"Reformed" Islam

[Sapiens]

Response: You make my point, as no where in any verse you just quoted that refers to fighting, not one says to fight an innocent person. The words "Fight the innocent" or anything synonymous to it is mentioned no where. It simply says to fight the disbelievers, while verse 8: 61 says not to fight those who incline to peace and verse 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion. Therefore, the context proves that the verses which say to fight unbelievers refer to those who attacked the Muslims first.

Once again demonstrating that Islam is a just and peaceful religion, supported by your own failure to quote any verse that refers to fighting that say "attack first", or "attack someone who is peaceful", while verses 8:61 and 2:256 clearly forbid fighting those who are peaceful and proves only to fight in self-defense.

There is, I'm happy to say, a religion of peace in this world, but it's not Islam. The call Islam is a religion of peace that we hear ceaselessly reiterated is completely delusional. Now Jainism actually is a religion of peace. The core principle of Jainism is non-violence. Gandhi got his non-violence from the Jains. The crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you. Jain extremists are paralysed by their pacifism. Jain extremists can't take their eyes off the ground when they walk lest they step on an ant... Needless to say they are vegetarian. So the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent. The problem isn't fundamentalism. We often hear this said; these are euphemisms... The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.

Sam Harris, from a lecture at the First Congregational Church of Berkeley, 10 November 2010.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Some of the inter locutorsin closed circuit
He wants to reform Islam to specific
The end is that Islam spread in the new world
Tell him that Islamc annot berepaired
1. because the Muslim Koran the word of God
And his law is God's law
Therefore every Muslim in an Islamic country does not recognize and does not believe in any other law

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: A person can believe whatever religion they like and not choosing Islam is not a form of disrespect. Yet not paying taxes is against the law in any nation.

I can't help but notice that you are avoiding any comments about whether Jizya even exists or ever existed. Maybe it was invented by malicious Islamophobes? Or perhaps the Quraan somehow says that it should not be demanded any longer?

Or is the truth something else?

Also: how exactly does Jihad apply towards a non-Muslim - say, an atheist - who happens to live in a state whose ruler is a well-respected Muslim who somehow does not demand the payment of Jizya from that non-Muslim? What if the rulers do demand Jizya and he claims to lack the money? What if he states outright that he finds Jizya repressive and refuses to pay?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

2. the freedom granted by Europe to the Islamic groups will cause the collapse of Europe next
Muslims in Europe will be supporters of Islamic invasion coming to Europe
3. my word this is not fiction but reading the history and upcoming events
4. the Islamic presence in countries like England, Germany, Belgium and Sweden from the early 19th century
They congregate and locked in their own cantons
Europe would grant them freedom
Dealing with the treatment of respect and humanity high standard despite this Muslim country law does not recognize and seek to apply Koranic law of God
4. as you know because of my words that you say
I am a Christian from Iraq and I'm from the country's indigenous
But Islam does not deal with us this freedom
Example-
Transactions of the marriage law in paragraph syntamha of the civil code
Legal understands this difference
When the Court called theCourt material profile
This means that Christian treatedstuff
In the civil law
And if you believe my words, I will send you my document
Court personal articles
Of CLA
While he Court accepted t he family court
Conditions mean there cognitionas a human being
We have accepted that injustice
Though they deserted us and also and tore down every dreamed of normal human
Will write more off-topic
Permission granted in Europe claim to have special courts
Out of State courts
And the reason
That go tthe best of the country's lawis respected
And provided a decent life
I call this in gratitude
The Muslim should be fully account able to the country that it migrating
It said that its better than the law of that country
You must know what you

 

[Estro Felino]

Response: You make my point, as no where in any verse you just quoted that refers to fighting, not one says to fight an innocent person. The words "Fight the innocent" or anything synonymous to it is mentioned no where. It simply says to fight the disbelievers, while verse 8: 61 says not to fight those who incline to peace and verse 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion. Therefore, the context proves that the verses which say to fight unbelievers refer to those who attacked the Muslims first.

well done. You contextualized the verses.

Once again demonstrating that Islam is a just and peaceful religion, supported by your own failure to quote any verse that refers to fighting that say "attack first", or "attack someone who is peaceful", while verses 8:61 and 2:256 clearly forbid fighting those who are peaceful and proves only to fight in self-defense.

Have I ever denied it? Of course it is peaceful....but some passages need to be contextualized as you did in the previous post...otherwise they can be misunderstood.
I was talking about contextualization...

 

[Estro Felino]

I can't help but notice that you are avoiding any comments about whether Jizya even exists or ever existed. Maybe it was invented by malicious Islamophobes? Or perhaps the Quraan somehow says that it should not be demanded any longer?

Or is the truth something else?

Also: how exactly does Jihad apply towards a non-Muslim - say, an atheist - who happens to live in a state whose ruler is a well-respected Muslim who somehow does not demand the payment of Jizya from that non-Muslim? What if the rulers do demand Jizya and he claims to lack the money? What if he states outright that he finds Jizya repressive and refuses to pay?

The Jizya did exist. Sicily was part of the Byzantine Empire, until it was attacked by the Muslims who conquered it.
No Christian and no Jew was forced to convert to Islam, but the 95 % of the Churches were transformed into mosques, and neither Christians nor Jews could practice publicly their religions. Only in private.
Besides...they had to pay the Jizya (gesia) for being non-Muslims.
In fact lots of them converted to Islam just not to pay it.

The same thing happened in the Iberian peninsula. the very same thing. The Spanish and the Portuguese were two Christian nations that had never bothered Muslims nor Islam. and yet the Muslims conquered the peninsula, they created a caliphate, and they forced Spanish and Portuguese Non-Muslims to pay the jizya.

Of course they paid the jizya...whereas the Muslims paid the zakaat. so they both paid 2 different taxes, but non-Muslims were excluded from the administration of the state...so they definitely were second-class citizens

 

[Estro Felino]

As a side note, I also believe that Christianity needs serious reform, but that's for a separate thread. So stop crying "Islamophobia" you guys. I criticize ALL religions.

So, as for the idea "criticize with respect". Well sure, we should strive to be respectful of people. But there is no reason to respect ideas. Some ideas are just plain silly. And freedom of speech is MOST important in situations when fascist authorities want to stop criticism.

there's an Atheist in my country, a professor, who wrote a book called: "why you are not supposed to be Christian" in which he says that the Bible is the most absurd book ever and that Christians who believe in it, are idiotic. He underlines that the word "Cretin" comes from French "chrétien" which means Christian. so he concludes that Christians are Cretins- ha ha
I love that professor...he's my personal hero. and lots of Christians too

 

[Pastek]

so there is a conflict between two authorities: the religious one and the state courts. The state doesn't care about what an imam does or doesn't.
But what the Imam does, has no juridic value for the state law.

In muslim countries jews and christians can have their own laws concerning mariage, inheritance, divorce etc.
They have a responsable for their community concerning those matters.

Pastek says that the separation is possible. You say it is impossible.
You guys should find an agreement,

I don't believe in politicians and i don't think that we need a kind of religious leader like the Ayatollah or King of Saudi to rule.
They have shown that they mix their own interest with religion and by that way with all the power in their hands they limited even some change concerning the Law by some abuses who have sometimes nothing do to with the Sharia.

I think that we need a religious authority not influenced by the leaders and free like the Justice should be free.

When we look at the past of course we can see great leaders like Omar, Othman etc. but now things changed our leaders have nothing to do with those Califes.
And i think that for the own good of the Oumma it's better for now to separate both to preserve ourselfs and our religion.
Our leaders today use the religion to their own benefits and claim to be the defensors of Islam.
When i say to separate the State and the church i don't mean by that that our source of law can't be the Sharia.
The base of the law is the Sharia but with a democratic state.

Of course it's just my opinion.
I fear for the muslims what happens in the christian nations. At the end many people lost faith in their religion because of the abuse of the leaders and the religious.

 

[Estro Felino]

In muslim countries jews and christians can have their own laws concerning mariage, inheritance, divorce etc.
They have a responsable for their community concerning those matters.

I am sorry, but according to our European constitutions, this is an aberration., Because religion is worth less than zero before the law, and all religions are insignificant and juridically irrelevant before the state authority.
so all citizens, regardless of their religion or cultural background, must respect one law. One law. The same law. One civil law, one penal law, one administrative law. And I think, from a rational point of view, this is a very secular, advanced, modern and enlightened concept.
Juridic particularism is backward and medieval.

Of course it's just my opinion.
I fear for the muslims what happens in the christian nations. At the end many people lost faith in their religion because of the abuse of the leaders and the religious.

There are no Christian nations in Europe. In Europe there are secular nations, and I thank God each day for secularism.
Secularism implies that our constitutions are inspired by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.
The French Constitution is one of the best constitutions in the world because it was influenced by Atheists and Deists.
so...a state is supposed to be secular. Because in this way, all cultures and all religions can live pacifically in a country.
Because the law is equal for all. There are no privileges, no legal discriminations, no particularism.

Is Islam compatible with secularism? I think it IS
and in fact, lots of peaceful, loving European Muslims live in secular countries.

 

[Pastek]

There are no Christian nations in Europe. In Europe there are secular nations, and I thank God each day for secularism.

I was talking about the past. I don't know if there's still christian nations today.
I've seen some countries who have religious in their assembly in eastern countries but i don't remember which ones.
Anyway i was talking about Europe 1 or 2 centuries ago.

Secularism implies that our constitutions are inspired by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.
The French Constitution is one of the best constitutions in the world because it was influenced by Atheists and Deists.
so...a state is supposed to be secular.

The French contitution is very good it's true (even though Napoleon declared himself Emperor and sacred by .... the Pope.)
But i believe that the muslim countries should first look at the Sharia as the base, then be inspiring by other Constitutions like the French one.
I studied it at school so i know how good is this constitution for many points.

Because the law is equal for all. There are no privileges, no legal discriminations, no particularism.

Is Islam compatible with secularism? I think it IS
and in fact, lots of peaceful, loving European Muslims live in secular countries.

Some of the western law can be inspiring for muslims like some part of the Sharia can be inspiring for non muslims, for exemple the principle of the Islamic bank.

European muslims living in secular countries have no problem with it like myself. I have no problem at all for living my faith.
But like i said concerning some points, in a muslim country it will be different like : the mariage, divorce, inheritance etc ..
And for non-muslims depending of their religion it can be adapted to them like i said before. Then there's no conflict with their religious law.

 

[Estro Felino]

Some of the western law can be inspiring for muslims like some part of the Sharia can be inspiring for non muslims, for exemple the principle of the Islamic bank. .

I've nothing against the sharia and each country has the right to choose it. But I am against juridic particularism in my country, that is, the simultaneous presence of two different juridic systems in the same country. Because it is not fair. It's like I moved to the US and I expected American judges to apply the civil laws of my country. That is absurd.

so...of course the sharia can be inspired by other laws and our laws can be inspired by the sharia. As long as the law is one and is equal for everyone.

the Islamic banking is a very very good idea, and in fact it is a very advanced concept of a secular state that protects the common welfare and social justice. In economics Islam is certainly more advanced

European muslims living in secular countries have no problem with it like myself. I have no problem at all for living my faith.
But like i said concerning some points, in a muslim country it will be different like : the mariage, divorce, inheritance etc ..
And for non-muslims depending of their religion it can be adapted to them like i said before. Then there's no conflict with their religious law.

Civil law is law. Even if it deals with private matters. so...again...why are Muslim people disgusted by the European civil laws so much, that they don't want to apply them?
they are not so bad....

 

[Pastek]

Civil law is law. Even if it deals with private matters. so...again...why are Muslim people disgusted by the European civil laws so much, that they don't want to apply them?
they are not so bad....

It depends which ones. The majority of muslim countries adopted some laws coming from the countries they were colonised by.
The Sharia law also deal with private matters but this doesn't mean there's no equality.
If i have an inheritance for exemple i should be free to do it as the sharia ask me to do. Like a non-muslim who is not under the sharia law make his own will according to his beliefs. I think this is fair.

 

[Estro Felino]

It depends which ones. The majority of muslim countries adopted some laws coming from the countries they were colonised by.
The Sharia law also deal with private matters but this doesn't mean there's no equality.
If i have an inheritance for exemple i should be free to do it as the sharia ask me to do. Like a non-muslim who is not under the sharia law make his own will according to his beliefs. I think this is fair.

But it is like I moved to the US, and I became an American citizen.
and I expected American judges to apply the civil law of my country about an inheritance of an American uncle of mine.
I could never demand something like that. This would be against the international law.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

There is, I'm happy to say, a religion of peace in this world, but it's not Islam. The call Islam is a religion of peace that we hear ceaselessly reiterated is completely delusional. Now Jainism actually is a religion of peace. The core principle of Jainism is non-violence. Gandhi got his non-violence from the Jains. The crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you. Jain extremists are paralysed by their pacifism. Jain extremists can't take their eyes off the ground when they walk lest they step on an ant... Needless to say they are vegetarian. So the problem is not religious extremism, because extremism is not a problem if your core beliefs are truly non-violent. The problem isn't fundamentalism. We often hear this said; these are euphemisms... The only problem with Islamic fundamentalism are the fundamentals of Islam.

Sam Harris, from a lecture at the First Congregational Church of Berkeley, 10 November 2010.

Response: Islam is indeed a religion of peace, as every teaching in Islam establishes peace. Whereas the concept of non-violence does not bring peace and is one of the biggest misconceptions. No nation on earth in any time in history ever practiced non-violence against violence to become a powerful nation. Nor has any people continued to practice it in any movement ever. Showing the completely flawed concept of non-violence.

Gandhi himself was successful not because of non-violence but because Gandhi was a part of a majority race, while their oppressor was the minority. Therefore, any political or democratic decision by the government would favor Gandhi since he had the support of the majority. Forcing a decision in favor of Gandhi. Yet since Gandhi, none of his people or generations after him continued in non-violence. Instead, the kept their independence thorough war. Showing the flaw in non-violence. The same for the civil rights movement, when MLK's last march broke out into violence and people began adopting Malcolm X teachings and screaming black power. Then and only then, did the progression of civil rights come faster, as the rise of the Black Panther Party and other self-defense organizations forced their white oppressor to give in.

So non-violence is bogus. The media only advertises it as being the right way, because they know that they can oppress people who adopt it. For it is easier for me to punch you in the face, when I know you will not swing back. So Not a Muslim. You swing on me, and get swung on. Self-defense. Hence, Islam is the right way and religion of peace.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I can't help but notice that you are avoiding any comments about whether Jizya even exists or ever existed. Maybe it was invented by malicious Islamophobes? Or perhaps the Quraan somehow says that it should not be demanded any longer?

Or is the truth something else?

Also: how exactly does Jihad apply towards a non-Muslim - say, an atheist - who happens to live in a state whose ruler is a well-respected Muslim who somehow does not demand the payment of Jizya from that non-Muslim? What if the rulers do demand Jizya and he claims to lack the money? What if he states outright that he finds Jizya repressive and refuses to pay?

Response: Nothing was avoided. So such a statement only brings notice to an agenda or misunderstanding about Jizya in your questioning. If you want a direct answer, then ask the question directly. Rather, than in a way to direct me to an answer you want.

As for Jizya, Jizya is the name of a tax paid by non-Muslims living in an Islamic state. So what is there to comment on? All people must pay taxes. Non-Muslims as well.

 

[Estro Felino]

Response: Nothing was avoided. So such a statement only brings notice to an agenda or misunderstanding about Jizya in your questioning. If you want a direct answer, then ask the question directly. Rather, than in a way to direct me to an answer you want.

As for Jizya, Jizya is the name of a tax paid by non-Muslims living in an Islamic state. So what is there to comment on? All people must pay taxes. Non-Muslims as well.

Islamic states are free to do whatever they want to.
Muslims pay the zakat and Non-Muslims the jizya.
But this is called "discriminating people on the basis of their religion". Discriminating literally means "to differentiate".

In our European constitution there is not even the gender discrimination. Religion is something juridically irrelevant and insignificant before the law. So to us Europeans it is absurd that a state can split citizens into Muslims and non-Muslims.
But I do respect Islamic states.

all that really matters is that Muslims who move to Europe understand that they can practice their religion and the state protects their right of religion (lots of states even finance mosques), but they must obey the state law and are not allowed to apply the law of their countries

 

[icehorse]

Al-Fatihah,

For the sake of discussion, let's say that you have the correct interpretation of the Quran - just for the sake of discussion. The problem I see is that for 1400 years and across many violent situations, millions of Muslims have disagreed with you and continue to disagree with you to this very day.

So if you ARE correct, the problem is that the scripture is difficult for everyone else to understand properly. That's the best case.

Now, I'm an editor by profession, and having read the Quran I can tell you that it's not at all surprising to me that many millions of people take violent and intolerant messages from this book.

So, what can we do about this? The way this book is written, a lot of human brains will feel they've been given violent and intolerant instructions. We can sit here on this forum, and you can say "those millions got it wrong", but clearly your opinion doesn't have much impact on changing the minds of those millions...

 

[LuisDantas]

Response: Nothing was avoided. So such a statement only brings notice to an agenda or misunderstanding about Jizya in your questioning. If you want a direct answer, then ask the question directly. Rather, than in a way to direct me to an answer you want.

As for Jizya, Jizya is the name of a tax paid by non-Muslims living in an Islamic state. So what is there to comment on? All people must pay taxes. Non-Muslims as well.

It seems to me that my questions were clear and honest enough.

But I will agree that they do bring notice of an agenda. Not mine, but an agenda nonetheless.

 

[Woodrow LI]

But it is like I moved to the US, and I became an American citizen.
and I expected American judges to apply the civil law of my country about an inheritance of an American uncle of mine.
I could never demand something like that. This would be against the international law.

As long as you are not Muslim you would be able to do so. It is only the use of Islamic Civil law that is specifically forbidden in some States ( about 10-20 states)

Civil laws are not actually codified by state law it is what the individual contract covers.

Islamic states are free to do whatever they want to.
Muslims pay the zakat and Non-Muslims the jizya.
But this is called "discriminating people on the basis of their religion". Discriminating literally means "to differentiate".

In our European constitution there is not even the gender discrimination. Religion is something juridically irrelevant and insignificant before the law. So to us Europeans it is absurd that a state can split citizens into Muslims and non-Muslims.
But I do respect Islamic states.

all that really matters is that Muslims who move to Europe understand that they can practice their religion and the state protects their right of religion (lots of states even finance mosques), but they must obey the state law and are not allowed to apply the law of their countries

Until ISIS Jizyah has not been collected in over 100 years. Since ISIS is not a recognized state they have no authority to collect any taxes.

In most nations the Zakat paid by Muslims was higher than the Jizyah paid by non-Muslims. The Jizyah was only to be collected from the able bodied males of military age and they had the option of serving in the military instead. In today's "fair" world were the Non-Muslims get the same tax rates as Muslims, they all have to pay and can be drafted for military duty.

Out side of Saudi and Iran non-Muslims do build churches and at times the government helps fund them.

For example HERE

 

[Estro Felino]

As long as you are not Muslim you would be able to do so. It is only the use of Islamic Civil law that is specifically forbidden in some States ( about 10-20 states)

Civil laws are not actually codified by state law it is what the individual contract covers.

okay...there's a picture I want to show you:

all the countries in blue are the states where there is a written civil and penal law (the codes).

Let's take France. In France a Muslim can never apply the Islamic sharia, not even for private matters (contracts, marriages, divorces, inheritance). Because there is already a civil law, written in the Code Civil, and French Muslims must regulate their private relationships according to these laws. so these deals and acts are legal and juridically relevant (legally recognized).
Of course they can make private deals by applying the sharia law. It's their right to do that.
But these deals, contracts, marriages, etc...do not have juridic value before the French law.

Got it?

I am law school graduate, so I do know how the law works in countries like France, Italy, Spain.
Differently than UK; USA; etc