Is Islam actually peaceful?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by juantoo3, Jul 11, 2006.

  1. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Re: rules

    Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

    Thank you! This goes a very long way towards understanding.
    OK. It has long been my understanding that the Koran was used pretty much exclusively. Now I see, not unlike some other Monotheist faiths, that "commentaries" also play a part in interpretation. Perhaps it could be said the New Testament is also a kind of commentary, one that has been codified for all Christians. Whereas it seems the Hadiths are more..."denominational" or "sectarian." Perhaps this helps in understanding why some sects may be more quick to justify violence while other sects seem to strive to avoid it? Please help my understanding.
     
  2. aburaees

    aburaees Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: rules

    Agreed. The Qur'an is the only literature that is universally accepted by Muslims. The Hadiths are the source of all of Islam's divisions, excepting the civil war that resulted from the disagreement over Muhammad's successors.

    However the Hadiths are pretty much all "attributed" to Muhammad, some falsely and others truely, and any command issued by Muhammad is (according to Qur'an) equivalent to being from God himself.

    .
     
  3. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

    Thank you for being bold enough to speak to this issue!

    If I understand correctly, the conflicts within Islam then are not over the Koran, but over Hadith interpretations of the Koran?

    How do the Hadiths justify persecution of other faiths, especially the other people of the Book?
     
  4. aburaees

    aburaees Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not all Hadiths are interpretations of the Qur'an, some are, but others are rulings and practices that were prescribed by Muhammad but not revealed to Muhammad as Qur'anic verse.

    I'm not sure if this is correct but you could say that the 10 Commandments were written by God himself on tablets (in OT), the remaining 600+ Commandments were authored by Moses who was an authority on behalf of God.

    The same with the Qur'an, they were the words of God himself, but the Hadiths were the words of Muhammad who was an authority on behalf of God.

    There are Hadiths giving commands on how to "go to the bathroom", but this is not mentioned in the Qur'an.

    The Qur'anic verses commanding war and peace are commented on in the Hadiths, putting each in it's respective time-frame. The most peaceful verses were revealed in Mecca whilst the Muslim community was still small and unable to defend itself. The war verses were revealed later in Medina, by which time the Muslim community had become substantial.

    Another thing mentioned in Hadiths is the false messiah (Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal), who is not even hinted at in the Qur'an (as far as I know). It is said that he would lead the Jewish nation against the Muslim nation, and many Muslims see the current events in Israel/Palestine as leading up to his arrival - hence the reason why Hamas and the like aren't ever likely to give up violence.

    As a final note, there are some differences which a purely down to human interpretation of the Qur'an - especially Islamic Tawhid (the nature of God's monotheism).

    .
     
  5. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    yeah, the dajjal - i wonder, if this is a bona fide doctrine of islam, if you don't consider it just a teensy bit conducive to disharmony? i mean, isn't this basically defining "the jewish nation" as a threat and an enemy to "the muslim nation"? i can't see interfaith dialogue being conducted in an environment where this idea is accepted, any more than i can see it being conducted in an environment where jews are considered to be "christ-killers" or in need of "salvation".

    gah.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  6. aburaees

    aburaees Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed, but the Hadiths mentioned are considered to be authentic by the vast majority of Sunni Muslims - who in my opinion are more interested in interfaith 'monologue'.

    Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
    This is why violence will continue to be perpetuated by Hamas and the like. And this Hadith is found in most Islamic "End-Times" literature readily available in UK Islamic bookstores.

    Most Sunni Muslims don't dare to question the contents of Sahih Al-Bukhari, unfortunately, since they're not confident that these Hadiths aren't genuinely from Muhammad.

    .
     
  7. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Kindest Regards, Wil!
    Therein lies a fundamental difficulty: why the need for conversion? While it is true that Christians do seek to convert others, it is not mandatory. On an individual or perhaps denominational level there may be some condescending attitude levelled towards those who will not convert, but at a national level this is hardly so. Even such a condescending attitude does not typically result in a state sanctioned death penalty. Lynchings, a rare but known occurance, are not the result of government sanction, and are indeed against the law of the land, subject to criminal prosecution.

    Quite the opposite, from what I have been able to glean, considering Sharia nations. There it seems that conversion to Islam is mandatory. While I was not aware of an alternative, the alternative hardly seems conducive to tolerance. When prejudice is institutionalized, such an attitude flows down to the level of the individual through the various cultural levels. In the case I mentioned, the prejudice towards Rahman was institutionalized; at the government, at the legal system, at the religious, and from there to the individual levels. In such an instance, there is nowhere to turn for blind justice. One's fate is foreordained. Unless one is Muslim, one is prejudicially treated. Last I checked, that is the essence of intolerance.

    I am wondering what the Koranic justification is for such prejudicial behavior?
     
  8. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,162
    Likes Received:
    443
    Kindest Regards, Aburaees!

    This goes a long way to explain a great deal.
     
  9. cyberpi

    cyberpi Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a tendency to pull a few verses from the Qur'an or Hadith to support a viewpoint, add some interpretation and call for some type of action, or even make a law or fatwa out of it. Sound familiar? It should. Improved communication technology is integrating and speeding up that process. It is relevant to point out that the same behavior is in Judaism, Christianity, atheism, etc... but nowhere do I fnd that God (swt) teaches this, nor do I find any scientific measurement to suggest it is good. It is a behavior of people. It can be seen in children. By design (or evolution), people can only learn, process, communicate, and act on a small portion of information at a time.

    A question is: Who is responsible? With religion people are trying to justify their actions with God (swt), the creator, the supreme source of many things. There is a desire in many people to be good, to be truthfully aligned with a god. Imagine if I took a few sentences from a person here on CR, maybe a person elevated by being elder, smart, pious, and a learned scholar. Suppose I take a few of his/her sentences and make or justify a law or action by them. Who then is responsible? The person who follows the law or carries out the action? Me, the one who led or misled by quoting the scholar? The scholar posting here on CR? The religion the scholar studies? Or ultimately... God (swt)? This thread hints at placing the responsibility on the religion, or the people who claim to follow the religion. To which I quickly say... fine, who wrote the religion? Danger, danger!

    You don't need a religion to have the problem... a child's testimony, the news, political propaganda, lobbying... I find that this is the way many people communicate and think. Anyone who has been a leader or a celebrity knows what it is like to have people, the media quoting them, taking snapshots and characterizing them. With the information that the people provide, who do they truly represent? Who is responsible for an incomplete or false picture that they produce? Who is responsible for people who see, read and act on that picture?

    As an example, lets study a modern example from Islam. I read on an Islamic web page (Sunnipath.com) yesterday a girl that asks if she can marry a person who it sounds like might be a believer, but is a free thinker. According to this online Islamic educational institute, a male can marry a Jew or a Christian, for example, but a female Muslim can only marry a Muslim. It is the divine equation for struggle and this website uses phrases like: 'Either he accepts Islam or he doesn't', 'Shaytan is trying to mislead you', 'the guiding light of Sacred Law', 'emphatically forbidden', 'divinely ordained patterns of married life'... basically (my words) it says that God (swt) wants females to marry only Muslim men and thus have only Muslim children.

    Fine. Whether it is truth or lie, good advice or bad, I will restate the question: Who will be responsible for it? The person who takes it and acts on it? The website owner? The scholar who interpreted the belief? The person who enforces it as a law? The Qur'an? All adherents of the religion? God (swt)?

    I assume I am responsible for what I say and in the same spirit of my post, here is a single Qur'an verse for consideration:
    16:116 (Yusufali) But say not - for any false thing that your toungues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden." so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.

    16:116 (Khalifa) You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is lawful, and this is unlawful," to fabricate lies and attribute them to god. Surely those who fabricate lies and attribute them to god will never succeed.
     
  10. ~:MOK:~

    ~:MOK:~ Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me just ask you if you've ever lived in a nation governed by Sharia? I'm going to assume that you haven't but forgive me if you have. I have lived in Egypt, side by side with the Christians (20+ percent of the pop.) who, I can attest are not looked down upon, atleast in the area i lived in.

    I will say that the majority of the population (this is a grotesque generalization, I hate generalizations) does seem a bit racist towards dark skin colour though, which is odd. Although I do feel like it is something every nation has encountered and will grow out of as the population matures.
     
  11. aburaees

    aburaees Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0

    Egypt, strictky speaking, is not a Sharia country. Egypt has not adopted the laws associated with "Hadd" offenses as part of it's state law. Does Egypt enforce the Jizyah?

    .
     
  12. Light

    Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Islam is a very peaceful religion. Some people will be baffle by this. Reason being, they will bring the current crisis in Middle East as an example.

    Worth noting that these examples aren't even accurate. There are a lot of lies and untold stories behind these crisis that nobody even want to talk about.

    Again about the reference to the Shariah law, etc. You are just referencing one part of the shariah without referring to the whole. Thus why it seems very harsh and inhumane. Again, harsh and inhumane is subjective to individual. Just like defining a country is governed by Sharia. That is also subjective according to one's knowledge of Sharia itself.

    In Islam, there is no compulsion in religion.

    It is clearly stated in the Quran sura 2, verse no 256
    God further state that truth stands our clear from Error. Thus, if you have ever come across a da'i (Muslim missionaries), his objective is not to convert you but he is more interested in conveying to you the message of Islam. This is what has been commanded by Allah. Allah do not instruct Muslims to convert people. The issue of the heart is Allah's and HE will open the hearts of people to Islam at HIS will. Thus, the work of Muslims missionaries is simple - to convey the message of Allah.

    No, that is not true. If such a nations does that, then based on my understanding, they have erred. Unless there is strong reasons why this has to be done, nobody should be Islam to live in an Islamic state. Look into history, there are Christians/Jews who lived peacefully in the Caliphate State. In fact it is the contrary, where in Europe during the crusades, everybody are Christians.

    To end, if there is a need to refer on the true Islamic state, you have to refer to the time of the caliphates. Not the present moment as none are following fully the shariah because their version also contain values that are more cultural rather than islamic.
     
  13. Abogado del Diablo

    Abogado del Diablo Ferally Decent

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    2
    Re: rules

    Here are my observations (take them as you will):

    One can cherry pick quotes from leaders of Islam and Christianity (or any wisdom tradition - whether overtly "religious" or not) about their peaceful message and good intentions. And at the core the philosophy of each, there typically is a great revelation about the way to peace and harmony that inspires us to moments when we look beyond ourselves. But the way is a personal remedy and not a political one. The result is the great struggle in revealed religions between the more superstitious and violent tendencies inherent in the notion of having received the "one true faith"TM and the pushback by individuals who connect with the revealed path. This dichotomy and its attendant struggle is not unique to Islam and Christianity. We can see it in cultures where Hinduism is the norm. China is a particularly interesting example, with the "yin-yang" of strictly ordered Confucianism and the personal journey and chaos of the Tao.

    To understand a religion, the more important thing is to look at what has been produced. And I agree that in Western societies, dominated by Christianity, liberalism has been more successful in the last 250 years than it has been in Islam.

    But why? Is it a product of people straining the philosophy out of the mythology from Christianity that reached a crescendo in the Enlightenment? Was the Enlightenment itself a process that began, really, with the Renaissance?

    I think we should carefully consider a few things:

    (1) When we look at the violence and turbulence surrounding Islam, might we be mistaking correlation for causation? Is it Christian liberalism that uniquely made Western Democracy possible? Or is it the great wealth of western nations built on the sweat of their empires (and the end of a gun) that has allowed these nations to prosper and build a large, educated middle-class that makes Democracy work? Are these, along with other factors all part of the picture? If so, what other signficant factors are in play?

    (2) Christianity and the nations who claim it as their main cultural base has an extremely violent history. First, there are the by-products of Christian Europe (fascism of the last century, Communism). There was 400 years of Empire building built largely on the justifications of racism and evangelism of Christianity. Before that, there were hundreds and hundreds of years of wars of religion set off by the Reformation that look, feel, and act a lot like what you are seeing in Islam today. Alongside these brutal wars of religion, there were the witchhunts, genocidal cleansing in the name of the faith during the Albigensian crusade, Inquisitions and the brutal colonization of the New World. The wars of religion have continued right up to our own lifetime in places like Northern Ireland, where people of different Christian sects were (within the last three decades) regularly blowing up civilians to make their political and religious points. Before the Reformation and Renaissance, Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages. Before that it was the violence the Christian Roman Empire carrying its authority to the barbarians.

    (3) When Christianity was in the Dark Ages, art, science and philosophy were blossoming in Islam. It was through contact with Muslims during the Crusades that Christian Europe rediscovered much of Greek philosophy (including rediscovering Aristotle), which had disappeared in Christendom, but had been cultivated in the meantime in Islam. Islamic science blossomed while Europe slept - particularly in mathematics, medicine and astronomy.

    (4) Many places in the world are the product of arbitrary line drawing and enforcement of those lines through violence by the various colonial empires that dominated the world for centuries. Those empires have only just collapsed (or started to collapse in some cases) in the last 60 years. The result is the struggle for autonomy (and more importantly "identity") by people who may not share a common cultural identity, but who were forced together by the arbitrary lines drawn around them by others.

    Consider that it isn't just a Christian/Muslim difference, but that something else is going on. At their roots, both religions have the seeming conflict between the inherent violence of claiming to be the one true faith, and more liberal and enlightened views of love, compassion and forgiveness. The history of both seems to indicate that the more stressed the societies in which they function are, the more reign is given to the superstitious and violent aspects of their doctrines and dogmas. And historically this appears to be as true of Christianity as it is of Islam. And perhaps, in the real sense, it is a human thing at work.

    I think the big caution we all need to observe is not to alienate each other. Those who push back against the methods of violence and fascism are fighting to win over the hearts and minds of individuals in their cultures. That battle must to be carried out within the context of the faith itself. By not labeling an entire faith tradition as "violent" or "oppressive" we may help to accomplish something much more valuable both by giving encouragement to those who have found the way in Islam and want to share its meaning with others in their culture (letting them know we see, understand, and support them), and by minimizing the ammunition of extremists who build their consensus on an "us vs. them" mentality. By using our own labeling we help feed an increasingly uncontrollable fire.

    These are my opinions, anyway.
     
  14. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: rules

    Well said. I think the problem is that some people or groups get a little piece of the truth and believe they have it all. Then the viciousness inherent in much of our human nature takes over, and some say "An idea in my head is worth more than your life."

    Thus, religion is not only degraded, but turned into its opposite, leading away from God rather than toward Him.
     
  15. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    Re: rules

    jeannot,

    i don't mean to be rude, but what on earth is the POINT of such a big quote? quote the bit you're interested in! if you mean the whole thing, say so without bloody pasting it again so we have to scroll ALL the way down it to read your two lines at the bottom - whether they're interesting or not!

    well, why don't you talk about them, then? otherwise i might as well respond "so you say, but what makes you qualified to say so?" with reference to the "current crisis", which one are you talking about? lebanon? iraq? iran? gaza? if there is an "untold story" or "lie", you are welcome to respectively tell or expose it!

    to return to the subject under discussion, which was that it seems that a lot of the groups and individuals fomenting intolerance and violence in the world (even if you ignore the middle east for a second) claim to be doing it in the name of islam. it is, to those of us who wish to understand islam and muslims, extremely unhelpful to paper over the differences by saying "islam is X" or "islam is Y" if it's patently obvious that individuals and groups who consider themselves muslim disagree with you and with each other! it makes the statement look ridiculous and i am sure it is not in the interest of muslims. it seems to *me* patently obvious that muslims (like christians and jews) all seem to disagree with each other all the time! could it not be that the oft-quoted surah "there is no compulsion"... might also refer to diversity of opinion within islam?

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  16. Light

    Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    The main topic is about Islam. Yes, we can discuss about the differences in opinion on the current crisis. But, personally I don't think it will go anywhere. You will have your opinion and I have mine. Even if we both disagree, it won't extend the main topic. When I refer to the crisis in the Middle East, I am explaining that you can't look at the Middle East as an example of Islam. There are Christian, Jews and Arabs there. As well as there are other countries with Muslim population outside this region. Islam is not the reason for this crisis nor was it the reason for terrorist to do devious acts.
    Yes, there are lies and untold stories in every crisis, named it:- World War 1, World War 2, in all wars. It will carry some propoganda and that will include lies and deception to bring success to a campaign.
    This is not a topic about the crisis in Middle East, this is about 'Is ISLAM actually peaceful'.

    Why do you only refer to Islam and Muslim in regards to intolerance and violence? Why don't you refer to Christian (US/UK) who attack countries without the permission of the international community. Why don't you refer to Israel whom have been for the pass years bulldozing palestinian houses and illegally annexing lands for settlers? Leaving the Palestinian homeless? Isn't there intolerance in all this actions? It is strange to see that people relate intolerance to Islam when it involve Muslims, yet they relate the country being intolerance when it involve Christian or Jews.
    You probably have not heard Muslims scholars who have clearly object the violence/suicide bombing etc. that supposedly being done in the name of Islam. Yet, I am sad to hear that people can blatantly claim Muslims has not done enough to oppose such acts.

    It is similar to any faith. You can have the IRA who suppose that they are representing the Roman Catholics. You also have the KKK who supposed to represent Christianity. And the Haganah, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang after the World War II representing the Jews. All of them at one point does perform terrorism act. So, it is not fair to associate Islam to terrorism as it should not be for Christianity and Judaism alike. Yes, there are disagreements within ourself as much as you would have in Christianity or Judaism in the period when its respective terrorist organisation exists.

    I am sorry but this is entirely incorrect. Muslims don't disagree all the time. If you ask any Muslims, if Islam is peaceful - everyone will say yes. When new revert were asked why do you want to become a Muslim after all this news about Middle East and the violence. They said it is because it is peaceful, simple and logical.

    Islam is not as rigid as other religion. It is the way of life. What stated in the Quran, if it is both explicit and implicit will mean that is the mandatory adherents. However, there are matters that was mentioned vaguely, this is not because it is intended to divide the people, but more of tha encouragement for the people to investigate, research and opined based on the best evidence they can find. Thus, it encourages its follower to think and not just follow by the book. Diversity in Islam is not an issue as Allah did mentioned that we should seek knowledge and if there is differences, we should respect each other opinion. This is the virtue of a good muslim. They don't transgress into saying to other Muslims, you're wrong, or otherwise.

    ma-asalama (with peace)
     
  17. Jeannot

    Jeannot Jeannot

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    165
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the 17th century, the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants wiped out half to 2/3 the population of central Europe. Partly as a result of this carnage, Europe experienced the Enlightenment (also owing to the Scientific Revolution). As a result, toleration became a primary value. Maybe Islam needs an Enlightenment?? I'm thinking primarily of the Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism.
     
  18. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    i think that's a very sad attitude. it presupposes that neither of us are prepared to be convinced. i would like to think that one of the points of a dialogue board is for people to get to know each other better - perhaps even to start trusting each others' opinions. i speak my mind here - i have no agenda other than my own personal beliefs, which have been shaped by experience and learning. my understanding of islam, the middle east and muslims has been likewise. unfortunately, it has recently been too often the case that muslims spout a "party line" - and anyone can do that. unless you are similarly open to the possibility of learning something you didn't know, there is very little point in your being here.

    right. now this is a regularly occurring difficulty; the muslim world simply isn't very "islamic", certainly as islam has been taught to me by muslims and as you yourself represent it as an idealised, perfect, system. in fact, nobody has yet shown me an example of a truly islamic society other than the one we know from the Qur'an and the hadiths - in other words, nobody since muhammad and his companions has managed it. certainly the states which purport to be "islamic republics" and kingdoms, such as iran, pakistan, sudan and saudi arabia, are pretty much anything but. i believe islam to be intimately connected with *social justice* and *moral uprightness* - but i see little evidence of this in the government of these states. certainly their shari'a courts are neither equitable nor free of corruption. don't get me wrong - i am not therefore saying that therefore "islam is x or y", just that nobody has so far got it to work. i am therefore forced to conclude that when muslims like yourself say that "islam is..." etc, the islam they are referring to is the theoretical construct and set of laws that they try to live by. am i right?

    if so, then my criticism of specific muslims, groups and governments of muslims should *NOT* be construed as criticism of islam, but criticism of muslims. is that fair enough? therefore, the question ought to be, really, not "is islam peaceful?" (unless you're talking *strictly* in theological and legal terms) but "are MUSLIMS peaceful?" - which, of course is a different question entirely. both are fair questions but must be strictly defined. ok?

    because that is what we are discussing. the title of the thread is not "which is more peaceful, islam, christianity or judaism?" also, in reference to what countries do, see my point above. either "muslim countries" and organisations represent islam or they don't, in your view. which is it? if they do, then we can talk about whether their conduct, policies and behaviour are islamic or not. if not, then you are not entitled to consider the us or uk as being examples of "christian" behaviour, or israel as "jewish". you can't have it both ways.

    i don't know where you're from, but in any case, as a citizen of the uk, i can certainly tell you about the status of christianity here. the country is *not* run as a christian country. political decisions are *not* taken with christian values and priorities in mind, because in europe and the us, religion and state are kept separate. if you're not taking this into account, you're failing to understand something very basic about the politics. it is, of course, true, that in the us there are very strong feelings about christian values held by about 70% of the population, but this does not mean that they get their way, nor does it mean that the values of the remaining 30% are ignored. the point is that decisions are mostly taken pragmatically and, even though the president or prime minister may have strong christian beliefs (and both bush and blair do) that doesn't mean they are able to put them into practice. it just isn't possible, because neither have that kind of unlimited power. a similar situation is the case in israel. israel, which i know well, is a *secular* state, which was set up as a *refuge* for jews and as a *nationalistic* solution to jewish oppression, *not* as a religious institution. although there are strong religious forces at work there, there are equally strong secularising forces, which resist the religious ones. it sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how israeli society actually works. what i can tell you is that what *israel* does is not the same as what *judaism* says ought to be done. therefore you certainly can't judge judaism by israel any more than you can judge christianity by the us or the uk.

    as you *well know*, or at any rate ought to know, the situation is hardly that simple. try not to ignore the actual history of the arab-israeli conflict in your search for rhetorical self-justification. if you need a reading list, i'll be happy to supply one for you.

    i have. but i've heard plenty of eminent muslim scholars also claim that the violence was justified. similarly, as you ought to know, in the case of jews in particular, there are plenty of islamic authorities that claim that a) all israelis are by definition "settlers" and b) there is no such thing as an israeli "civilian". and, as you also ought to know, it is rare for an act of violence against a jewish target is not somehow justified in terms of the palestinians - as if it helps the poor buggers.

    except that all of these were DISARMED and DISBANDED and therefore prevented from acting on their own after the establishment of the state. if you don't know anything about how difficult and divisive this necessary act was, i suggest you read this article about the "altalena affair" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair - it is notable that nothing like this has happened in either lebanon or palestine, with the result that we are in this situation now with hamas and hizbollah.

    light, i don't think you understand what i'm saying. of *course* they'll all say yes if you ask a high-concept, theoretical question. the question is what happens in *practice*. is X permitted? is Y action haram or halal? if you are maintaining that muslims never disagree, you must be living in an extremely homogeneous society. the muslims i know have a lot of very different opinions.

    oh, come on, light. take off the rose-coloured spectacles. the picture you're presenting bears very little resemblance to the everyday reality that i encounter. why can't muslims in the uk agree on one representative organisation, for example? why do we have the mcb, the mab, mpac, the muslim parliament, the federation of british sufis, etc? and what about the ahmadis, the ismailis, the twelvers and so on? the fact is that all these people disagree on nearly everything, whilst all claiming that they agree about the Qur'an and the sunna. seems to me that there's something there that doesn't add up. in short, you guys are nearly as disunited as the jewish community!

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  19. Zaakir

    Zaakir part of the ummah

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    whether Y is halal or haram is told t us in the Quran or sunnah...some peopel try to find loop hholes so to speak in order not to follow everything..i cant say i am graet myself, every time i go to the toilet, eat, drink, go out, i dont say what im supposed to...
    you also said something about not following properly i think?or along that effect...this life is ment to be like hell to the believers...it will get to a point where it will be like holding onto religion asif it were a hot iron rod...especially with todays society in this country being so anti religion and anti islam...Muhammad and his followers were great, yes they followed perfectly, things in there day would have been easier, to follow...as in islamic countries, btu it wouldnt have been easy for Muhammad s.a.w due to the wars and attcks he got off people.but who can you say follows judaiam like abraham a.s? would yu compare yourself to a prophet?also as i said people look for ways out, becasue of todays society...and the shaytan also....as for you sayin gabout shariah law...theer is a way which to follow, but again some people may want powr and change things accordingly to their wants..i dont know of anyone doing this, but it could happen..
     
  20. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    zaakir,

    as far as i follow your argument (which isn't very far) the problem is that the Qur'an and sunnah, like the Torah and the halakhah (jewish law) don't cover everything explicitly, as you well know. thus anything that isn't specifically identifiable (like laws relating to cars or cigarettes) has to be interpreted out of the Text. there are often disagreements. i believe two of the four schools, including maybe the hanbalis, allows the eating of shellfish whilst the other two don't. i am also talking about rules of conduct and issues of politics and economics. the fact is that both islam and judaism contain a large amount of "grey areas" in their primary texts which the commentators and subsequent legislators try and work out. it is there that the disagreements arise.

    life is meant to be like hell to the believers...it will get to a point where it will be like holding onto religion asif it were a hot iron rod
    sounds like fun! fortunately, judaism has a principle which states "you shall live by them" (the laws) which the sages interpret as meaning: live by them and not die by them. religious behaviour should be something that is achievable to everyone, not just an elite and if i know *anything* about muhammad, i know he was a human being, with real thoughts, feelings and limitations, albeit a particularly impressive and talented man, prophet or not. isn't that the point for muslims - that religion ought to be "do-able"? otherwise, you would (as it says in the "night journey" tradition) be making salat fifty times a day instead of five!

    zaakir, surely you aren't suggesting things were easier for the early muslim 'umma? they had a terribly hard time getting themselves established in the environment of jahiliyya in arabia.

    obviously i'm not comparing myself to a prophet. nonetheless, the beliefs, practices and actions of abraham are a daily guide to us; he instituted the morning prayer and during the morning prayer we study the story of the binding of isaac (ishaq). the point is, however, we can't know exactly how abraham did everything, but neither can you. we have to rely on our tradition, just as you have to rely on your own tradition. and both of us are also commanded by G!D to use our powers of reason and critical thinking.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     

Share This Page