Religion of Peace At It Again

Your sentiments, probably shared by most Muslims, is why this current problem with Islamic fundamentalist will be with us for a long time. Muslims dont even recognize that there is a problem with Islamic fundamentalism.

The problem is with political Islam and the rise of the Islamists. They are much more powerful, much more extreme version of the Christian Conservatives in America, or the Catholic Church in the Latin world. Islamists want one thing, Islamists governments. I don't care if you are communist or capitalist, who wouldn't be opposed to that?
 
Werbung:
OPGhostdog;17728Here is a suggestion for you non-muslims who seem to think that they know about Islam or suppose to know how we think that's the current problem why the problem will be around a long time. Its not how we think said:
:) Ok. Well, things are being settled all across the world. We'll see who writes the history books.
 
The problem is with political Islam and the rise of the Islamists. They are much more powerful, much more extreme version of the Christian Conservatives in America, or the Catholic Church in the Latin world. Islamists want one thing, Islamists governments. I don't care if you are communist or capitalist, who wouldn't be opposed to that?

Unfortunately, politics is a fundamental part of Islam.
 
Like I said Einstein, context is always important. And its not just a search engine. You simply click on "Browse the Koran" and it takes you to
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
that takes you to an index of all 114 chapters. I quoted from the Immunity, click on that chapter and you can read it all, for all the context you want.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392
You seem to think I should pick out the context that shows the verses quoted have a different meaning than that which is implied by the ordinary meaning of the words. I cant, its not there. Remember, you guys are the ones who claimed the verses were out of context. AND STILL, no one has simply provided this context. REVEALING! If the intent is to advance the debate, provide the context.
This usual 'nuh huh, it is not' without anything more is getting old.


What part of "there's a difference between reading and understanding" do you fail to understand?
 
What part of "there's a difference between reading and understanding" do you fail to understand?

My understanding is pretty much irrelevant. Im not a Muslim. Thats why Ive provided the understandings from Ibn Khaldoon from the 13th century, Hasan Al Banna from the 1920s, Sayyid Qutb from the 50s and Abu Saif from Britain 3weeks ago.
Did you have a point, or just the need to respond?
 
My understanding is pretty much irrelevant. Im not a Muslim. Thats why Ive provided the understandings from Ibn Khaldoon from the 13th century, Hasan Al Banna from the 1920s, Sayyid Qutb from the 50s and Abu Saif from Britain 3weeks ago.
Did you have a point, or just the need to respond?

You emphasize the importance of context (not just the surrounding words of a quote, but the meaning assigned by scholars) when you attempt to apologize for passages promoting violence in the Bible.

You apply a different standard to Islam. Islam is not a unified faith, and has no single large leaders like the Pope, or the various Christian Conferences, who can speak for Islam as whole.

If we are going to play the cherry picking game, here are some other "understandings" with context.

Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulema [Religious Scholars] Shaikh Abdulaziz Al-Ashaikh issued a statement today condemning the terrorist acts that have taken place in the United States, saying categorically: "Such acts run counter to the teachings of Islam.'' He went on to state: "God Almighty has decreed that people adhere to the principle of justice because heaven and earth are based on justice, and He sent his messengers to advocate for justice, and the Holy Qur'an underscores the importance of following the path of justice in this world. And it is clear that to hold someone responsible for a crime committed by another, is not just." He added: "Enmity and hatred do not justify aggression or injustice."


Shaikh Al-Ashaikh listed four facts that every person, every country and every nation must be made aware of, whether Muslim or non-Muslim:
"Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts.

"Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth.

"Thirdly: it is the duty of the Muslim ulema (religious scholars) to make facts clear in this respect, and to clarify that Islam never accepts such acts.
"Fourthly: the media which try to defame Islam and Muslims in order to rally against them the feelings of various nations, should immediately stop this unacceptable and unjustifiable practice, since all reasonable and just people know that such biased accusations have nothing to do with Islam."​


"Do not be people without minds of your own,
saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well,
and that if they do wrong you will do wrong.
Rather, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good,
and not to do wrong if they do evil."

- The Prophet Muhammad


One modern Muslim scholar's view on Jihad: http://islam.about.com/od/jihad/f/jihad.htm

Mawlānā Jalāl-ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhi (Rūmī) - 1207 to 1273
an Islamic scholar of the Sufi tradition who's life provide true testimony and proof that people of all religions and backgrounds can live together in peace and harmony.

Love’s nationality is separate from all other religions,
The lover’s religion and nationality is the Beloved (God).
The lover’s cause is separate from all other causes
Love is the astrolabe of God’s mysteries.​
 
You emphasize the importance of context (not just the surrounding words of a quote, but the meaning assigned by scholars) when you attempt to apologize for passages promoting violence in the Bible.

AAAAhh! I see, Its not the context from the Koran that is needed but instead the context of what was said about it 1400 years later. Whatever. Kind of demonsrates my point about Islamic doctrine. And I provided the context from the bible to correct a purposeful misrepresentation.

Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." -Jesus Christ

If you look in the bible youll see that Jesus didnt sign his name to the passage with "Jesus Christ". That was added to imply that the "me" of "slay before me" refered to Jesus when in fact it refers to an imaginary King in a parable.
 
Almost every major religion in the world today has been hijacked by extremists and used to justify violence, war, murder and other religiously sanctioned horrors. History shows the truth of this.

I do not condemn Christianity any more then any other religion - I just refuse to allow it's particular horrors to go ignored.

Open up your newspaper and tell me which one is doing it every day, day in and day out all over the world.
 
Almost every major religion in the world today has been hijacked by extremists and used to justify violence, war, murder and other religiously sanctioned horrors. History shows the truth of this.

I do not condemn Christianity any more then any other religion - I just refuse to allow it's particular horrors to go ignored.


From this statement we can see that you understand that the right people to blame are the extremists and not the religions themselves. Furthermore you say that you do not condemn Christianity more than any other religion. Yet looking over this thread it is apparent that you do defend Islam to a degree and attack Christianity to a degree.

A more logical approach to your statment that the extremists are to blame is to attack the extremists and defend the religious.
 
Werbung:
From this statement we can see that you understand that the right people to blame are the extremists and not the religions themselves. Furthermore you say that you do not condemn Christianity more than any other religion. Yet looking over this thread it is apparent that you do defend Islam to a degree and attack Christianity to a degree.

A more logical approach to your statment that the extremists are to blame is to attack the extremists and defend the religious.

The point I have been attempting to make is this:

All religions can be perverted by extremists.

Do you think I condemn Christianity more then Islam?

Consider the following:

Nowhere have I posted ANYTHING supporting, apologizing for, or tolerating Islamic extremism.

I have however, noted a number of apologists for Christianity who apply a completely different and hypocritical standard when it comes Islam.

Therefore, in the context of this particular thread - I am and WILL defend Islam as a faith because it is Islam as a FAITH that is under attack.

Should Christianity as a FAITH come under attack in the same manner,I would (hand have in other boards) defend it but not defend it's extremists.
 
Back
Top