|
Religion Of Peace?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
Investor's Business Daily asking the questions that need to be asked.
Where's CAIR's "redoubling of their efforts" and "educational" answers? Anyone? Beuler?
Everyone knows they're toted as a, "Religion of Peace" so why can't anyone get any straight answers?
CAIR ignores the questions handed them in one hand and tries to distract us by throwing up the other with cries of, "Islamophobia!!" hoping we'd what? Forget the original questions??
People are asking because they want to know. Yet this asking for enlightenment is being shot down, point blank, without recognizing the fact that this is their time, the stage is theirs and they're ignoring it with incessant whining of xenophobia.
They're certainly not helping their cause...
| quote: |
Religion Of Peace?
Posted 3/27/2006
War On Terror: In the wake of the cartoon jihad and mosque-on-mosque violence in Iraq, most Americans now think Islam has more violent believers than any other faith. Yet many still view it as a "peaceful religion."
Psychologists might call this cognitive dissonance — a state of mind where rational people essentially lie to themselves. But in this case, it's understandable. In our politically correct culture, criticizing any religion, even one that plots our destruction, is still taboo. And no one wants to suggest the terrorists are driven by their holy text.
Which explains a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that Americans are becoming more aware of the broader threat (58% associate terrorists with Islam), but are still convinced terrorists are radicalizing Islam and not the other way around (54% don't think Islam itself encourages violence).
The new poll, however, still doesn't sit well with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group dedicated to improving public perceptions of Islam. It has denounced increasingly negative views as "Islamophobic" and vowed to redouble its "education" efforts.
Good. What better time for CAIR and other Muslim leaders to step up, cut through the politically correct fog and provide factual answers to the questions that give so many non-Muslims pause?
Generally speaking, those questions focus on whether the Quran does indeed promote violence against non-Muslims, and how many of the terrorists' ideas — about the violent jihad, the self-immolation, the kidnappings, even the beheadings — come right out of the text? But even more specifically:
Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?
Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?
Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?
Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?
And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?
Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?
Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?
Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?
There are other questions, but these should do for a start. If the answers are "yes," then at least Americans will know there's no such thing as moderate Islam, even as they trust that there are moderate Muslims who do not act out on its violent commands.
|
>Source< |
|
|
| digitul punk |
Time to chime in :D
Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?
Don't know about that.. But I'm guessing fighting for one's rights is in every religion. That doesn't however mean that you kill anyone in sight.
Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?
True.. but like I've always said this is based on a scenario.. the scenario being here that there is a battlefield and there are two armies facing each other... meaning a full fledged war. Only then are you supposed to fight and even then it has to be for your religion and your right to live. "Instill terror" - fight fiercly and give it all you have. One thing I'd like to point out is that there is no claim of an unbeliever being someone that rejects your religion. That unbeliever could be anybody.. someone that doesn't believe in your opinions and your way of living and wants to wage a war on you because of that. Kinda like Al-Qaeda not approving the western way of living. So in that case Al-Qaeda is going to be the unbeliever here.
Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?
Nope.. there's countless mentions in the Quran where it says that your piety is the measure of being close to God. That being said.. God does expect you to defend your country when needed. Again the scenario here is a battlefield and two armies facing each other. Old School.
Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?
Yes.. again read above for the situation. Again the Quran cannot be taken word to word because it's all about backstories related to religious scriptures. Also for those who don't know the Quran was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) at different times and different places. That alone should be proof enough for that. Anyone who takes the Quran word to word and ignores the rest of the religious backstories is obviously gonna turn out to be an extremist and a radical.
And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?
True.. now a martyr would be someone who died in a battlefield fighting for his right and defending his country. And suicide is prohibited and is not justified in ANY sense of the word.
Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?
True. Women can even goto the extent of being medics in a war provided they are willing to do it. Again.. all of this would make sense if you looked at it from the perspective of a war being waged in a battlefield. The cause of Allah here being justice to yourself, the protection of your country and your right to live.
Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?
No. On the contrary.. If you take a look at Muhammad's (pbuh) you'll find that he never waged a war in the name of Islam.. sure there was wars but all of them were due to the fact that people hated him for being so prosperous hence most of the wars he fought was for his own and his people's safety. Also during his time the way he spread Islam was by sending formal invites to people and kings.. and to meet them and to preach to them. It's only after his death everything went wrong. Only after his death.. the concept of sects came into play. Islam is not spread by force.. and if someone claims to be a Muslim by force then well they are not exactly Muslim. Preaching is the only way Islam is spread not through guns, swords and killings.
Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?
No. If there's anything Muslims are supposed to hate on then that is Ignorance. As far as the Golden Rule go try researching Muhammad's (PBUH) teachings and sayings. He was the epitome of kindness and character. So yes Islam does teach golden rule.
There are other questions, but these should do for a start. If the answers are "yes," then at least Americans will know there's no such thing as moderate Islam, even as they trust that there are moderate Muslims who do not act out on its violent commands.
There is moderate islam and you'll find it all over the world, matter of fact there is no such thing as fanatic Islam so Islam is all about peace of begin with.. these so called "MUSLIMS" disregard the lifestyle and the teachings that the Prophet (PBUH) brought onto them.. that kinda pushes them away from Islam to begin with (to the extent of being a non-muslim). I ing hate it how these bastards are expoiling my religion to its very core. I hope someone cracks down on these pussies and s them up for good. If anything Jihad should be waged on these s not the other way around. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
they are all very good answers digital punk, unfortunately they are completely undermined by the fact that it is merely your interpretation. under someone elses interpretation the koran could mean something entirely different, thus islam as a religion could be made to mean/do anything.
one of the fundamental problems with all religions is a believer\'s tendency to favour archaic text(s) over modern rationality when making decisions. people that must go to the good book for clues on how to live their life arent very bright imo.
thus if you can (mis)interpret the peaceful message of islam it can become a religion of hate and terrorism in some people\'s hands, when ancient teachings better left to antiquity become main components of modern thought, behaviour and spiritual identity.
i mean, really. when doing research on a topic would you choose the latest textbooks, or one that was several thousand years old? ;) as the (untouchable) book doesnt change, neither do its most loyal adherents. religion ruins social evolution.
death to all religions imo. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| Wafa Sultan said it best, it's the muslims who are throwing people into groups such as believers and non-believers. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Whatever the case may be, I do appreciate DP's reply.
Not to take away anything from DP's reply but every person has their own interpetations of their own religion. However it's CAIR that everyone is waiting for since they are 'the voice' of the Islamic people of America.
I just hope for everyones' sake that the answers are put into a present day context and not some, 'Well that's the way it's been since forever' type answers.
People change, societies change, countries change...religion also needs to change. Not so much that they give up the pillars that hold it up, but at least stay relevant to the people that it embraces. |
|
|
| digitul punk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Whatever the case may be, I do appreciate DP's reply.
Not to take away anything from DP's reply but every person has their own interpetations of their own religion. However it's CAIR that everyone is waiting for since they are 'the voice' of the Islamic people of America.
I just hope for everyones' sake that the answers are put into a present day context and not some, 'Well that's the way it's been since forever' type answers.
People change, societies change, countries change...religion also needs to change. Not so much that they give up the pillars that hold it up, but at least stay relevant to the people that it embraces. |
It's obvious that religions need to change.. The decisions made today should be all about today's time as times are different from 1400 years ago. Of course a religion to a man is all about it's intrepretation but then what religion isn't. My explainations are simply the teachings of Islamic (shia) scholars and my Grandfather used to be one of them. So i descend from a very religious background.. I'm not saying that they are 100% accurate and sure you'll find errors in them... but generally speaking.. THIS is how Islam is viewed amongst the people I live in which are muslims (both shia and sunnis). |
|
|
| sponger |
"Muhammad's strategy in the developing conflict with Mecca was to attack Meccan trade caravans returning from Syria and thus economically weaken the city. In 624, the first major battle occurred, in which the Muslims, despite their inferiority in numbers and weapons, soundly defeated the Meccans. In the next major battle, the following year, the Meccans had the advantage but were unable to achieve a decisive victory. A Meccan army of 10,000 besieged Medina in 627 but failed to take the city. Muhammad meanwhile eliminated his enemies within Medina. After each of the first two battles he expelled a Jewish tribe, and after the third major battle he had the males of the remaining tribe massacred for collaborating with his opponents."
"As long as Khadija lived, Muhammad took no other wives. After her death in 619, when he was 50, he eventually married nine women, including Aisha, the daughter of his kinsman and early follower Abu Bakr, who was to become the first caliph, or successor to Muhammad. He also took a Christian Coptic slave as a concubine."
wow really holy man this muhammad! and he was declared "immune from error"? id say he was a complete error! and this is the founder of your religion. all you have to do is look around the world and see all the heinous things being done in the name of islam, oh but of course these are just the "few" who misrepresent islam! ive even heard muslims try to compare muhammed to Jesus. wow, now thats an insult. |
|
|
| digitul punk |
"Muhammad's strategy in the developing conflict with Mecca was to attack Meccan trade caravans returning from Syria and thus economically weaken the city. In 624, the first major battle occurred, in which the Muslims, despite their inferiority in numbers and weapons, soundly defeated the Meccans. In the next major battle, the following year, the Meccans had the advantage but were unable to achieve a decisive victory. A Meccan army of 10,000 besieged Medina in 627 but failed to take the city. Muhammad meanwhile eliminated his enemies within Medina. After each of the first two battles he expelled a Jewish tribe, and after the third major battle he had the males of the remaining tribe massacred for collaborating with his opponents."
Wrong, it was the other way around.. Meccans where the ones who were attacking the people from Medina..and for the rest, true there were three battles between Mecca and Medina.. and as for the jewish tribe .. common are you not gonna expell a tribe out of your city because they were umm let's say... your enemies? As far as the massacre goes.. you might wanna back that up with a valid source if you are to say like that.
"As long as Khadija lived, Muhammad took no other wives. After her death in 619, when he was 50, he eventually married nine women, including Aisha, the daughter of his kinsman and early follower Abu Bakr, who was to become the first caliph, or successor to Muhammad. He also took a Christian Coptic slave as a concubine."
True he married many women after the death of Khadija.. and wrong again.. he had 12 wives. I suggest you go here http://anwary-islam.com/women/prophets-wives.htm and read the article as to WHY he married so many women.
wow really holy man this muhammad! and he was declared "immune from error"? id say he was a complete error! and this is the founder of your religion. all you have to do is look around the world and see all the heinous things being done in the name of islam, oh but of course these are just the "few" who misrepresent islam! ive even heard muslims try to compare muhammed to Jesus. wow, now thats an insult.
Lol, it's funny you say that since your statement seems completely biased and again quit talking outta your ass because Muhammad (PBUH)to us is a Prophet of god and is in no way related to God himself neither is he a God to us.. so much for the Muhammad to Jesus comparison. Get your facts straight before you open your mouth again son. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| sponger |
i got those pieces from encarta, so i guess theyre wrong? either way, the person that established your religion, muhammad, was a murderer and pedofile and was in no way near "without error" as was Jesus, sorry.
| quote: | | Muhammad (PBUH)to us is a Prophet of god and is in no way related to God himself neither is he a God to us.. so much for the Muhammad to Jesus comparison |
umm muhammed was the founder of islam right? as was Jesus the founder of Christianity right? now compare muhammeds life with Jesus's. I wasnt tryin to really compare them cause obviously there is no comparison.
| quote: | | common are you not gonna expell a tribe out of your city because they were umm let's say... your enemies? |
NO, there again is proof of islams violence, did Jesus ever tell his followers to fight their "enemies", no.
| quote: | | and wrong again.. he had 12 wives |
wow thats much better :rolleyes: how many did Jesus have?
and that article really doesn't mean anything, point is he had 12 wives, one of which was 9?, nice. hardly without "error" if you ask me.
"Muhammad meanwhile eliminated his enemies within Medina" this says alot about your "prophet"
sorry for disrespecting your religion, thats just the way i feel about it. like i said just look around the world to see the atrocities being committed by muslims.
article |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by sponger
sorry for disrespecting your religion, thats just the way i feel about it. like i said just look around the world to see the atrocities being committed by muslims. |
look throughout history to see the atrocities that were commited by christians (not to say that these days they are saints...) |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
look throughout history to see the atrocities that were commited by christians (not to say that these days they are saints...) |
why are you comparing followers when the point is exposing the PROPHET as a man of violence? who cannot be seriously considered holy ;) |
|
|
|
|
