Islamaphobia - Years later, I accept its a real/true phenomena and an industry

[Spirit of Light]

But what about the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing a novel ("The Islamic Versus"). It calls for him to be summarily killed. Killing people -- you might have heard this -- is not an entirely peaceful occupation. And again, it does seem that Islam mandates death for apostates -- those who, for whatever reason of their own, have come to some other faith belief after having once professed Islam. Killing people -- even for changing their own beliefs -- doesn't seem all that peaceful to me, but maybe you have another definition of peaceful.

Personally I do not agree with fatwa at all, so no do not support everything Islam teaches. But I am not a Muslim, so it is not my duty to teach them what I think is correct within their belief.

Peaceful practice of spiritual teaching is the practice that happens within our self.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

1 - We should take the book at face value. This is the approach I've taken, and when you take the book at face value, it's a very unhappy picture.

Take it at face value and then you have no Qur'an, period. You've mutilated the Qur'an to your own ends, you've become a fundamentalist ignorant of hermeneutics.

2 - We need to "live by the scripture, and study it thoroughly". This seems to be the approach you're suggesting. The problem with this approach is that many Muslims have been doing this for 1400 years, and violent sects have been the consistent outcome. This seems like a predictable outcome to me because in order to tease any sort of humane message from the book requires extensive mental gymnastics, and of course every sect will perform those gymnastics their own way.

Violent heresies never come out of point 2, they always, ALWAYS come out of point 1, the very one you favor - and no wonder why.

As it happens, I've taken the time to read the Quran, read about Muhammad, and read a small bit of the Hadith.

So? doesn't make you a person who understands anything. You don't gain knowledge from your level of laziness mate.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

This response was in reference to my claim that many Muslims are not allowed to walk away from the faith. If this is nonsense, then please explain to me why apostasy is a crime - sometimes a CAPITAL crime - in so many Muslim majority countries?

That is the fault of governments with their own agendas like you. You're talking politics, not religion.

Apostasy and Islam

It remains totally incoherent the concept of apostasy, especially to the Islamic mindset, when the Qur'an makes it pretty clear again and again that the faith is not about adhering to an identity, it is an internal process. Calling yourself a "Muslim" means nothing by itself as far as the Qur'an is concerned. The very concept of apostasy is anathema to the Qur'an, there is no such thing.

وَمِنَ النّاسِ مَن يَقولُ آمَنّا بِاللَّهِ وَبِاليَومِ الآخِرِ وَما هُم بِمُؤمِنينَ​

And among the people are those who say,‘We have faith in God and the Last Day,’but they have no faith.

يُخادِعونَ اللَّهَ وَالَّذينَ آمَنوا وَما يَخدَعونَ إِلّا أَنفُسَهُم وَما يَشعُرونَ​

They seek to deceive God and those who have faith, yet they deceive no one but themselves, but they are not aware.

(Surah 2:8-9)​

أَحَسِبَ النّاسُ أَن يُترَكوا أَن يَقولوا آمَنّا وَهُم لا يُفتَنونَ​

Do the people suppose that they will be let off because they say, ‘We have faith,’ and they will not be tested?

وَلَقَد فَتَنَّا الَّذينَ مِن قَبلِهِم ۖ فَلَيَعلَمَنَّ اللَّهُ الَّذينَ صَدَقوا وَلَيَعلَمَنَّ الكاذِبينَ​

Certainly We tested those who were before them. So God shall surely ascertain those who are truthful, and He shall surely ascertain the liars.

أَم حَسِبَ الَّذينَ يَعمَلونَ السَّيِّئَاتِ أَن يَسبِقونا ۚ ساءَ ما يَحكُمونَ​

Do those who commit misdeeds suppose that they can outmaneuver Us? Evil is the judgement that they make.

(Surah 29:2-4)​

لَيسَ البِرَّ أَن تُوَلّوا وُجوهَكُم قِبَلَ المَشرِقِ وَالمَغرِبِ وَلٰكِنَّ البِرَّ مَن آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَاليَومِ الآخِرِ وَالمَلائِكَةِ وَالكِتابِ وَالنَّبِيّينَ وَآتَى المالَ عَلىٰ حُبِّهِ ذَوِي القُربىٰ وَاليَتامىٰ وَالمَساكينَ وَابنَ السَّبيلِ وَالسّائِلينَ وَفِي الرِّقابِ وَأَقامَ الصَّلاةَ وَآتَى الزَّكاةَ وَالموفونَ بِعَهدِهِم إِذا عاهَدوا ۖ وَالصّابِرينَ فِي البَأساءِ وَالضَّرّاءِ وَحينَ البَأسِ ۗ أُولٰئِكَ الَّذينَ صَدَقوا ۖ وَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ المُتَّقونَ
Righteousness is not to turn your faces to the east or the west; rather, right is [personified by] those who have faith in God and the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets, and who give their wealth, for the love of Him, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveller and the beggar, and for [the freeing of] the slaves, and maintain the prayer and give the zakāt, and those who fulfill their covenants, when they pledge themselves, and those who are patient in stress and distress, and in the heat of battle. They are the ones who are true [to their covenant], and it is they who are the God-conscious.

(Surah 2:177)​

The above verse being once again about how what you call yourself is not the mode of thought that the Qur'an identifies exults. Heck, the word "Muslim" itself only means someone that Submits to God (someone that inhibits divine acquiescence towards the ground of reality).

 

[EsonauticSage]

Muslims make well known claims about the quran:

- it's timeless
- it's perfect

Nothing wrong with that Truth is truth.

 

[icehorse]

Take it at face value and then you have no Qur'an, period. You've mutilated the Qur'an to your own ends, you've become a fundamentalist ignorant of hermeneutics.

You're on shaky ground here from a logical perspective. If I take Muslims at their word, then I must consider the Quran to be perfect and timeless. Therefore, no historical context should be needed, and I should be able to take each line as true, so far so good? The Quran declares itself to be easy to understand. Therefore I don't need to rely on religious scholars to understand the book. Call me ignorant if you choose, but I'm just taking Muslims at their word and coming to logical conclusions.

As a side note, I've heard from Muslims that Muslims are supposed to be nice to anyone who is sincerely studying Islam. From that perspective, I'd have to say that you're behavior isn't cutting the mustard... mate.

Violent heresies never come out of point 2, they always, ALWAYS come out of point 1, the very one you favor - and no wonder why.

Muslims have been at each other's throats for 1400 years, not sure how you can pin this on me

You don't gain knowledge from your level of laziness mate.

Another personal slam, not indicative of strong arguments. It might be good for you to recall that a lot of people will be reading this thread. You might want to consider whether you really think you can fool all of them with this sort of childish name calling.

My advice to you would be to stick with arguing the ideas, and lay off the personal insults.

 

[icehorse]

It remains totally incoherent the concept of apostasy, especially to the Islamic mindset, when the Qur'an makes it pretty clear again and again that the faith is not about adhering to an identity, it is an internal process. Calling yourself a "Muslim" means nothing by itself as far as the Qur'an is concerned. The very concept of apostasy is anathema to the Qur'an, there is no such thing.

I wish your perspective was widely held, but alas it is not. You cannot fault non-Muslims for looking at the evidence in the world. If the Muslim world frequently punishes apostates, then that's the reality YOU have to face, because you're just one person and there are 1.8 billion Muslims. We non-Muslims, if we're going to learn about Islam, have no choice but to view Islam from a statistical perspective.

 

[icehorse]

Nothing wrong with that Truth is truth.

Thanks for confirming that!

 

[EsonauticSage]

Thanks for confirming that!

Everything else you've said does not follow from that.

 

[EsonauticSage]

You're on shaky ground here from a logical perspective. If I take Muslims at their word, then I must consider the Quran to be perfect and timeless.

Lol, you can't understand how something is timeless if the context of it's reception isn't known, and the meanings thereof are first derived. You're speaking silliness.

 

[EsonauticSage]

The Quran declares itself to be easy to understand. Therefore I don't need to rely on religious scholars to understand the book.

That is again a non-sequitur fallacy.

 

[EsonauticSage]

As a side note, I've heard from Muslims that Muslims are supposed to be nice to anyone who is sincerely studying Islam. From that perspective, I'd have to say that you're behavior isn't cutting the mustard... mate.

Lol, he gave proper logical priority towards Hermenetutics, and you call that "your behavior".

When you're told to study something, you're not supposed to be flinging mud, yet you are. Logical conclusions aren't reached by flinging mud. You have a broken method.

Muslims have been at each other's throats for 1400 years, not sure how you can pin this on me

You didn't even address him about Hermeneutics.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As far as I know, India does not have a state religion, and enshrines freedom of religion in its constitution, correct? So at least in the eyes of Indian law, a Muslim Indian would be no less a citizen of India than a Hindu. Would you agree?

Yes, completely. Not just in law, but in the minds of his compatriots, unless he/she revokes this right by his/her actions. Hindus and Muslims have lived together in India since the Prophet's (PUBH) time.

But seeing it as a Hindu, the people converted to Islam, many by force, are a loss to Hinduism - and these numbers are large.

If you remove all practicality of the matter, could it be so? If the Indian police beats up innocent people and steals their property, I don't think it matters. Or are we going to give virtue points of what is written but not applied?

Indian police would not do it. It has a large proportion of Muslim Officers and men. Recruitment takes that into consideration. The Rapid Action Force has to recruit men by law at least in the proportion of any religion in India to avoid such a situation, i.e., 14% in case of Muslims. We are aware of the problem. And if some unit does that, the the Courts will take strict action against it. India is a country of law. It is not a banana republic.

 

[firedragon]

No I do not agree that spreading atheism is spreading corruption on earth, or that there should even be a death penalty let alone for things as trivial as prostitution, however in Iran he was the one who got to decide what it meant, and an array of non-crimes where charged under that title.

It’s part of why i’m opposed to such a catch all charge. Tell us what you are really charging them with. That way we don’t have disbelievers in the majority opinion lumped in with murderers etc.

Do you agree with Sadeq in Islam "corruption in the land" means what he says and includes atheists?

 

[firedragon]

I don't know. Islamophobia might actually be quite reasonable for someone working or living in tall towers in major cities. After all, no other religion has ever taken down huge towers by flying planes into them for religious reasons. Thus, I strongly doubt that anybody in the new WTC is suffering from "Quakerphobia," wondering when they'll take down their building.

Alright. So what people are doing is they are using this "Islamaphobia" created by the WTC bombing to make money and political gain.

Maybe this you would understand in the midst of your attempt.

 

[firedragon]

How about the Ghulat and Kharijite movements? Or the Sufi orders? How about Ibadi, Ash’ari, Maturidi, Murji’ah, Qadariyyah, Mu’tazili, Jahmiyyah, Bateniyyah. Or how about the Ahmadiyya or Gülen/Hizmet movements? Salfism and Wahhabism – what about them?

So what about them? Im curious to know what you have to say about them and why this matters!

Lets take Kharijites. Who are they, where do they live, and why do they matter to this discussion?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But seeing it as a Hindu, the people converted to Islam, many by force, are a loss to Hinduism - and these numbers are large.

The right to convert to another religion is a human right, not something to be bothered by.

 

[icehorse]

Lol, you can't understand how something is timeless if the context of it's reception isn't known, and the meanings thereof are first derived. You're speaking silliness.

When we use critical thinking and logic we look for the most parsimonious explanations. You sir, have ti jump through mental hoops to square the arguments you're making. Not very convincing.

 

[icehorse]

That is again a non-sequitur fallacy.

You'll have to walk me through your logic on that one..

 

[icehorse]

Lol, he gave proper logical priority towards Hermenetutics, and you call that "your behavior".

When you're told to study something, you're not supposed to be flinging mud, yet you are. Logical conclusions aren't reached by flinging mud. You have a broken method.

You didn't even address him about Hermeneutics.

No, he did not. He gave me his interpretation, correct? for the sake of discussion, let's say that @firedragon is a well known scholar of Islam. That is probably an interesting field of study, and perhaps it also has some historical significance. But he can never claim that his interpretations are "the truth" about Islam. At best he is just one scholar and there are tens of thousands of scholars who disagree with him. No matter he says, many will disagree.

OTOH, if we look at the book from a logical perspective, we can arrive at some conclusions that anyone who uses logic can agree with. That's the beauty of logic

 

[EsonauticSage]

No, he did not. He gave me his interpretation, correct? for the sake of discussion, let's say that @firedragon is a well known scholar of Islam. That is probably an interesting field of study, and perhaps it also has some historical significance. But he can never claim that his interpretations are "the truth" about Islam. At best he is just one scholar and there are tens of thousands of scholars who disagree with him. No matter he says, many will disagree.

OTOH, if we look at the book from a logical perspective, we can arrive at some conclusions that anyone who uses logic can agree with. That's the beauty of logic

Ah circular reasoning. Funny you are