psychoslice
Veteran Member
Those who don't learn by history, will repeat history, its that simple.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ISIS is repeating what Mohammed did a 1400 years back.
- Thread starter morphesium
- Start date
Mackerni
Libertarian Unitarian
I like to think of it this way: Christianity started roughly 2,000 years ago. Islam started in 610. Islam is in the dark ages. Now, there have been some notable attempts to reform Islam, such as the formation of the Baha'i Faith.
Islam is a fundamental religion. Well, technically every religion is fundamental but due to the politics of that area there are more of those who identify as ultra-conservative. Christianity has changed throughout the years. New denominations arise from new ideas and new interpretations of their holy books. God isn't dead, he simply changed with the times.
There needs to be a period of grow in Islam, and by growth, I mean secularization (?) of it. Islam needs to grow the same way Christianity has already grown. Modernize, as you will. There is a possibility of Isis becoming more democratic with their approach, but that probably isn't going to happen anytime soon.
George Carlin has a skit where he sites "Jewish fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana" for causing a lot of the troubles that arise in the world.
To me, the problem isn't religion. The problem is a very subjective moral code that differs from each person. Until we can adopt a universal ethical code that many have tried to do and failed, and have that code be accepted by every person on the planet, there will always be evil. And there will be evil for a long, long time...
Islam is a fundamental religion. Well, technically every religion is fundamental but due to the politics of that area there are more of those who identify as ultra-conservative. Christianity has changed throughout the years. New denominations arise from new ideas and new interpretations of their holy books. God isn't dead, he simply changed with the times.
There needs to be a period of grow in Islam, and by growth, I mean secularization (?) of it. Islam needs to grow the same way Christianity has already grown. Modernize, as you will. There is a possibility of Isis becoming more democratic with their approach, but that probably isn't going to happen anytime soon.
George Carlin has a skit where he sites "Jewish fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, and just plain guys from Montana" for causing a lot of the troubles that arise in the world.
To me, the problem isn't religion. The problem is a very subjective moral code that differs from each person. Until we can adopt a universal ethical code that many have tried to do and failed, and have that code be accepted by every person on the planet, there will always be evil. And there will be evil for a long, long time...
mohammadshiamuslim
Member
hello my friend.
if you want to know fact you should think about every thing witout any prejudice.
i am a shia muslim.
my propet mohammad say:the best among you(muslims) is the one who doesent harm others(whit any religion) with his tongue and hands.
and when my first imam (imam ali as) ruled islamic states aboute 1300 years ago, how many people despoiled jewelry of a jewish woman,when he understood,he said:if a muslim die because sorrow of this work, we shoudnt to be amazed.and he ordered to punish them.
this is my religion.and the west try to show we are wild and berber.
morphesium
Active Member
My OP was targeting ISIS and their horrific and barbaric acts are deeply troubling me. Though it is the Shias Muslims and yezidis that ISIS is targeting the most, no one can live in peace with them.
I believe that if there is God, then we all are prophets (you and me) and it is through our morale that God speak to us. I don't know much about Prophet Mohammad, but I do believe that there are lot of sentences in Quran that makes it very aggressive against other religion.
Every reigion has some good things and some bad things - the problem starts when people starts to believe in it blindly, when they use their religion as a tool to suppress their inherent morales (Prophet did this way, so we shouldn't do it any better) rather than using it as a guide to enhance ones morale and ethical thinking.
Every religion, every culture has its greatness and weakness. For some people (not all) their culture and their narrow thinking puts them in a bottle. Such people ( there are such people in all cultures - not just west or east) consider that their culture is the only supreme culture. I don't think everyone in the west consider you that way. I write very harshly about ISIS people - here is a troubling story i read in newspaper sometime back.
The story was about a doctor who was abducted by some Islamic terrorists in a foreign land and later the US forces rescued him.
The doctor while he was under their custody- they used to torture him mentally and killed a few of his non-American colleagues who were captured along with him. After a few days, he happened to ask a young militant what they are going to do with him – to which he answered “to bargain some money from the Americans government in return for your life”. They later became friends and then this militant said “your parents gave you education and made you a doctor and my parents made me a militant – they had no choice for anything else. If I come to your land, can I live there peacefully? Can I find a job there? Can you take me to your land? The same night he hears an explosion, which wakes him up from his sleep and then some firings and they were terrified. A minute later, a few people rushed into their room which was locked from the outside and said “don’t worry, you are safe” As they moved him to the helicopter, he had a glimpse of his “terrorist friend” lying dead there. The reason why I said this is this “there are peaceful ones even among the terrorists”.
The doctor while he was under their custody- they used to torture him mentally and killed a few of his non-American colleagues who were captured along with him. After a few days, he happened to ask a young militant what they are going to do with him – to which he answered “to bargain some money from the Americans government in return for your life”. They later became friends and then this militant said “your parents gave you education and made you a doctor and my parents made me a militant – they had no choice for anything else. If I come to your land, can I live there peacefully? Can I find a job there? Can you take me to your land? The same night he hears an explosion, which wakes him up from his sleep and then some firings and they were terrified. A minute later, a few people rushed into their room which was locked from the outside and said “don’t worry, you are safe” As they moved him to the helicopter, he had a glimpse of his “terrorist friend” lying dead there. The reason why I said this is this “there are peaceful ones even among the terrorists”.
Britedream
Active Member
Thank you IceHorse.
Please allow me to show you what you presented, and What I Presented.
you said:
"But the video you linked to glossed over important bigger contexts. For example, between the founding of Islam and the crusades, Islam perpetrated over 300 years of conquest, most of it quite violent. Taken from this context, the Crusades - while awful - were a tiny counter punch against an ocean of Islamic conquest."
Then you said After I asked you to look at the video again.
"1- I agree that the documentary "claimed" that Islamic conquest was not violent. I think there is a LOT of evidence to the contrary."
Now your post here contradicts your post above it, about the video, regarding violence.
To discredit the scholars in the video regarding the violence, you showed a video of an old man creating his own facts. But you said " Well history is subjective", which is true, and I agree with that, however, it can be accepted if it is free from bias, and lies, and confirmed by multiple sources that not copying from each other, and is not possible for them to conspire, provided is not contradicting any facts.
So I assume you brought it, because you sport it, and you agreed to what he said are facts.
1-How do you know it is a fact, just by saying facts to things does not make them facts.
2- And that is also wrong, Muslims are not the Islam, you should be judging Muslim by the Islam, and not the Islam by Muslims. So your video title Islam, but the contents are the action of some Muslims, and claims that it did happen.
You can not put an argument like that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What did I present to you?:
I presented to you a documentary that is done by the PBS, in it, are scholars from reputable universities, testifying that Islam is not violent, but is tolerant to other faiths, and Islam has refrained muslims from the retaliation, even though they had the power to do it.
for the eduction and advancement, Reality testifies to the facts mentioned in the documentary, check your Science books, Algebra is arabic, translated after The author, you still using the Arabic numeral , and so on.
For the tolerance, history testifying to that. I put a link to a Jewish history. Please allow me to show you.
"The Jews served as a buffer between warring nations and lived in harmony with all conquerors except the Christians. Nevertheless, they flourished and became important artisans, business people, physicians, scientists, theologians and very influential government bureaucrats. During Spain's Golden Age, many Jews were included in the aristocracy."
Let see where the Jews went after Southern Spain lost the islamic rule.
" When the Jews were driven out of Spain, some went north to Holland and England, where they were assimilated into the existing Jewish communities and cultures. They established new communities in Amsterdam and later in the New World. Some went south to Morocco and parts of North Africa, where they eventually melded into Arabic culture. The rest went eastward onto the Ottoman Empire."
"The Turkish Sultans Mehmet ll. (1451-1481) And his successor Bayazid ll. (1481-1512) accepted the Jews with open arms. As a result, the Jews settled in the Balkans and the Levant and established major communities in Sarajevo, Salonika, Istanbul, Allepo, Alexandria, and in parts of Iraq and Italy. In some instances, the Spanish Jews were more numerous and better educated than the Jews, who were already there, so they assimilated the natives. There were two things required of the Jews in return for the Sultan's protection: the Sultan expected them to pay taxes, and since they were not Moslem, they could not become citizens or serve in the military. As a result, the Jews quickly set up their own communities apart from the mainstream. This meant their own schools, medical facilities, courts of law, and houses of worship. They were not required to speak Turkish, so they spoke Ladino at home, at work, in schools, and in the coffeehouses. Only businessmen who went outside of the community spoke Greek or Turkish. Eventually schools were established by L'Alliance Francaise Israelite Universelle. They now leaned French. Through contact with these other languages, the Judeo-Spanish speakers gradually borrowed words from them. The Castillian portion of the language, which was the grammatical structure (i.e., morphology and syntax) and a great majority of the lexical structure, remained static due to lack of contact with the motherland. Thus, while Castillian was evolving in one direction in Spain, Ladino was a grammatically fossilized Jewish/Romance language borrowing words from Greek, Turkish and French, and evolving in another direction."
What did you see here?.
They were prospering under the Islam rules in Spain, once it is gone, they followed it. Only some went to Europe , but some and the rest went where the Islam rules.
What did you see above in quote, they found under Islam rules?.
Reality attests to that, there are still Jews today in north Africa, and in all the land that once was the Ottoman empire.Please go and ask them about the past. they will tell you.
All the above are brought to you by non Muslims, and the facts that they still there confirms it.
Did you see a violence or intolerance here?.
you are painting Islam wrongfully.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for the sake of discussion, I asked you the following:
if some one to conclude by a way of argument, that Americans are uncivilized, they are only held off by the police, take the police off the big cities, and see what happens to shops and people.
Is that a valid argument?.
I am still waiting for reply, please do so.
Last edited:
RAYYAN
Proud Muslim
There is a big difference between believing that my religion is right and calling other religions false. people can have differences wheb it come to Religion but they can live together in harmony
let me get this straight:
There are no other accounts who wrote about Mohammed except those Islamic supporters
and those told you that Mohammed eliminated all his oppositions
you don't believe that history because it was written by IS
however, you believe it when it comes to giving Mohammed a bad image
do I need to smoke something to understand this!
it is very very wrong dude
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
And yet, Islam has a long history of not getting along with those who have different religions and especially those who question Islamic thought.
Being a Muslim, you are not used to looking at this critically. What I am saying is virtually all we know about Muhammad and the rise of Islam in its earliest days comes from Muhammad's own fanatical supporters. I don't think that the less flattering stories, from our standpoint in the 21st century, struck his followers 1400 years ago as being even slightly embarrassing. The stories themselves contain no hint of apology or convey a sense of injustice, rather, the stories are usually portrayed in "David and Goliath" terms of a weaker righteous persecuted minority against the evil-doing pagan idolator majority who eminently deserved the death and destruction Muslims were only too happy to facilitate. Insha'Allah, no less.
The weird disconnect is that somehow the persecution of Muslims is not generally seen as being "the will of god", and yet the destruction of the foes of Islam is very much seen as "the will of god". The writers often give us the impression that the Muslims of the day were simply doing the world a great favor and that the ends justified the means.
I know it sounds like a very, very harsh comparison to you and perhaps most Muslims, however, you have to remember that Islam is not especially good news to those of us who choose to remain non-Muslims. Islam does not look kindly on those who have gone through the bother of learning about Islam and still, steadfastly, reject its totalitarian ideology. A good many people see Islam as a serious blight on the psyche of mankind, much like foaming at the mouth fundamentalist Christianity. The chief problem with Islam, in my view, is that it encourages fanaticism.
mohammadshiamuslim
Member
we hate from ISIS more than you.
do you know America goverment feed ISIS to show islam is a wild religion while our prophet recommend us to reject tyrant even for animals.
they kill innocent people from every religion special shia muslim.
mohammadshiamuslim
Member
excuse me my answer dont sent properly
my comment is betwin yours.please read it carefully
my comment is betwin yours.please read it carefully
RAYYAN
Proud Muslim
Everything is justified and for a good reason. but We can go on and on in circles about this I guess
ok agree to some points on this, it has some truth to it that I am not really exposed to the negative/critical issues about Islam. I admit that. also I admit in Islamic history, there are mistakes that happened by the companions but never by the Prophet PBUH.
not, it is your right to look at those critical writings about Mohammed, and it is your business to believe in them, but I am getting the impression that you totally ignore those accounts that give mohammed good image, you are totally forgetting many events that showed mohammed as the best man who walked on earth and BTW, many of them are written by non Muslims. so they are not Islamic Fanatics as you call them. does it make sense that a person be an extreme angel at times, and an extreme devil at times? (good and bad is what is meant)
I think you are talking about people who use Islam to be a** holes, but if you say Islam orders to something like that, you have to give me an evidence from the Quran which is not taken out of context.
Hi Britedream,
Whatever you think of Bill Warner, he made many concrete claims. These claims are either true, false, mostly true, mostly false, or somewhere in the middle. But Warner is just the messenger - his claims must stand on their own. So I will ask you again, how many other historical sources would you need to see to agree that these facts are mostly accurate?
Now as far as your newest post goes... no one ever claimed that Islamic conquest was ALWAYS violent. In fact, I'm happy to agree with you that sometimes people convert to Islam peacefully, and sometimes Muslims allow people of other religions to practice their own religion peacefully.
SOMETIMES THIS IS TRUE.
But history shows us that this tolerance is rare. Mostly what history shows us is that when Muslims become the majority of a population, they are not tolerant of non-Muslims - most of the time. Take modern Turkey as an example. 100 years ago there were many Christians living peacefully in Turkey. Today there are almost none. This is typical, this is the normal pattern we see over 1400 years. Islam is not tolerant of non-Muslims.
Whatever you think of Bill Warner, he made many concrete claims. These claims are either true, false, mostly true, mostly false, or somewhere in the middle. But Warner is just the messenger - his claims must stand on their own. So I will ask you again, how many other historical sources would you need to see to agree that these facts are mostly accurate?
Now as far as your newest post goes... no one ever claimed that Islamic conquest was ALWAYS violent. In fact, I'm happy to agree with you that sometimes people convert to Islam peacefully, and sometimes Muslims allow people of other religions to practice their own religion peacefully.
SOMETIMES THIS IS TRUE.
But history shows us that this tolerance is rare. Mostly what history shows us is that when Muslims become the majority of a population, they are not tolerant of non-Muslims - most of the time. Take modern Turkey as an example. 100 years ago there were many Christians living peacefully in Turkey. Today there are almost none. This is typical, this is the normal pattern we see over 1400 years. Islam is not tolerant of non-Muslims.
Hey RAYYAN,
You talk about Muhammad sometimes having a good image. I agree.
But Muslims claim that Muhammad is the perfect model of how to behave. So under normal circumstances we could look at Muhammad's life, and we could see the good and the bad, and we might even conclude that he was a good leader and a good general...
But Muslims claim that Muhammad was PERFECT. It is these claims of perfection that cause the trouble. If he is perfect, then EVERY action must be perfect. So Muslims set themselves the very difficult task of defending EVERY action. You don't get to say that he's perfect and at the same time claim that we should only look at his good actions.
You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
You talk about Muhammad sometimes having a good image. I agree.
But Muslims claim that Muhammad is the perfect model of how to behave. So under normal circumstances we could look at Muhammad's life, and we could see the good and the bad, and we might even conclude that he was a good leader and a good general...
But Muslims claim that Muhammad was PERFECT. It is these claims of perfection that cause the trouble. If he is perfect, then EVERY action must be perfect. So Muslims set themselves the very difficult task of defending EVERY action. You don't get to say that he's perfect and at the same time claim that we should only look at his good actions.
You cannot eat your cake and have it too.
RAYYAN
Proud Muslim
I still defend him as a perfect person, as I defend that any prophet is perfect.
my issue is not that, the way We see his actions is subjective. there are accounts say He was the best who walked on earth, and there are accounts that tell us He was the worst who walked on earth. (both written by non Muslims) the issue here is, it is impossible for him to be both, so who is telling the truth, if it was the other group, why non Muslims lie to give him that angelic image?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
The problematic part, and here I am talking about the early accounts of his life and times, as I don't really care what people in the last 200 years have written about him, is that there is in the records of his greatest admirers signs of atrocities.
Even Karen Armstrong in one of her silly books about Muhammad stated flatly that he was at times a petty tribal warlord... but... that he was also so remarkable a man... blah, blah, blah.... So much for the odious Armstrong. Those who write flattering portrayals of him are cherry picking the best stuff from the legends penned by his earliest admirers. They are simply furthering the narrative that he was this awesome dude romping through the sun blasted deserted landscape.. Again, they rely on the "puff pieces" the whitewashed history supplied by his early fanatical followers. Likewise, those who write naughty things about Muhammad rely on the same ancient writings, but peel back the layers of whitewashing to reveal a less than stellar human animal who somehow managed to become known as a prophet.
In my view, neither view is accurate. He was no saint, but he was also no demon. He is a curious figure, a brilliant leader, to be sure. He was a very astute politician, but he was a rather long way from being perfect. My own suspicion is that he suffered from several psychological disorders and perhaps even a couple of physical disorders. For example, we know that he suffered from severe depression because he contemplated throwing himself off a cliff... if that story is to be believed, of course.
RAYYAN
Proud Muslim
Fair enough.
so let's stop saying things about him when We don't know for sure what happened 1400 years ago. let's stop accusing him when our sources are not accurate
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
That's fair, but likewise you cannot really defend him as a perfect man either due to the same inaccurate records. Jus' sayin'.... Truce?
RAYYAN
Proud Muslim
but I didn't admit my sources are not accurate. My sources are Quran and AUTHENTIC Hadith they are accurate for me.
Yes, Truce
Britedream
Active Member
Hi IceHorse,
I treasure your thought, but thoughts are not facts, I have put forth, hundreds of years where Islam reigns over vast area, and has the upper hand, yet you still saying "sometimes" , then you went to equate Muslims with Islam which is a pitfall in an argument.
I have asked you to answer my question in last two posts above two times, yet you continue to ignore it, it is important to answer the question, for you to realize what is wrong with your replies. so please go ahead and answer it.
Last edited:
RAYYAN
Proud Muslim
I am just afraid if I challenge you and started debating with you, you say things I don't understand for your inability to communicate in English. for that reason, I let it go
but I didn't admit my sources are not accurate. My sources are Quran and AUTHENTIC Hadith they are accurate for me.
Yes, Truce
When I read the Quran, I did my best to assume it was accurate. Given that, my sense is that Muhammad might well have advanced the morals and ethics for his time and culture, and I'm happy to acknowledge those achievements.
But - and this is a big but - in the last 1400 years, mankind has advanced morals and ethics way past what Muhammad created. Since I don't need to see Muhammad's achievements as final and timeless, I can be comfortable with his successes. But when Muslims tell me that his life represents the final pinnacle of human achievement, I have to disagree strongly.