unflattering and if reflected onto those making them about their voting habits would have raised outraged cries of "Ah but you're Americans, you don't understand how politics works in Xyzland!" 
The whole world felt qualified to expound on that election - and we get a lot of coverage (in most developed countries) of America. How much less do we uinderstand the political life (and therefore general social life) of other countries.

As an Irish citizen I don't get a lot of in depth coverage of the realities of life in the Islamic countries (or where this thread applies to), and I'm not sure I'd digest it if it was offered, to be honest. But that must lead to misunderstandings. My country puts out ambassadors and envoys to represent us to other countries. The EU does too.
The religion I was born into did this in many countries also. It obviously felt that this was important to it. 
Maybe Islam needs to think along similar lines. Whether this should be done by the different sects of Islam or wheter by a union of "Islamic" nations would be best decided by Islam itself.


----------



## Fernando

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> you should know better the history of your own country.



Let us make a deal: I will know better the history of Spain and you will refrain your tongue from time to time.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> In 8th century, more excatly, 711, when Arabs came to Iberic Peninsula, all "christian world" including Spain, was in a lower cultural level.



In a lower cultural level than who? Do you mean Tarik and Muza had a higher cultural level than San Isidoro de Sevilla?



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> If not, why on Earth would Alfonso X El Sabio have Muslim and Jewish scolars translating all arabic and jewish scripts from astrology, mathematics and other sciences to "romanic" (ie. spanish) language, if "cristians" already possesed all and better knowledge?



1) Have I denied the Islamic world had better cultural level than Western world? NO.

2) Am I talking about Jewish? NO.

3) Am I saying that christians already possessed all and better knowledge? NO.

So, I see no use in refuting your inventions.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> And when he did that, why would they call him Sabio (Wise) if this what he did wasn't very clever?



They called him Sabio because:

1) He built up the Translaters Academy in Toledo, when he could make many Arabic and Jewish texts to Latin and Romanic (Spanish). Note many of the traslated texts were Arabic translations and interpretations of Plato and Aristotles.

2) He composed great poetry in Galician and Spanish (Cantigas).

3) He unified and codified the laws (Partidas).

4) He was a superb chess player.

5) He fought against the Muslims.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Natasha,

*Natasha wrote*: For ejample, was it *really* necessary to publish AGAIN the drawings of Muhammad in France, Spain etc? WAS IT? 

Just some Denmarks would have seen the drawings if it wasn't for the propaganda the protests gave to the cartons with the violent reactions, that made them to be seen worldwide via internet.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> Let us make a deal: I will know better the history of Spain and you will refrain your tongue from time to time.
> 
> you should watch out your language or your mouth will be washed with a soap. Why SHOULD I RESTRAIN MY TONGUE? Because I am just an Immigrant Woman living inYour Country, and therefore, I shouldn't bother the big White boss? Pues, va ser que no. I am free to say what I think like anyone else. If this bothers you, don't read.
> 
> 
> In a lower cultural level than who? Do you mean Tarik and Muza had a higher cultural level than San Isidoro de Sevilla?
> Who are Tarik and Muza? And what do you mean ny that?
> 
> 
> 1) Have I denied the Islamic world had better cultural level than Western world? NO. yes. Read again your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Syria, Mesopotamia, Turkey, Egypt, Tunis and Spain were very civilized far before the Muslims arrived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Am I talking about Jewish? NO.
> I mentioned jewish people because it would be unfair to talk about Alfonso el Sabio and Arabic translators and not to mention the Jewish ones, since they had the same merit as ther Arabic ones.
> 
> 3) Am I saying that christians already possessed all and better knowledge? NO. Read again what you have written.
> 
> 
> 
> Because Syria, Mesopotamia, Turkey, Egypt, Tunis and Spain were very civilized far before the Muslims arrived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I see no use in refuting your inventions.
> 
> ????????
> 
> 
> 
> They called him Sabio because:
> 
> 1) He built up the Translaters Academy in Toledo, when he could make many Arabic and Jewish texts to Latin and Romanic (Spanish). Note many of the traslated texts were Arabic translations and interpretations of Plato and Aristotles. Who were not cristians. And as many of the text were lost, and the educated christian people were scarse at that time, so they didn't know to read old greek, they took the sources they had in hand - arabic and jewish translations.
> 
> 2) He composed great poetry in Galician and Spanish (Cantigas).
> 
> 3) He unified and codified the laws (Partidas).
> 
> 4) He was a superb chess player.
> Up to here, i see you did your homework well.
> 
> 5) He fought against the Muslims.
> As amatter of fact, he was a terrible statesman and ruler, because it was not something he liked to do. In his time, culture flourished, but on the other hand, on political plane, it was desaster.
Click to expand...

 

Espero que te ayude.
Saludos,


----------



## natasha2000

Ana Raquel said:
			
		

> Hi Natasha,
> 
> *Natasha wrote*: For ejample, was it *really* necessary to publish AGAIN the drawings of Muhammad in France, Spain etc? WAS IT?
> 
> Just some Denmarks would have seen the drawings if it wasn't for the propaganda the protests gave to the cartons with the violent reactions, that made them to be seen worldwide via internet.


 
Hi, Ana Raquel, I understand your point of view, but I see it as provocation, and nothing more. Yes, I also see it like a political move... Maybe I am wrong, but how come that these drawings are published more or less at the time the situation with Iran is getting hotter and hotter? Someone had to have the justification to attack and destroy completely another islamic country, so lets put the finger in the eye of the muslims, and the fanatics will do the job for ourselves? 

This is how I see it, my personal point of view. Maybe I am exagerating, maybe I am paranoic, but I don't exclude this scenario.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think these drawings shouldn't have been published at all. Some questions are very sensitive in some groups of people, and they should be treated in a delicate way, and religious feelings of a muslim world is not the only one "touchy" topic in this world...


----------



## Fernando

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> you should watch out your language or your mouth will be washed with a soap.


Sorry, but I have no masochist compulsion.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Why SHOULD I RESTRAIN MY TONGUE? Because I am just an Immigrant Woman living inYour Country,



No, because you are insulting me when I have not insulted you.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> and therefore, I shouldn't bother the big White boss?



If you are a Serbian, I think YOU are the white one.  I am certainly darker than you.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Who are Tarik and Muza? And what do you mean ny that?



:: Lieben Gott! And it was me the disinformed about Islamic Spanish history.


----------



## mansio

Muslims were offended by the caricatures of Muhammad. 
Other people and me, we are constantly offended in our dignity as human beings by Muslim women wearing the veil.


----------



## natasha2000

mansio said:
			
		

> Muslims were offended by the caricatures of Muhammad.
> Other people and me, we are constantly offended in our dignity as human beings by Muslim women wearing the veil.


 
Please, can you explain more this? How a woman wearing a veil can offend you ? How does her veil offends your dignity? 
I really do not understand.

Doesn't everyone in this world have the right to wear what he wants? If the veil offends you, then someone can be also offended by women wearing short skirts, or maybe people with tatoo? Or maybe someone is offended by people who have "bob marley's" hair? I find it ridiculous. 

I would rather say that many of these women who wear veil would like to take it off, but they can't, since they live in a society of, as I said, Stone age.


----------



## zahret el zenbak

mansio said:
			
		

> Muslims were offended by the caricatures of Muhammad.
> Other people and me, we are constantly offended in our dignity as human beings by Muslim women wearing the veil.


At the beginning thank you for confessing that it was an insult for muslims, but how are the human beings insulted by the muslim women wearing veils??? It's a private right I suppose,and any way that is better than seeing naked women, right ?


----------



## zahret el zenbak

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Please, can you explain more this? How a woman wearing a veil can offend you ? How does her veil offends your dignity?
> I really do not understand.
> 
> Doesn't everyone in this world have the right to wear what he wants? If the veil offends you, then someone can be also offended by women wearing short skirts, or maybe people with tatoo? Or maybe someone is offended by people who have "bob marley's" hair? I find it ridiculous.
> 
> I would rather say that many of these women who wear veil would like to take it off, but they can't, since they live in a society of, as I said, Stone age.


Hi Natasha 
I completely agee with you. But dont u know Tarek and Musa? I can help u in that if you dont as I am arabic. Keep on defending your believes.


----------



## mansio

Natasha

I don't want to start a sub-thread on the veil now.
Your last sentence could be a part of the discussion.
There are people who are (deeply) offended by women wearing short skirts, in Muslim countries for example.
Of course everybody can wear what he wants even if he offends someone else. That is your opinion and mine too.
I think the veil is physically and symbolically debasing to women, who belong like me to humankind. That is why, although a man, I feel personally offended by it.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> :: Lieben Gott! And it was me the disinformed  uninformed about Islamic Spanish history.


 
Spain is your country, not mine, be sure that I know the history of my country. At least I bothered to learn something about the country I went to live, which I doubt you would do if you were to go to live in my country...

If you mean Tari*Q* ibn Ziyad and Mu*S*a ibn Nusair, I really don't see the relation between these two WORRIORS and a PRIEST. 

I didn't respond to your other remarks, not because I RESTRAIN MY TONGUE, but because I consider them insulting (yes, my dear, you insult me and you are not evan aware of it) and irrelevant, as well as not worthy of any attention.


----------



## mansio

Zahret

I did not say that the caricatures insulted Muslims but that they offended them. 
If you read my last post you will see that I do not deny Muslim women the right to wear the veil.
I would also like that Muslims do not deny our right to draw caricatures.
I don't see the point with women being naked or not.


----------



## natasha2000

mansio said:
			
		

> Natasha
> 
> I don't want to start a sub-thread on the veil now.
> Your last sentence could be a part of the discussion.
> There are people who are (deeply) offended by women wearing short skirts, in Muslim countries for example.
> In my opinion, they don't have the right to be ofended. But, then, they are who make their laws, and neither you and I can do anything about it.
> 
> Of course everybody can wear what he wants even if he offends someone else. That is your opinion and mine too.
> I think the veil is physically and symbolically debasing to women, who belong like me to humankind. That is why, although a man, I feel personally offended by it.


 
Then you should feel sorry for these women, and not to be offended... This is how I see it. I think we think the same, only our terminology is a little bit different...


----------



## zahret el zenbak

mansio, There is a difference between wearing the veil and drawing caricatues offending our Prophet. Do you accept such athing to your Prophet Jesus?? I think no, and neither do I, as i respect all the relgions.


----------



## zahret el zenbak

mansio said:
			
		

> Zahret
> 
> I did not say that the caricatures insulted Muslims but that they offended them.
> If you read my last post you will see that I do not deny Muslim women the right to wear the veil.
> I would also like that Muslims do not deny our right to draw caricatures.
> I don't see the point with women being naked or not.


Excuse my poor English, but what is the difference between insult and offend?


----------



## maxiogee

zahret el zenbak said:
			
		

> mansio, There is a difference between wearing the veil and drawing caricatues offending our Prophet. Do you accept such athing to your Prophet Jesus?? I think no, and neither do I, as i respect all the relgions.



To Christians, zahret el zenbak, Jesus was not 'a prophet' - He was the Son of God.

How strong is a person's faith if it can be unsettled by a cartoon?


----------



## zahret el zenbak

How strong is a person's faith if it can be unsettled by a cartoon?[/quote]
Who said it was unsettled? We see that it was a remark of irrespect, and if we keep insulting each other, in that world there will be no peace, I am a muslim, and i'll still be so even if all people insulted me because my religion is more strong to be defeated by some stupid cartoons drawen by ignorant paintors who know nothing about other relgions. All we want is a peacefull world where every one can co-live with others without losing his dignity. Excuse my poor language, I' m better in spanish.


----------



## mansio

Zahret

At first sight there seems to be a difference of "level" (I don't find a better word at the moment) between caricaturing the Prophet and the veil.
Let's consider the caricature with the bomb on the head. That caricature is not a caricature against the Prophet, but a caricature against the view that Muslim terrorists have given of Islam (represented by the prophet).
Jesus has been caricatured for decades to an extent that you probably do not realize. Have you ever heard of riots in Europe? I think we are much too tolerant and intelligent not to riot for that.
The caricature issue is not only a religious problem. It is also a free speech issue, and free speech is a root of our Western culture.
The solution is that we do not go to Muslim countries to show them our caricatures, and Muslims do not tell us how we should behave.
The caricatures have been taken from Denmark and brought to the Middle-East. The issue should have been settled between the Muslim community in Denmark and Danish justice.

(I think that, as in French, to insult is more agressive than to offend)


----------



## Fernando

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> If you mean Tari*Q* ibn Ziyad and Mu*S*a ibn Nusair, I really don't see the relation between these two WARRIORS and a PRIEST.



Yes, I mean these two intelligent, cultivated Muslim scholars. Of course they can not be compared with the author of the Etymologies.

By the way, thank you for correction my translatiterations to English. I will pay you a favour and I will not correct yours.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I didn't respond to your other remarks, not because I RESTRAIN MY TONGUE, but because I consider them insulting (yes, my dear, you insult me and you are not evEn aware of it) and irrelevant, as well as not worthy of any attention.



Then I humbly apologize. Possibly I was insulting when I said "Tarik". And excuse my pitiful and irrelevant remarks. To be unworthy of attention, you seem to care them very much.


----------



## cuchuflete

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> you should know better the history of your own country. In 8th century, more excatly, 711, when Arabs came to Iberic Peninsula, all "christian world" including Spain, was in a lower cultural level. If not, why on Earth would Alfonso X El Sabio have Muslim and Jewish scolars translating all arabic and jewish scripts from astrology, mathematics and other sciences to "romanic" (ie. spanish) language, if "cristians" already possesed all and better knowledge? And when he did that, why would they call him Sabio (Wise) if this what he did wasn't very clever?



While the rest of the debate continues, let's debunk the myth that it was "the Arabs" who came to the Iberian Peninsula in 711.  The majority of the Muslims who came were not Arabs, but Berbers.  Many of the military leaders were Arabs, but they were a very small fraction of the entire group that came to Al-andalus.


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Zahret,



			
				zahret el zenbak said:
			
		

> ... how are the human beings insulted by the muslim women wearing veils??? It's a private right I suppose,and any way that is better than seeing naked women, right ?


 
opposing 'woman wearing a veil' to 'woman nacked' is not a fair approach. Between veil and nacked there is plenty of levels, starting with no veil-rest of the body covered.

I mean, that a woman doesn't wear any veil doesn't mean she is willing to go nacked, as it seems some muslims think, as the Zahret post seemed, mentioning 'nacked' after speaking about 'veil'


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> While the rest of the debate continues, let's debunk the myth that it was "the Arabs" who came to the Iberian Peninsula in 711. The majority of the Muslims who came were not Arabs, but Berbers. Many of the military leaders were Arabs, but they were a very small fraction of the entire group that came to Al-andalus.


 
But they were Muslims, weren't they? And here we are discussing about Muslims, not about Arabs.

Yes, Tariq was Berber. But Musa belonged Umayyads, arabic tribe.

See this, please.

The names of professors of history from Universities of Madrid and Barcelona are good enough for me to believe what they say.


----------



## BasedowLives

zahret el zenbak said:
			
		

> mansio, There is a difference between wearing the veil and drawing caricatues offending our Prophet. Do you accept such athing to your Prophet Jesus?? I think no, and neither do I, as i respect all the relgions.


This is precisely why I'm sure most westerners don't get why there was such an outrage.  Jesus Christ gets made fun of ALL THE TIME in our tv shows, media, newspapers everywhere.  I think this is a big cultural difference as well, as our constitution claims that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or something to that nature.

for instance:
Rolling Stone Magazine had a picture of a rapper (Kanye West) on the cover wearing a crown of thorns very similar to Jesus.  I am sure that offends many christians.  That's just the first example that came to mind.


----------



## prasantb

Islam as a religion is based on a set of beliefs and is governed by a set of practice-based doctrines.  The reason why it is 'misunderstood' is because Islam is the religion of a large number of people of the developing world, and when the deprived mases attempt to strike back at the developed world (with its attendant ideology of imperialism), islam is first opposed, and then feared.  Misunderstanding is, on second thoughts, not really the term one should use in describing the West's reaction to Islam.  As I said it is fear and hate.


----------



## SofiaB

Islam is misunderstood because as a result of social and political problems in Islamic counties many people use religion as a justification to commit horrible crimes against humanity and unfortunately the Muslims who do not agree with these outrages do not speak up or at least not enough to drown out the criminals. All religions have a violent past but in modern times we have realized that this is not the way we wish to live. Muslims must stand up and denounce those who belittle their religion and preach crime and hared instead of love.


----------



## mansio

Islam is misunderstood by whom ?

There is not one Islam but several Islams depending on the interpretations of a number of verses.

Yes, the Islam of Bin Lâden and Zarqawi is "misunderstood" in the West, to say the least.

The peaceful Islam found in most of Europe is not misunderstood.

People who want to discuss on the "misunderstandings" of Islam should first think about why the Qur'an of divine origin can cause opposing interpretations. What or who is responsible of that ?


----------



## prasantb

Has there been several _interpretaions_ of the _Qu'ran_? I fail to understand how an 'interpreter'/commentator is able to ignore the _Hadith_ and the _Sha'riah_ and come forth with his/her own version of value-loaded explication of the original text? Such attempts are not recognised as a part of the body the Holy Text by any devout Muslim. If the fundamentalists choose to distort Islam, such distortion can hadly be justified as 'interpretation.'


----------



## Ana Raquel

Hi Prasant,


			
				prasantb said:
			
		

> Has there been several _interpretaions_ of the _Qu'ran_? .'


yes, didn't you know? There are diferent schools, different interpretaions and loads of differnt trasnlations, but being native Arabic speaker is not guarantee of correct interpretation either, I have seen discussions about that among native Arabic speakers and culture influence a lot those interpretations.


----------



## natasha2000

mansio said:
			
		

> Islam is misunderstood by whom ?
> 
> There is not one Islam but several Islams depending on the interpretations of a number of verses.
> 
> Yes, the Islam of Bin Lâden and Zarqawi is "misunderstood" in the West, to say the least.
> 
> The peaceful Islam found in most of Europe is not misunderstood.
> 
> People who want to discuss on the "misunderstandings" of Islam should first think about why the Qur'an of divine origin can cause opposing interpretations. What or who is responsible of that ?


 
I couldn't agree more, Mansio. This is exactly what I think. People are used to generalize eveything, and that is why the world is like it is.


----------



## prasantb

Dear Ana Raquel,

I would still stick to my stance: I still consider the non-clasical interpretation of the Holy Text as _ba'ina_, _bida'at_, and even _kufr._

I do agree to your position that interpretations are used for an ultimate, destructive end, by those who _think_ they stand to profit from such an exercise.

Prasant.


----------



## cuchuflete

I wrote:  





> The majority of the Muslims who came were not Arabs, but Berbers.


To correct this: 


			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> In 8th century, more excatly, 711, when Arabs came to Iberic Peninsula







			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> But they were Muslims, weren't they? And here we are discussing about Muslims, not about Arabs.



Precisely!  That's exactly why I corrected it.

As we seem to agree now, shall we see if anyone is interested in addressing the thread topic, instead of the twenty-seven other digressions we have had here...

*
Is Islam being misunderstood?*
1. Most people who don't practice it know very little about it, so it's fair to assume that they misunderstand it.
2. Many people who think they practice it seem to misunderstand it, and take their interpretation from political and self-styled religious leaders who use Islam (and their own very distorted interpretations of it) as a pretext to
accomplish political goals.

As with any religion and its texts, there are interpreters who are any of (1) highly selective in choosing passages, often out of context, (2) quite determined to misuse religion for non-religious purposes, (3) happy to ignore the texts, and just appeal to emotions.   This is no more and no less true of Islam than it is of other religions.  

Practioners of the major sects of Islam accuse one another of misunderstanding, each claiming to have the 'correct' understanding.  This has obvious parallels with other religions.

Conclusion: all religions, including but not limited to Islam, are
commonly misunderstood. The misunderstandings are widespread among those who practice the religion, and by those who do not.


----------



## Ana Raquel

*prasantb wrote:*
I would still stick to my stance: I still consider the non-clasical interpretation of the Holy Text as _ba'ina_, _bida'at_, and even _kufr._

What's the classical interpretation, please?

*prasantb wrote:*
I do agree to your position that interpretations are used for an ultimate, destructive end, by those who _think_ they stand to profit from such an exercise.

My position? Did I say something about detructive end and profit? I think you confuse me with another user.


----------



## prasantb

Dear Ana Raquel,

I believe the classical explanation/interpretaion is contained in the _Sha'riah_ and the _Hadith_.

Prasant.


----------



## cuchuflete

Please help me understand, Prasant.  I've just spent an hour reading different explanations of Sha'riah by Muslim legal scholars, and they all say that distinct interpretations of Shar'riah are to be found in different countries, that local traditions and cultures influence such understandings.

This, of course, is no surprise.  It appears parallel to differing local interpretations of Roman law or any other legal system.


----------



## prasantb

Dear cuchuflete,

Interpretations of the _Sha'riah_ are bodies of works that may contain commentaries of an explicatory nature. The existence of the commentaries can never detract from the _Sha'riah_ that has ben originally handed down from the time it was written.

Who reinvents the _Sha'riah_ to suit what particular end(s) of a pejorative nature should not really affect the structural integrity of the orginal text. 

A comparison with the Roman Law is not entirely logical since legalities of the imperial Roman age were interpreted for the purpose of suiting local, traditional imperatives. 

Religion and religious texts, for that matter, could hadly be locally remodeled and not be distorted enough to be called, as I said, a deviation. 

Sometimes I am driven to think, while tinkering at the fringe of religious beliefs and cultural mores, that opinion has become sacred while facts are regarded as free, rather than, as they should be, the other way around.

Prasant.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply, Prasant.

I'm afraid I was not clear in my question.

Your wrote:


> I believe the classical explanation/interpretaion is contained in the _Sha'riah_ and the _Hadith_.



For me, this carries the _implication _that there is a single definition.  Thus I began to try to learn about one of the primary sources, Sha'riah.

I found, according to Muslim scholars, that, as you say, the basics, the essentials,  are not subject to variation. However, local interpretation, especially in regard to implementation, is quite variable.    As an example, the understanding of what the Quran and Sha'riah demand in terms of a woman's covering are quite different in different countries. Law and custom overlap or coexist, distinctly in different places.

As to your comment on my comment on Roman law...I was simply trying to point out that, quite logically, any body of law
is bound to evolve over time, and the evolution will vary with the locale.  This has happened with both Roman law, and apparently with Sha'riah.  I made no reference to the imperial Roman age.  Rather, I was talking about Roman law as it has evolved, and exists today.  I find it to be a good parallel to some of the geographic variability in interpretation and implementation of Sha'riah.  The essential values and legal structure remain constant; implementation varies around that central core.

Thus, Sha'riah means one thing in the northern Sudan, and something different in Morocco, and something still more distinct as applied in Canada or Malaysia.

I can understand why many Muslims might feel defensive, and write something like this...



> Who reinvents the _Sha'riah_ to suit what particular end(s) of a pejorative nature should not really affect the structural integrity of the orginal text.



Rest assured, that topic is quite apart from my posts.  I think all religions have been, are, and will be forever misused by some people.  That abuse doesn't degrade the religions themselves, but reflects on those who would usurp them for their own purposes.


----------



## Ana Raquel

prasantb said:
			
		

> Sometimes I am driven to think, while tinkering at the fringe of religious beliefs and cultural mores, that opinion has become sacred while facts are regarded as free, rather than, as they should be, the other way around.


Sure, I think the same! it should be the other way round.
Facts can be verified, while opinions are beliefs, probablity, assumption.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

maxiogee said:
			
		

> May I ask why it is necessary to spread the religion?
> In the Gospel of St Mark there is an instruction from Jesus:- "Go, and make disciples of all nations".
> Is there a similar injunction in the Quran?


 
Sorry for the belated response but I was just analyzing the logical reasons as to why such injunctions would be in the Quran(or for that matter in any Abrahamic religious book). Any practicing religious muslim will tell you that other religions have been changed and the people have been led astray from the correct path(like the golden bull worshippers in the story of Moses) and that theirs is the true religion which is why spreading the light of the true religion to the benighted sinners of the world is of the utmost importance..

As a secular and logical person I can tell you that it is inevitable that religions change but if something as sacred as religion must be adjusted to modern life with no consent(or sign of consent anyways) from God, wouldn't this be sinful and blasphemous? To hardcore muslims(not necessarily the terrorist types by any means) this would result in the fall of the last blessed people of god(in the Quran it is stated that Muhammad is the last prophet which means that there will be no other divine messengers to set us incorrigible humans right again..bottom line everyone ends up burning for an eternity in hell)..

EDIT: This "sinful" western culture that is permeating the world, although it may not have an effect on pious, conservative muslims, who would then presumably go to heaven, their children,grandchildren, friends(maybe), future generations are bound to be affected...


----------



## macta123

It's just my viewpoints (don't feel bad about it!!)

Hello friends,
I think the Quran says to bring about an idealistic world. The wordings ar very tough (Which may be a cause of understanding it in a flip side [in other way] ). No book says that you go and kill. Even Islam doesn't say so. It is just that when Prophet himselves was on the earth when Jews and Christians were fighting a hellish battle ( see like slavery, anti-humanistic acts etc.) It is based on the then condition that Quran had been made. It is very very disciplinary (from it toughest words). It appreciate punishment to anybody who deserves it.It doesn't tell anybody to do in any specific way but at the same time it gives consequences of what can happen if they don't follow the right path.

The sayings about harm is just ego of some of the followers which propagated as a wildfire. When there is a higher resistance to a change, these things happen. That is being seen in the modern day conflicts. It is just that the Islam world perhaps want to bring the idealistic way of living as mentioned to them in the holy books into action. 

The same book says to kill your ego. Jihad never means 'killing your enemy'. It just means 'changing them' (Bring about changes in them). Similar concepts are also seen in all other religious books. Change is inevitable. And nobody can run away from it.
Changing has been misunderstood by many as voilence. It isn't so.
God says those whp help Him bring goodness to the mankind will be benefited

It just lies in the way you look at it.


----------



## maxiogee

Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> Sorry for the belated response but I was just analyzing the logical reasons as to why such injunctions would be in the Quran(or for that matter in any Abrahamic religious book). Any practicing religious muslim will tell you that other religions have been changed and the people have been led astray from the correct path(like the golden bull worshippers in the story of Moses) and that theirs is the true religion which is why spreading the light of the true religion to the benighted sinners of the world is of the utmost importance..
> 
> As a secular and logical person I can tell you that it is inevitable that religions change but if something as sacred as religion must be adjusted to modern life with no consent(or sign of consent anyways) from God, wouldn't this be sinful and blasphemous? To hardcore muslims(not necessarily the terrorist types by any means) this would result in the fall of the last blessed people of god(in the Quran it is stated that Muhammad is the last prophet which means that there will be no other divine messengers to set us incorrigible humans right again..bottom line everyone ends up burning for an eternity in hell)..



This is the nub of my query - why not just pass the message down your own bloodline?
Why is it necessary for a religion which surfaces and flourishes in 'the Middle East' to spread out in all directions converting people from the beliefs they hold to what it now perceived as being 'the one true faith'?
These worshippers would still get their eternal reward if - for instance - Ireland, was left worshipping its old religion's Gods of nature and place.
Surely there is no gain to any Muslim if they were to come here and convert us, as Saint Patrick is reputed to have done - and as I said the Christian Gospel contains a direct injunction to convert people. (Whether that applied to all Christians or just to the twelve disciples, and by extension to their priestly successors, is a much argued point.)

So what I wish to know is will any Muslim who meets me, an agnostic, be chided at the gates of Heaven for not converting or killing me? Is my disbelief an affront to Islam?


----------



## mansio

Maxiogee

A Muslim is forbidden to attack or kill an unbeliever, except in response to an attack by an unbeliever.

The big issue that faces Muslims is what is an attack on Muslims. The answer to that question explains why there are peaceful Muslims alongside Iraqi insurgents or Algerian Islamic guerrillas.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

maxiogee, your lack of faith translates to being barred from the gates of heaven according to Islam but a muslim is, as mansio said, forbidden to kill an unbeliever. In fact committing homocide(or for that matter even suicide), except at times of war, is one of the gravest sins in Islam. Converting infidels and other such "poor unenlightened souls" brings great rewards in heaven but it is by no means obligatory. Your disbelief is not as much an affront as it is a _threat _because that very condition can "infect" others through influence(the west has a lot of influence as we all know)..

If one considers his religion to be the one true faith would that not mean that people of other faiths have had theirs turned askew and as a result will suffer eternal punishment? The natural inclination would be to convert them, thereby doing them a _favor _as well as racking up brownie points with the "big man in the sky". It is a purely altruistic endeavor from the point of the muslim.

Strength in numbers is particularly important for any religion to survive. When Islam was only a nascent religion there were relatively few muslims and spreading the final words of god to the rest of the world was key. Nowadays western influence has been bombarding the world and many religious muslims feel threatened by modernization and since the entire concept is based on western ideals they feel that it leaves little space for "conservative" muslim ones. Now, Islam must be guarded from the "satanic" influences of the atheist(let's face it religion plays only a minor role in the day to day activities of Americans) west. Passing the religion on down the bloodline does not necessarily mean it will go down unchanged. In 50-100 years the Islam practiced will be much less conservative than it is now which is what frightens the fundamentalists and with good reason if theirs is the true religion(the grandchildren and great grandchildren will be practicing a changed and unholy Islam).

Islam of course has changed and even varies vastly from country to country but it has never been faced collectively with so many demands to radically change as it now faces from the west.

Everything stated above is facing all of the religions of the world but if we analyze the five major religions we can see why Islam in particular is yeilding so painfully to change. The eastern religions: Hinduism and Buddhism are rather "simple" and pluralistic. They are very much tied to the earth and are particularly nonchalant about strict laws and divine punishment. They encourage enjoying existence on earth(Islam did the same but with emphasis on both the divine and the worldy in earlier classical centuries,producing many literary works, scientific achievements,etc, but now with the plight of poverty many people only have god to resort to) and quite frankly religion is not taken to be as _important._There is no vengeful god. The relationship is more like divinity/ies serving man instead of man serving divinity. 

Christianity and Judaism(which we can say developed alongside Christianity what with the expulsion of the Jews and the diaspora travelling from place to place in Europe) began with much the same edicts and principles as Islam but with the Reformation,Renaissance,Englightenment,etc. social changes occurred _gradually_ which allowed people to rely less on god/preoccupation with obtaining salvation, and enjoy life on earth. This watering down(I hope none of you religious folk take offence since this is essentially what has happened) of these religions has produced the modern day versions of Christianity and Judaism which "interpret" the Bible and the Torah in such a way as to justify current social mores and practices. If we were somehow transported back in time to the middle ages Christianity as it is practiced now would be seen as sacrilegious(If I've passed my limit please let me know calmly..I apologize in advance for my words if they happen to offend someone). 

All of these changes occurred gradually to Christianity/Judaism but since the middle east was outside the cultural milieu of Europe, it did not adapt the same "innovations". Now Islam is being pressured to change radically and quickly due to the vast disparities of the standards of living in our world and since this is coming as more of an _attack_ than in a gradual,natural way it is obviously not taken too kindly.

Fundamentalists do not want the bulk of the people practicing Islam to water it down as has happened to Christianity/Judaism simply for the fact that it would cease to be Islam, the true religion from hence forwards.

I'm slightly disconcerted by the fact that even on these forums Islam is seen as a violent religion that aims to convert the whole world.. It is as violent and as follower-seeking as any other religion in the world..


----------



## mansio

Jhorer Brishti

You say that committing suicide (which you call homocide) is one of the gravest sin in Islam. Then you add except at times of war. Does that mean that you condone suicide-bombers?
What I don't like about Islam is that it is presented as a peaceful religion as any other, but at the same time its teachings allow for the use of violence in case of aggression. As aggression is not clearly defined, any Muslim can decide that he is aggressed, by the West for example, and is allowed by the Quran to resort to violence.
History has shown that Christians (or so-called Christians) can be more violent than Muslims. But Muslims are allowed to resort to violence by God and Christians are not. That is the reason why Westerners will always associate Islam with violence.


----------



## maxiogee

Jhorer Bristhi,
Many thanks for your detailed response.
It will take some digesting. My immediate reaction is that if killing unbelievers is forbidden in Islam then Islam needs to convince the West that this is so. Many people in the west believe that many Muslims believe that such killings are justified, and sanctioned.

 mansio,
Re-read the piece Jhorer Bristhi wrote. What is said is _"homicide (or even for that matter suicide)"_. This clearly separates the two.
Did not the Christian hierarchies on all sides of the two World Wars bless the troops and their actions? Christianity developed the concept of "the just war" to invoke their God's blessings on these endeavours.


----------



## mansio

Maxiogee

Jhorer Bristhi wrote "homocide" which I mistook for suicide. Of course he meant homicide. Thank you for correcting me.

I insist on the content of the Quran as being much more violent than the New Testament.

I do not deny that Christians developed a concept of "just war" and that they resorted to violence. That is not what I am talking about.


----------



## maxiogee

Well if you have read the Quran then you know better than I.


----------



## mansio

Maxiogee

I am reading the Quran at the moment and classifying the verses by themes. I copy them in the original Arabic, which is my daily exercise in Arabic at the same time.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

mansio said:
			
		

> Maxiogee
> 
> Jhorer Bristhi wrote "homocide" which I mistook for suicide. Of course he meant homicide. Thank you for correcting me.
> 
> I insist on the content of the Quran as being much more violent than the New Testament.
> 
> I do not deny that Christians developed a concept of "just war" and that they resorted to violence. That is not what I am talking about.


 
Whoops. My mistake, I did mean homicide and not homocide which is a typo(the O key is right next to the I key). Sorry for any confusion caused.

mansio, Your response is quite interesting. Would you care to supply some core data that proves to you that the verses found in the Quran are egregiously more violent than those found in the Bible/New testament? I am awaiting with bated breath..

EDIT: maxiogee, I am glad that you appreciate my argument. You're very welcome.


----------



## mansio

Jhorer Brishti

There are very violent verses in the part of the Bible called the Old Testament which predates Jesus. The New Testament, which is the Christian part of the Bible, derives from the teachings of Jesus. I only chose that part of the Bible which is the most used by Christians.

To answer your question, I cannot find any verse that asks for violence towards adversaries in the New Testament, so I cannot compare with the Quran.


----------



## Outsider

mansio said:
			
		

> Jhorer Brishti
> 
> There are very violent verses in the part of the Bible called the Old Testament which predates Jesus. The New Testament, which is the Christian part of the Bible, derives from the teachings of Jesus. I only chose that part of the Bible which is the most used by Christians.


I don't think that's true. Conservative Christians, for example, are particularly fond of certain parts of the *Old* Testament, such as _Leviticus_.


----------



## Papalote

Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> Christianity and Judaism(which we can say developed alongside Christianity what with the expulsion of the Jews and the diaspora travelling from place to place in Europe) began with much the same edicts and principles as Islam but with the Reformation,Renaissance,Englightenment,etc. social changes occurred _gradually_ which allowed people to rely less on god/preoccupation with obtaining salvation, and enjoy life on earth. This watering down(I hope none of you religious folk take offence since this is essentially what has happened) of these religions has produced the modern day versions of Christianity and Judaism which "interpret" the Bible and the Torah in such a way as to justify current social mores and practices. If we were somehow transported back in time to the middle ages Christianity as it is practiced now would be seen as sacrilegious(If I've passed my limit please let me know calmly..I apologize in advance for my words if they happen to offend someone).
> 
> ..


 
Hi,

You seem to be confusing, in your text above regarding Christianity, the God-related aspects of Christianity to those which are man-related. In other words, that what has changed, for some of the Christian faiths, is rite and tradition, not the precepts of that faith. The actual teachings have not changed. Many baptized people have decided to follow their own conscience instead of a religion that seems either too shallow, too complicated, too boring, too demanding, or just not pertinent to who they are and what they want to be. That is their choice. And like in the Middle Ages, which you quote, they are still being excommunicated (I'm referring to the RC Church, whom you referred to above). The main difference from then and now is that society and church are separate, so modern people can still function within the society, no matter what their status within a church might be.  The core of Christianity has not been watered down, as you mentioned. Hope this clears things somewhat.

Regarding Islam and terrorism, you have confirmed what I have felt was happening regarding all that violence coming from muslim countries, and I quote you : *(Islam did the same but with emphasis on both the divine and the worldy in earlier classical centuries,producing many literary works, scientific achievements,etc, but now with the plight of poverty many people only have god to resort to)* . So, based on what has been previously written, and like in the Middle Ages, religious leaders are taking advantage of the ignorant poor to continue weilding power in their own society. That, in my renegade RC status, I find sinful.

I respect the fact that you are trying to convince the rest of us that Islam is a peaceful religion when a  lot of us have lost relatives and friends to the hatred being taught by Imams. You have a hard and long road ahead of you.

Respectfully,

Papalote


----------



## maxiogee

mansio said:
			
		

> There are very violent verses in the part of the Bible called the Old Testament which predates Jesus. The New Testament, which is the Christian part of the Bible, derives from the teachings of Jesus. I only chose that part of the Bible which is the most used by Christians.



At almost every ceremony in a Christian church which I have ever attended, the old and the new testaments have been read from.
What I believe is referred to as "The first reading" in Sunday services is (almost?) exclusively taken from the Old Testament.


----------



## Fernando

The first reading is taken from the Old Testament, while there is a reading from the Gospel and another one from the Epistles.

Most of Old Testament readings are from the Prophets, who (according to Christian interpretation) were announcing Jesus as the Messiah.

At least in Catholicism I would not say Old Testament is so important. And as far as I know, no important Christian church has proposed leviticus as the civil law.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

Papalote said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> You seem to be confusing, in your text above regarding Christianity, the God-related aspects of Christianity to those which are man-related. In other words, that what has changed, for some of the Christian faiths, is rite and tradition, not the precepts of that faith. The actual teachings have not changed. Many baptized people have decided to follow their own conscience instead of a religion that seems either too shallow, too complicated, too boring, too demanding, or just not pertinent to who they are and what they want to be. That is their choice. And like in the Middle Ages, which you quote, they are still being excommunicated (I'm referring to the RC Church, whom you referred to above). The main difference from then and now is that society and church are separate, so modern people can still function within the society, no matter what their status within a church might be. The core of Christianity has not been watered down, as you mentioned. Hope this clears things somewhat.
> 
> Regarding Islam and terrorism, you have confirmed what I have felt was happening regarding all that violence coming from muslim countries, and I quote you : *(Islam did the same but with emphasis on both the divine and the worldy in earlier classical centuries,producing many literary works, scientific achievements,etc, but now with the plight of poverty many people only have god to resort to)* . So, based on what has been previously written, and like in the Middle Ages, religious leaders are taking advantage of the ignorant poor to continue weilding power in their own society. That, in my renegade RC status, I find sinful.
> 
> I respect the fact that you are trying to convince the rest of us that Islam is a peaceful religion when a lot of us have lost relatives and friends to the hatred being taught by Imams. You have a hard and long road ahead of you.
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Papalote


 
Papalote, I may have forgotten to stress the fact that the people who are committing these atrocities are in the minority, as has been stated a thousand times over. I feel immensely for you and your lost loved ones but don't you think this might have clouded/hardened your viewpoint? I am not blaming you for anything at all and I respect your opinion as I do everyone's. It's perfectly normal to feel this way when something so devastating has affected your family but I urge you not to paint everyone with the same brush. If you actually haven't lost any loved ones disregard what I've written above excepting the "minority terrorist" and "painting everyone with the same brush" parts.

Since religious books can be interpreted differently(and this is according to western beliefs, something propounded quite often in America) one can use religion to justify anything and everything:Some people can write a five page paper on the symbolic meaning and multiple interpretations of the sentence "This table is ashen-colored and round". The fact that the New testament does not contain any seemingly violent injunctions does not correlate at all with what atrocities religious christians have committed in the name of God over the centuries. What about the Crusades, the _complete decimation_ of the Incas and Aztecs in South America, the Inquisition, colonization(and all its entailments) of the rest of the heathen world,etc. Frankly since most moral justifications for wars, imprisonment,torture, and in general impinging on the human rights of someone else derived from one's religious views(and probably still does derive for some people from the same source) everything can be traced back to someone believing that the given despicable act has somehow been sanctioned by God. People can be swayed by anything to commit horrendous acts against human rights, religion just happens to be one of the most common, not to mention expedient, justifications used.

Papalote, after stating "Many baptized people have decided to follow their own conscience instead of a religion that seems either too shallow, too complicated, too boring, too demanding, or just not pertinent to who they are and what they want to be." can you explain to me how the core of Christianity has not been changed? If you mean to say that people are still morally upright(after eliminating everything complicated,boring,demanding, and not pertinent to who they are as a person from their religion, this is probably all that's left) which is what the core value of Christianity is, most atheists are also morally upright. 

Is the amount of time devoted to prayers, God, Church attendance,etc. by Americans the same as the amount devoted in the Middle Ages? Many eastern Orthodox Christians in the Byzantine Empire were iconoclasts who believed that the depiction of Jesus was heretical and among the Amish today photographs are shunned and dolls do not have any faces. Orthodox muslims are the same(which explains why there are so many arabesques that do not form a physical figure). Women's rights would take a nosedive if we were to go back to the Middle Ages and this would be sanctioned by the Bible. Wearing red or chattering too loud/enjoying oneself too much would be considered sinful and irreverent..


----------



## Musique

The following text is available at numerous web sites:  " Islam is frequently misunderstood and may even seem exotic in some parts of today's world. Perhaps this ................

"The West, whether Christian or dechristianised, has never really known Islam. Ever since they watched it appear on the world stage, Christians never ceased to insult and slander it in order to find justification for waging war on it.  Even today there are many Westerners for whom Islam can be reduced to three ideas: fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy. Moderator note: quoted text *deleted* to bring post into legal compliance with both national laws, and Word Reference rules.
A link to the origin site is acceptable.  
 


Regards,
Musique


----------



## Brioche

Musique said:
			
		

> Islam is frequently misunderstood and may even seem exotic in some parts of today's world. Perhaps this
> 
> "The West, whether Christian or dechristianised, has never really known Islam. Ever since they watched it appear on the world stage, Christians never ceased to insult and slander it in order to find justification for waging war on it. It has been subjected to grotesque distortions the traces of which still endure in the European mind. Even today there are many Westerners for whom Islam can be reduced to three ideas: fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy. Moderator note: quoted text *deleted* to bring post into legal compliance with both national laws, and Word Reference rules.
> A link to the origin site is acceptable.
> 
> Roger is right in so many ways! People do think that Allah is another god when it is actually God, the creator of Heaven and Earth! If only everyone knew that Islam means submission to God! Roger has pointed out the very important points on 'Why Islam is Misunderstood."
> Regards,
> Musique


You could say, with equal truth, _that ever since *Islam *appeared on the world stage, *Muslims *have never ceased to insult and slander *Jews and Christians* in order to find justification for waging war on them. _

_*Christians* have been subjected to grotesque distortions, the traces of which still endure in the *Muslim* mind._


----------



## annettehola

Alright, Brioche, but don't go into the black versus white game here. Christianity started in Rome, and the first Christians were ill-seen in Rome. They were persecuted by the emperor's soldiers because they would not pay tribute to an earthly emperor. They lived miserable lives in caves and were the aim for slander and punishment. When the Christians were actually recognised by the Roman empire, they were outlaws in society. But the Romans needed the support of the Christians as public pressure against the Roman empire's suppression grew. So they Christians were recognised as a religion in Rome. A long story made too short: The two went into an alliance and the Christians took over many of the habits and social conventions the Romans had created; such as fx. their view on private property. History in both this part of the world and all the way North through Europe (as we know it today) was determined by the Christian ideals. The Christian idea of one world power, one divine empire, one truth went very well hand in hand with the kings and the emperors, in short, those in power, and the Franks adopted the idea (especially known is Clodevech ca. 466-511 a.C) And it was via the Christian priesthoods and their adaption of the religion and false - and this is a historical fact - papal letters and other writings that there grew moral and legal views that were supposed to direct men and women in their ways, and which also came to direct the development and monopoly of knowledge in the Western world. It was in 525 a.their C. that the Christians invented the calendar that is in use in the West today. The annual calendar was changed and now goes from January till 31. Dec. But in North Europe, fx, the year was from March to March, which can also be seen from November that means 9 and December that means 10. The purpose for the Christians was to emphasise the RIGHT of the Christian kings to succession of the throne, the RIGHT of the Church to collect tax, the RIGHT of the rich to villeinage.
This is to say to you, that my opinion on all religious impulses that call themselves"World-religions" are unjustified and always, always go hand in hand with established power. Organised religions are always bloody. If not, they would not be so big and wealthy. The Vatican, fx. is clearly a mafia. I denounce all that kill people and if not tell them what to think.
Christianity suffers from this. So does Islam. 

Annette's opinion.


----------



## Brioche

annettehola said:
			
		

> It was in 525 a.their C. that the Christians invented the calendar that is in use in the West today. The annual calendar was changed and now goes from January till 31. Dec. But in North Europe, fx, the year was from March to March, which can also be seen from November that means 9 and December that means 10.
> Annette's opinion.


 
Sorry, but you don't know much about the calendar.

The Ancient Roman calendar had March as the first month.  When Julius Caesar reformed the Roman Calendar in 45 BC, he decreed that the year should start on 1 January. 

The Christians of Europe continued using the Julian Calendar (with a slight alteration by the Emperor Augustus). 

However, in various countries and at various times Christians celebrated New Year's Day on 1 January, 1 March, 25 March, Good Friday or Easter Sunday. For hundreds of years Russian New Year was 1 September.

England, and the American colonies, celebrated New Year's Day on 25 March. They changed to 1 January in 1752. Scotland changed to 1 January in 1600.

The Republic of Venice kept 1 March (like the old Romans) as New Year's Day until 1797.

The calendar in use in the West to-day, the Gregorian, was instituted by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. It is the same as the Julian Calendar, except that century years are  leap years only when divisible by 400.


----------



## annettehola

Sorry, I do, actually. I think you should learn how to read a text. I was talking about Northern Europe. The North of Europe. It is stated clearly in what I wrote.

Annette


----------



## cuchuflete

Well, the ineluctable conclusion is that Islam is being understood and misunderstood because a Dane and an Australian can't come to an agreement about calendars.  

I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread has yet to give proper attention to the role of squirrels and oatmeal in understanding religion.  We seem to have dragged everything else possible into the discussion.

Here's a thought to chew on--  I believe that Islam is misunderstood by millions of Muslims,  hence some of the atrocious action taken in the name of Islam.  (Yes, all you fine politically kerrect folks....of course the same may be said, with equally strong proof cases, of other religions. But that, and the growth rate of hummingbirds, are not the topic of this thread.)

Why should we even bother asking this question?  Islam, misunderstood by so many who supposedly follow its teachings--which do not include mass murder of civilians in Madrid, Indonesia, London, New York--is bound to be misunderstood by those who do not grow up with it, study it, or practice it.


----------



## annettehola

"Here's a thought to chew on-- I believe that Islam is misunderstood by millions of Muslims, hence some of the atrocious action taken in the name of Islam."

I believe so, too.

And I believe that there is corruption going on in religions that are extremely powerful. Both from within and from without. Islam should - like Christianity and all the other ones (topics of other threads) - have a day or two of house cleaning. There are loads of corrupted Imams on posts where they should not be. Powerful and idiotic and totally outside the frame of what Islam teaches. 

The question is not only whether Islam is being misunderstood. It is just as well this: Who misunderstands Islam? Why? What are their motives?

Annette

PS: Enjoy the rest of your Sunday as I do mine.


----------



## maxiogee

Christianity, I was led to believe, started on the original Pentecost Sunday in Jeursalem.
Rome was much later.


----------



## Juri

I'm just back from a trip to Libya and Egipt.Reading this long and hot thread, I prize apart the clear post N.19 of JOSH.
I would add that "differentes" has been ever misunderstood. The "barbarians"did not speak "our" language.The slavic peoples f.x. say to the Germans "nemtzi"= dumbs.
The original sin for today's world's clashes are mainly not the different religions, but the contention between Israelians and Palestinians.This is enough clear to Europeans.The successfull lobbying of powerful USA-Jews influenced heavily the foreign policy of the States and of the friend-states too.All is made worse by the more decades lasting desperation of Palestinians, who are oppressed and in a dead end.Non scrupulous authoritarian extremists exploits the religion(as Jap's made in 1945 with Kamikaze) to arm insane terrorism.Other Muslims brotherhood can't be of course unmowed.So the whole word is today conflictual.Add the miserable conditions of the Third World, and one can conclude that the problems are first political, economical, and cultural. Religion is a secundary pretext, and (to simplify)Al Qaida did sure not emerge because of the stupid cartoons.


----------



## hedonist

macta123 said:
			
		

> Hello friends,
> Islam is a very good religion. Though I am not a Muslim. Is it because the religious book is little difficult to be understood, is it the reason that some tend to be radical? I really think it may be because of the radicalism that the world misunderstands Islam? What is your thought on it?





> is it the reason that some tend to be radical?


 
Good? Really that's such a subjective statement that it depends largely on the individual's value system and whether he/she regards the Koran as some sort of authority and guide on how to live life. "Some" tend to be radical you say? I can't say that I agree with that statement either. To me it appears that the majority (and not a small minority like extreme left-wing apologists want us to believe) of muslims feel pefectly fine in justifying any atrocity (no matter how horrific and cowardly like the blowing up of innocent children and civilians) as long as it's advancing and sympathetic to their cause. Muslims ("radicals" and "moderates" alike. It's often hard to differentiate between the two) are always eager to point the finger at those they believe are "oppressing" them but they're incapable and/or not prepared to do the same and honestly analyze themselves and their own actions. It is always someone else's fault that they acted violently and therefore not fully and wholly responsible, if at all, for their own actions. This may work in fooling some gullible and naive souls but it definitely doesn't wash with me.


----------



## hedonist

grumpus said:
			
		

> Hi Macta123,
> 
> I don't have a very positive view of religion in general, I think they all are "bad" and harmful as Bertrand Russell once said. I don' t think Islam is particularly radical. The views of the evangelical Christians where I live are every bit just as "radical" as those of Islam. It is just the West has more more power, so they/we can determine what is radical, what is not, what is good, what is bad etc.
> 
> The radicalism that you see in Islam parallels that which you see in Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism and I think it has a lot to do with the desperate
> economic situation the vast majority of the planet finds itself in. When (if) there is greater stability/ security in people's daily life, you will see a decrease in religious radicalism. I don't personally see this happening in the near future, but I'm not going to lose hope.
> 
> cheers,
> Grumpus





> I don' t think Islam is particularly radical.


 





> The views of the evangelical Christians where I live are every bit just as "radical" as those of Islam.



The minute Western nations (and the Christian theocracies that govern them LOL!) begin executing Muslim followers or anyone that has converted to Islam I'll instantly and gladly agree. For now this comment is outrageous and so out of touch with reality. 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2095263_1,00.html



> He (a former Muslim but now a Christian convert) now languishes in Kabul central prison and will, if convicted of an “attack on Islam”, face the death penalty under Afghanistan’s new constitution





> It is just the West has more more power, so they/we can determine what is radical, what is not, what is good, what is bad etc.


More excuses.  So what's new?



> I think it has a lot to do with the desperate
> economic situation the vast majority of the planet finds itself in.



The major difference being that poor desperate Hindus, Buddhists, Christians in Asia, Africa and Latin American aren't in the habit blowing up things, including people. So comparing those religions to Islam is a tad unfair.


----------



## hedonist

Outsider said:
			
		

> I can't remember any Muslims who blew up a bus of innocent people in the name of their beliefs, either...


Ever heard of the 70 virgins awaiting Muslim martyrs in the Muslim afterlife? Anyway whatever the reason may be, religious or non-religious, nothing justifies killing innocent children and people in buses and public places.  To do so smacks of callousness and insanity.


----------



## maxiogee

hedonist said:
			
		

> _Really that's such a subjective statement that it depends largely on the individual's value system_






			
				hedonist said:
			
		

> Anyway whatever the reason may be, religious or non-religious, nothing justifies killing innocent children and people in buses and public places.



Now who's making loaded statements containing value judgements?
Surely you mean that _*as you see things, nothing justifies those actions*_?




			
				hedonist said:
			
		

> To do so smacks of callousness and insanity.



Same question - and this time *'callousness and insanity' *need to be defined to an universally acceptable standard.


----------



## zebedee

hedonist said:
			
		

> "Some" tend to be radical you say? I can't say that I agree with that statement either. To me it appears that the majority (and not a small minority like extreme left-wing apologists want us to believe) of muslims feel pefectly fine in justifying any atrocity (no matter how horrific and cowardly like the blowing up of innocent children and civilians) as long as it's advancing and sympathetic to their cause. Muslims ("radicals" and "moderates" alike. It's often hard to differentiate between the two)...



I understand your anger at people not accepting responsibility for their actions. This washes true for any civilian of any society and any religion, not just Muslims.

What I can't understand is where you get the above ideas from. 

I'd like you to do an informal survey among your Muslim friends and acquaintances to ask just how many of them, as you say, "feel pefectly fine in justifying any atrocity (no matter how horrific and cowardly like the blowing up of innocent children and civilians) as long as it's advancing and sympathetic to their cause". 

Or maybe you don't have any Muslim friends or acquaintances and that in itself would explain where you get your sweeping generalised biased comments from. Please enlighten me.


----------



## Outsider

hedonist said:
			
		

> Ever heard of the 70 virgins awaiting Muslim martyrs in the Muslim afterlife?


Who said terrorists are martyrs?



			
				hedonist said:
			
		

> Anyway whatever the reason may be, religious or non-religious, nothing justifies killing innocent children and people in buses and public places.  To do so smacks of callousness and insanity.


I agree that nothing justifies killing innocent children and people. The difference between the two of us may be that, to me, it makes no difference whatsoever whether those people are killed in buses or elsewhere, in public places or in dungeons, and it makes no difference to me the religion of who does the killing.


----------



## BasedowLives

has anybody brought this up yet?  Again, another reason why westerners perceive it this way.



> Afghan Christian convert could face death
> March 19 2006 at 05:33PM
> Kabul - An Afghan man detained for converting to Christianity could face the death penalty if he refuses to become Muslim again, police and a judge said on Sunday.
> 
> Abdul Rahman was detained two weeks ago after his relatives reported to the police about his conversion which is forbidden under Islamic Sharia law.
> 
> "Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada said, adding that his trial began early last week.
> 
> He said the man could face the death penalty if he refused to revert to Islam as Sharia law proposes capital punishment for any Muslim who converts to another religion.


http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw1142776621938B212


----------



## Outsider

The funny thing is that, at this moment, Afghanistan is supposedly under the control of the enlightened Christian West.


----------



## BasedowLives

Outsider said:
			
		

> The funny thing is that, at this moment, Afghanistan is supposedly under the control of the enlightened Christian West.


If they are under control by christians then why do they have Sharia Law?  Doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Outsider

Good question. It will be interesting to see how this affair turns out.


----------



## oxazol

*For me,* the Islam is misunderstood, as a *big lie*, as all the *other religions*, creates a lot of doubts everywhere. ( I always wonder: If there is a God, why we don't see the same everywhere. If there is a God , why He allows to us to fight in His name?. If there is a God, how can He allow this misunderstandings, with His suposed powers? 
For me, it's the most cruel being anybody that allows this things without doing anything, as the suposed God, Ala, Yahve or whatever...
Have you realized that maybe half of the conflicts in the world are caused by the religions?
The future of the humanity is no-religion. The other reason it's also intrinsic to human being: our thirst of power


----------



## maxiogee

oxazol said:
			
		

> I always wonder: If there is a God,
> why we don't see ....
> why He allows ....
> how can He allow ....



As someone who is most unsure of the presence of any God, and who holds that all religions are manmade and therefore propagandist, fallible and suspect, I would answer you by saying 

If there is a God, it must not be assessed on human traits, God acts for reasons known to God (and I'm not convinced that God 'acts' in human affairs in any way) and would be as unknowable to us as why we act the way we do would be unknowable to a spider.


----------



## Fernando

oxazol said:
			
		

> Have you realized that maybe half of the conflicts in the world are caused by the religions?


 I am going to tell you the wars in the 20th century. Please, say "Stop" when you find one caused by religions:

- Balkan wars
- First WW
- Russian revolution
- Armenian killings
- Japan invasion of China
- Second WW
- Korea War
- Vietnam War
- Guerrillas in S America
- Ruanda and Burundi genocides
- Iran-Irak war


----------



## TrentinaNE

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Christianity, I was led to believe, started on the original Pentecost Sunday in Jeursalem.
> Rome was much later.


Sorry if this is getting OT, but there is an historical view that Christ's intention was to reform Judaism, not to found a new religion, and that Christianity began sometime after his death.

Elizabeth


----------



## mansio

Fernando

I see two wars that have a relation with religion in your list: Balkan and Armenia.


----------



## maxiogee

TrentinaNE said:
			
		

> Sorry if this is getting OT, but there is an historical view that Christ's intention was to reform Judaism, not to found a new religion, and that Christianity began sometime after his death.
> 
> Elizabeth



I cannot speak to Christ's intentions vis-a-vis a religion. However he did speak of "the Temple" being destroyed and being 'rebuilt" which caould be read either way, if it was a metaphor - and I'm sure it was.

If God's intention was not to found a new religion, why then did the Apostles begin, on Pentecost Sunday to speak in languages that they did not formerly know, to a crowd which was able to understand them. If that crowd had been purely Jewish, then the apostles wouldn't have needed the gift of 'tongues' from the Holy Spirit.
Also, if we accept the Gospels as accurate, then Jesus instructed his disciples to "go, teach all nations".

(I say "if we accept the Gospels as accurate" because there is the possibility that certain words could have been put into Jesus's mouth by the evangelists, as the were writing some considerable time after the events they describe, and had no-one to gainsay them if they put decided to have Jesus 'endorse' certain policies.)


----------



## hedonist

zebedee said:
			
		

> I understand your anger at people not accepting responsibility for their actions. This washes true for any civilian of any society and any religion, not just Muslims.
> 
> What I can't understand is where you get the above ideas from.
> 
> I'd like you to do an informal survey among your Muslim friends and acquaintances to ask just how many of them, as you say, "feel pefectly fine in justifying any atrocity (no matter how horrific and cowardly like the blowing up of innocent children and civilians) as long as it's advancing and sympathetic to their cause".
> 
> Or maybe you don't have any Muslim friends or acquaintances and that in itself would explain where you get your sweeping generalised biased comments from. Please enlighten me.





> Or maybe you don't have any Muslim friends or acquaintances and that in itself would explain where you get your sweeping generalised biased comments from. Please enlighten me



I live around a lot of Muslims (and yes most consider themselves "moderate") and they have made their sentiments, in private not public, resoundingly clear to me. Their loyalty lies with Islam. Islam comes first and evething else is a distant second. Whether Islam is right or wrong on a issue is not up for debate, their followers will unequivocally and blindly support Islam regardless. That's what bothers me the most. I stand by the belief that Islam is incompatible with the progressive liberal values of the West. Islam is in serious and urgent need of reformation (similar to what Christianity has gone through) and until that happens I won't feel comfortable in trusting people that adhere to that religion, they're simply to volatile and irrational when it comes to abiding by common Western standards that are in direct opposition to Islamic values.


----------



## hedonist

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Now who's making loaded statements containing value judgements?
> Surely you mean that _*as you see things, nothing justifies those actions*_?




But of course. Under no circumstances is the murder of innocent children and women acceptable, to any civilized human being that is. Two wrongs don't make a right.






> Same question - and this time *'callousness and insanity' *need to be defined to an universally acceptable standard.


Inflicting pain on innocent by-standers is in my book definitely callous and insane vindictive behaviour.


----------



## hedonist

Outsider said:
			
		

> Who said terrorists are martyrs?



Muslims themselves.  They're perceived as fighting for a "just" cause although they may not say that out loud. 



> and it makes no difference to me the religion of who does the killing.



Therein lies the motivation for their actions. Religion is what drives them, what gives them courage to do what they do because they vehemently believe that they're in the right, "god" is on their side.


----------



## ireney

mansio said:
			
		

> Fernando
> 
> I see two wars that have a relation with religion in your list: Balkan and Armenia.


 
errr no, not really, no. In fact they had nothing to do with religion unless you count using the difference in religion to whip up some extra battle frenzy to the troops if that was indeed used (I am pretty sure it was since it is thought that war is one of the only two situations where all is fair). Don't forget (just thought I'd mention it) that immediately after the first Bakan War we had the Second one.

I'd be happy to elaborate but I think it will be an off topic discussion

I am sorry for not going into the topic's main issue, but I am one of the "define this, define that" kind of people before I even begin talking about  it in such cases, so I think I will not help the discussion much


----------



## mansio

I think the Armenian genocide had much to do with religion. The Kurds were also non-Turks living next to the Armenians, but they were Muslims.
As of the Balkan war religion was not the most important feature (I said "A" relation, which is rather vague) but I heard that a great number of Muslims were slaughtered, and the first buildings that were destroyed after a town was taken were the mosques and the churches of the opposing faith.


----------

