outhouse
Atheistically
No
-
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!
Muslim Reform Movement
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
No
No. You said and I quote: "There is some truth to it" but you never specified what that truth is so your post was useless.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
ArtueE, do you have the slightest idea how polemics work? @ArtieE
Again, if you are genuinely interested, spend a few years learning why the article is a polemic and why there is some truth to what they are saying but that truth is smeared by a lot of hyperbole. Try checking out less emotionally invested sources to find your answers.
Last edited:
What is incorrect about it?
Polemic "a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something." Regardless whether this is a "strong verbal or written attack" what is true about it?
Last edited:
So again you are saying "there is some truth to what they are saying" but won't specify what that truth is. Ok.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
What you are asking is a bit more difficult than you may realize. First off, the article is on a rather well known anti-Islam site. Second, the author quotes extensively from various sources but gives the impression there is only one interpretation. It would take a great deal of time and effort to rebuff what is being said, but even then, it would still be an opinion. Get it?
So everybody have their own opinions as to whether Islam is a peace-loving religion or not? There's no way to establish the exact truth of the matter?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
To be perfectly honest, it's a bit of a tossup on who you wish to believe. Muslims will tell you one thing, non-Muslims quite another. I know it sounds asinine, but it also depends what is meant by "peace-loving". Does Islam foster a sense of peace when it no longer faces any opposition? Well, yes, it does. How Islam deals with opposition has varied enormously over the generations with some leaders being quite "enlightened" and tolerant with others that would have made Genghis Khan blanch. But yes, once all the fighting stops, things do tend to get rather peaceful.
Personally, I'd have to say that Muslims are no more or no less "peace-loving" than any other group. Islam means submission for a reason and after one has submitted to Islam, yes, there is relative peace. If you're not big on the submission thingy, that could become problematic.
bump...
And now here we are four months later. The attacks in Brussels have happened. The immigration crisis in Europe rages on. Israel and the Palestinians are still at odds. In the US, there are armed protests at mosques. And so it goes...
To me, the ideas that created the Muslim Reform Movement (see the OP), are more urgent now than they were 4 months ago...
And now here we are four months later. The attacks in Brussels have happened. The immigration crisis in Europe rages on. Israel and the Palestinians are still at odds. In the US, there are armed protests at mosques. And so it goes...
To me, the ideas that created the Muslim Reform Movement (see the OP), are more urgent now than they were 4 months ago...
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
And only Ahmadiyya can re--form (in the authorized way Islam), Christianity,Judaism,Zoroastrianism,Buddhism, Hinduism etc, etc,etc, peacefully ,truthfully and truly. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's advent was only for this. Right?
Please correct me, anybody, if I am wrong; no compulsion whatsoever. No disrespect intended to anybody. I have described what I sincerely believe.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Truth does not necessarily need votes or majority and is not correct to be measured in % ages.
Regards
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But shouldn't violence done in the name of Islam by devout Muslims at least be considered? I agree it is in no way representative of the totality of Islam, but it seems foolish to ignore it altogether.
Technically, your earlier claim about Ahmadiyya is still unproven. It might end up being correct, and in might end up being incorrect. And I'd agree that the majority doesn't determine truth. For example, the world has relatively few atheists, but we're pretty darned sure we're correct.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The same way your is also unproven to me. Yet we are friends in humanity. Right?Technically, your earlier claim about Ahmadiyya is still unproven. It might end up being correct, and in might end up being incorrect. And I'd agree that the majority doesn't determine truth. For example, the world has relatively few atheists, but we're pretty darned sure we're correct.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I never said that.
It should not be generalized for every Muslim and every denomination of Muslims.
Regards
Yes, every claim needs evidence to back it up, and yes, friends in humanity!
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Right, but it should be considered when speaking to Islam in general, right?
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Okay, I could swear I replied to this already. I must be thinking of some other thread.
Not when those rights are granted to other people without discriminatory financial penalty because those people happen to be of the right religion. Your logic is the same logic used by gangsters extorting shopkeepers in for protection money: 'Isn't your safety worth paying for? What about the safety of your family, your business?'. Implicit in that statement is the threat of violence in the event of non-payment. People shouldn't have to pay extra money to enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens.
Yes, I'd say it's discrimination & evil. It's segregated treatment of a religious group. That is wrong. What, did you think I'd change my answer because it's being done to Muslims?
I'm saying those people probably didn't know about any extra taxes placed upon them. Travel (and the movement of information with it) was a lot more restricted in medieval times than it is now. Refugees fleeing religious persecution in Europe more than likely didn't know they'd be extorted by the barbarians whose lands they were fleeing to - and wouldn't have found out until they got there.
I've already explained why this is a false equivalence. I'm not doing so again. Dismissed.
It is true and I explained why: if you consume more resources, make more money and resultantly need a bigger bailout from the State then you can (and should) pay more. The rich aren't charged a flat amount the same as the poor here. That was tried in Scotland in the past. There were riots. The tax was subsequently abolished. The rich aren't arbitrarily deprived of their civic duties (like military service), nor is their social status degraded in exchange for paying these taxes.
Dhimmis are charged for being dhimmis. Nothing more. And they're subject to social humiliation and degradation as a result of being dhimmis. Example? Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian who might be put to death for 'insulting the Prophet of Islam' by drinking from the same well as Muslims. She lives (and may die) in a nest of savages.
Not when those rights are granted to other people without discriminatory financial penalty because those people happen to be of the right religion. Your logic is the same logic used by gangsters extorting shopkeepers in for protection money: 'Isn't your safety worth paying for? What about the safety of your family, your business?'. Implicit in that statement is the threat of violence in the event of non-payment. People shouldn't have to pay extra money to enjoy the same rights as their fellow citizens.
Yes, I'd say it's discrimination & evil. It's segregated treatment of a religious group. That is wrong. What, did you think I'd change my answer because it's being done to Muslims?
I'm saying those people probably didn't know about any extra taxes placed upon them. Travel (and the movement of information with it) was a lot more restricted in medieval times than it is now. Refugees fleeing religious persecution in Europe more than likely didn't know they'd be extorted by the barbarians whose lands they were fleeing to - and wouldn't have found out until they got there.
I've already explained why this is a false equivalence. I'm not doing so again. Dismissed.
It is true and I explained why: if you consume more resources, make more money and resultantly need a bigger bailout from the State then you can (and should) pay more. The rich aren't charged a flat amount the same as the poor here. That was tried in Scotland in the past. There were riots. The tax was subsequently abolished. The rich aren't arbitrarily deprived of their civic duties (like military service), nor is their social status degraded in exchange for paying these taxes.
Dhimmis are charged for being dhimmis. Nothing more. And they're subject to social humiliation and degradation as a result of being dhimmis. Example? Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian who might be put to death for 'insulting the Prophet of Islam' by drinking from the same well as Muslims. She lives (and may die) in a nest of savages.