• 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!

islam and barbarity

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Do you know what democracy is? (Hint: not America.)

i think there's misunderstanding of my words, my words don't mean that Islam and democracy are contradicted "although they actually are" but my words refer to that we can't enforce Islam through a democratic way via a free elections and when the majority wants Islam it would be enforced, this will never happen, and the evil powers won't approve it as we are weak and have nothing to protect our votes and the examples are what happened in Algeria in the 90"s and recently in Egypt and if you read about the history of Turkey how the army had executed there Adnan mandrees and then jailed negmedin arbican, a true Muslim leader isn't allowed to rule even if he comes by a free elections

replying to your point why Islam and democracy don't mix, as i understood that democracy means the sovereignty for the people, surly Islam says the sovereignty for Allah , democracy means that what the majority agreed on must be applied, so Egypt approved a constitution on 2012 by 64% although of the rejection of secular and Christians, France, Belgium and Switzerland banned Islamic niqab by a democratic way the majority approved it but this is not Islam, in Islam the majority don't have the right to beat the minority, in Islam the constitution must be approved by All not a majority when prophet Mohamed went to madina he made a constitution approved by all tribes, by pagans, by Jews by Muslims and so nobody feel oppression because he's minority, and so he could build a strong state, but democracy let the majority approved what they will and let the minority hit it's head in the walls

Well, "sovereignty" isn't really correct; democracy is more that the common people have a say in political matters. Sovereignty of the masses is anarchy, which is absolutely bad.

However, the truth of the matter is this: people disagree, and will always disagree. Mohammad might have been able to do it, but as soon as he died, Islam split, which tells me that he had a great amount of charisma. After all, other charismatic leaders were able to do the same thing, and in fact, getting the people to do just that is urged at the beginning of Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Furthermore, the population of a single country these days outnumbers the entire world's population nowadays, making universal approval impossible. There will always be that one snarky kid who disagrees simply for the sake of disagreeing.

So, we're left with two choices: either the tiny minority beats upon the vast majority, or the small majority inconveniences the rest.
 

nameless

The Creator
More likely that cultures don't change when the religious coat of paint changes.
islamic nations generally has many things in common(as mentioned in the OP), which proves that islam is capable of changing the culture.


My basic understanding is that they were both equally intolerant of each other.
My basic understanding is that, it all started when muhammad demanded the removal of idols from the mecca and wanted everyone to worship his god alone, what can that be called?
 
Last edited:

Looncall

Well-Known Member
'Course not.

It just means that Islam has nothing inherently to do with it.

So how does one account for the correlation between current islam and barbarous social behaviour, even across disparate cultures?

I grant you the golden age, but islam has clearly changed since then. At least the majority versions have.

If islam is not the reason, what is? What are the non-muslim equivalents of the Taliban, al-shabab, boko haram, feuding sunnis and shias etc? If the problem is human nature, there should be plenty to choose from. The mobs attacking accused blasphemers in Pakistan aren't doing so because of their idea of thermodynamics.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
So why is present muslim society just about the opposite of what you describe?

I'm not sure it is in any way meaningful to speak of 'muslim society', if for arguments sake I accept that it is - who is propping up the most oppressive 'muslim' regimes?

A previous golden age does not excuse present barbarity

Barbarity is a very subjective term. I can think of no country anywhere that is not currently supporting behaviour that I consider barbaric.
 
My basic understanding is that, it all started when muhammad demanded the removal of idols from the mecca and wanted everyone to worship his god alone, what can that be called?

you should do some research first.
Muhammad started preaching and demanding removal of idols but he never forced anything on anyone. Muhammad began his conquests starting from the city of MECCA. BUT THE MECCANS WAGED WAR AGAINST MUHAMMAD FIRST. There were many attempts at killing him. When he escaped from Mecca they put a death penalty of him. You must realise that all Muhammad was doing was "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" Expressing his beliefs. He Began the conquest of Mecca only for the sake of survival. The MECCANS Had already sent armies to finish of Muhammad thrice. Muhammad did not take any further chances and to ensure his own survival took up the offensive after many years of facing oppression.

And more importantly Muhammad after the conquest of Mecca not a single soul was harmed and the sworn enemy of Muhammad Who was the Chieftain of Mecca converted to islam that day "AND HE WAS NOT FORCED BY ANYONE".

"On this day I Forgive all of you" this is what muhammad said to the Meccans after he occupied the city.

And you call him Intolerant -.-
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Non of that is even relevant to the accusations you made :facepalm:
I actually do not understand your difficulty.
Vilayat al Fiqh is a Shia cult - just like other Shia offspring such as the Fatimids or the Ismailis or the Allawites or any other non mainstream Shia Muslim cult.
It is outside the "norm."
It is NOT Shia Islam.
Yet, you seem hell bent on being concerned that this blasphemous Iranian death cult is somehow legitimate.
Why?

Be Shia. Be happy. Enjoy Ashura. Why bother defending the mufsidun?
 

nameless

The Creator
Muhammad started preaching and demanding removal of idols
I think this can be easily categorized under bigotry.
You must realise that all Muhammad was doing was "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" Expressing his beliefs
Freedom of speech? verbally attacking islam or muhammad is fine as per shariah law?
 
Last edited:

Assad91

Shi'ah Ali
I actually do not understand your difficulty.
Because you have yet to give reason as to how it is such, and how it is alike wahabism. Your last post didn't even give anything relevant.

Point is, while Ayatollah Khameini is passing fatwa to respect sunni figures, Wahabi sheikhs are justifying blowing up Shia(as well as others who disagree with them) women and children.



It is NOT Shia Islam.
Yet, you seem hell bent on being concerned that this blasphemous Iranian death cult is somehow legitimate.
Why?
Not sure why you think such. You have only given one side of the problem by quoting what the other sides extremist say.

BTW

If you wanna be Shia, why don't you find out what the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani thought of Khomeini's Death Cult?

Ayatollah Sistani, believes in Wilayat al Faqih

Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs to which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of Faqih among majority of momeneen.
The Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Sistani
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
islamic nations generally has many things in common(as mentioned in the OP), which proves that islam is capable of changing the culture.

Except that all cultures have things in common, even when they never met.

It needs to do more than just make cultures have things in common: it needs to make them all have the exact same culture.

That's never happened. Persia is still Persia and Arabia is still Arabia.

My basic understanding is that, it all started when muhammad demanded the removal of idols from the mecca and wanted everyone to worship his god alone, what can that be called?

The Qur'an doesn't seem to support that:

"To you your way, and to me mine."
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
So how does one account for the correlation between current islam and barbarous social behaviour, even across disparate cultures?

I grant you the golden age, but islam has clearly changed since then. At least the majority versions have.

If islam is not the reason, what is? What are the non-muslim equivalents of the Taliban, al-shabab, boko haram, feuding sunnis and shias etc? If the problem is human nature, there should be plenty to choose from. The mobs attacking accused blasphemers in Pakistan aren't doing so because of their idea of thermodynamics.

You've never heard of the mathematical religions of ancient Greece, have you? Legend has it that people were beheaded for claiming that there were irrational numbers.
 

Banner

Member
What non-muslim countries explicitly and thoroughly deny equal rights to women? In which ones is it common for howling mobs to commit mass murder over trifling disagreements over religion while at the same time telling us "there is no compulsion in religion"? It is the pervasive and often institutional nature of these evils I am interested in.

Muslims claim superior morality, yet their social organization does not back this up. If islam is not the cause of the cruelty, one must still ask why islam is so ineffective in preventing it. The correlation between cruelty and islam also remains to be explained.

Does islam make people cruel, or allow them to remain so, or is islam somehow attractive to people in cruel societies?

Well in all fairness, non Muslim countries aren't too far ahead on equal rights for women. The US included.
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Ayatollah Sistani, believes in Wilayat al Faqih

Every jurisprudent (Faqih) has wilayah (guardianship) over non-litigious affairs. Non-litigious affairs are called "al-omour al-hesbiah". As for general affairs to which social order is linked, wilayah of a Faqih and enforcement of wilayah depend on certain conditions one of which is popularity of Faqih among majority of momeneen.

The Official Website of Grand Ayatollah Sistani
Excellent!
Thank you so much...
I don't suppose that you would care to translate the above into plain English, would you?
I would but, I don't want to appear prejudiced so, perhaps you could do so...
Or - Anyone else?
Anyone care to translate the above quote by the Grand Ayatollah into plain English?
Please?

......

Oh what the hell. I'm terrible at waiting.
Here:
Coming to terms with Sistani
.....
Differences with Khomeini
Sistani was born in Mashhad, Iran, in 1929 to a family of religious scholars. He studied at the hands of the grand ayatollah Abdul-Qasim Khoei. Sistani rose in religious rank to be named a marje (religious reference) in 1960 during the heyday of the secular military dictatorship of president Abd al-Karim Qasim. He embraced religion when Arab, rather than Islamic, nationalism was the popular ideology in Iraq, and when the number of theology students was dropping by the thousands. In 1918, for example, 6,000 students studied at the theology schools of Sistani's Najaf, while by 1957 it had dropped to 1,954, of whom only 326 were Iraqis.

Many of those enrolled, according to historian Hanna Batatu, did so only in name in order to secure exemption from otherwise compulsory service in the Iraqi army. Sistani supported separation of religion from the state, under the influence of Khoei, and this spared him persecution by the military dictators of the 1960s and 1970s. In theory, he had no problem with the officers keeping the clergy away from political life in Iraq. Sistani stayed away from politics, leading a monastic life, and attracted millions of supporters throughout Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan.

In theory, he supported the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, but he grew disenchanted by Khomeini's theocracy. Sistani believed that government should be run by politicians, not clergymen, whose duty would be to maintain law and order and to run economic affairs, day-to-day politics and foreign relations. The clergy should not become politicians, he stressed, because this would corrupt them and distort their religious message. Instead, they should limit themselves to spiritual and religious matters in which the politicians cannot pass sound judgment.

Khomeinism, on the other hand, gave complete political control and responsibility to the clergymen. Khomeini advocated a system called vilayet-e-faqih (guardianship of the jurisprudent); clerical rule in political affairs, while Sistani called for it only in social issues. Khomeini established a cult personality for himself in Iran, much to the horror of the US, which he famously labeled "The Great Satan".

Sistani opposed that an ayatollah like Khomeini would involve himself in such a war of words - something that should be handled by the politicians, not the clergy. Even today, with US forces in Iraq, Sistani has refrained from ever criticizing the US, urging his men not to take up arms against the Americans, yet refusing to meet with any US official on Iraqi soil. He acknowledges that they are invaders, but it is not his duty to fight them out of Baghdad. He welcomed the war on Saddam, with no mandate from the United Nations, yet insisted on having UN inspectors at the elections of January 30.
 
Last edited:

Assad91

Shi'ah Ali
Ayatollah Sistani may or may not agree with the range of power by the jurist. But he still believes in Wilayat al faqih. Most scholars do.

This still doesn't answer my request for proof that wilayat al faqih as interpretated by Khomeini (ra) is the same as wahabism.
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Ayatollah Sistani may or may not agree with the range of power by the jurist. But he still believes in Wilayat al faqih. Most scholars do.

This still doesn't answer my request for proof that wilayat al faqih as interpretated by Khomeini (ra) is the same as wahabism.
Sorry. I can't help you.
"Wilayat al faqih" is a form of government invented by Khomeini.
You claim that the Grand Ayatollah believes in this form of government.
You are wrong.

You do not understand how the invented religious theocracy of Iran that murders secular and religious opponents, both in Iran and outside of Iran; and that believes that they have a mandate from G-d to kill anyone who disagrees with their particular religious philosophy - is similar to the Wahhabis.
Sorry. Can't help you there either.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Well in all fairness, non Muslim countries aren't too far ahead on equal rights for women. The US included.

Except that we have laws that are supposed to protect women, and they're quite well-enforced.
 

Banner

Member
Except that we have laws that are supposed to protect women, and they're quite well-enforced.

Yeah now we do. But not that long ago we didn't. That was my point. And these laws oppressing women and minorities were supported by the bible and Christianity. Men could beat their wives etc. Barbaric.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
Yeah now we do. But not that long ago we didn't. That was my point. And these laws oppressing women and minorities were supported by the bible and Christianity. Men could beat their wives etc. Barbaric.

We are discussing the present, though. Anyway, other societies being barbarous doesn't excuse the barbarity of any particular one.

Just now, muslim societies do have better examples in view, especially in the area of human rights.
 
Top