What do you know about Islam?

[Autodidact]

Actually , the division between shias and sunnis is not upon interpretation of Quran rather its due to historical facts, but the main reason is shias contradiciting the principles of Islam, wich makes the difference intolerable. Because the difference of opinions is a very well know thing in Islam upon secondary rulings, not upon principles. So when principles are contradicted, then the difference is not tolerable anymore, and those who contradict it (their scholars) are considered as out of the fold of Islam, while the laypeople are excused for ignorance.

This is the sort of intolerant attitude, stating as fact issues that are widely questioned, that turns me off of Islam. There's a fundamental arrogance that is just intolerable.

 

[Badran]

It's what is known about Islam.

It is some people's view of the history of some Muslims. (I'll explain why i still said "some" later in this post).

But the source book of Catholicism doesn't tell them to convert by conquest.

Exactly, their religion doesn't advocate these actions, so why should they leave it?

All Muslims of that time. But will Muslims agree to do that?

There are 2 things:

1) Not all Islamic wars were wrong.

2) We do not know what every single Muslims was doing at that time. May be there was some Muslims objecting and denouncing what other Muslims do. So we can't say "all".

That's a matter of opinion, isn't it. Do Western Muslims realise that they technically break the law by teaching the Qur'an?

I'm not sure i understand what you mean here.

But it wouldn't be able to do so without that violence. And people who refuse to condemn violence cannot be trusted not to adopt violence if circumstances change.

There is no violence today. Islam today is spread through completely peaceful ways. The only sense i can make of what you said is that you mean that if it weren't for violence in the past, Islam would've ceased to exist today?

There are over dozen situations in today's world in which the Qur'an's incitement is responsible for conflict.

I don't deny that some people's misinterpretations of religious commands in general, and the Quran in this case, do cause problems sometimes. However so does the misconception of many other things.

 

[it's_sam]

How can the nation expect their Caliphate to do the right move when either side will disagree no matter what he does? The problem is too deep in the people to peak as a political assumption. For someone to even think about stepping up to that has more love for their people then i could ever wish to have. Or were just stupid enough to think they could get power in a time of emotional and spiritual turmoil on a national level. So i say again this devide in the muslim religion needs to be handled by the practicers. It's nice that we in America want to help keep peace but we are pushing one side against the other without much talking and with alot of trading. There is an argument that war advances a country, their reasons are of funding from other nation, advancements in medicine, and other things with excusitory properties. It seem's obvious to me that when you suddenly have thousands less people to pay and feed that free's up alot of money. Almost every nation has ended up deciding war to be the best plan of action and even in america this will manifest in small groups of riots before they are dispersed. This devide will end up in two ways, first being obviousely death to the infedels (wich just so happens to be anyone that disagrees), or second a common ground is met on both sides. Some of you are probably catching on that there is another side, but that would be where we allready are. Wich is trying to let them see the truth of their actions like we do. This would work great and does in some cases but the ones in control knew this allready and its an issue of, they allready found their excuse to justify the act. No words will convince them out of this because they inside dont need it to be at peace in mind, or quite simply don't care because they can convince their people with the understanding as to why they did what and in who's name.

 

[it's_sam]

I would like to add i'm not saying that America did things right. In my mind if your religion damn's non believers to hell your gonna end up with ALOT of people throught time comming to you for some answers for that. We all talk of heaven but we all act like nobody else is gonna be there outside of people that have the same thoughts as yourself. If what every religion says about heaven is real thats going to be ALLLOOOTTT of people and from the beggining of time as well. Do any of us know what religion the first person in heaven practiced? I wouldn't say i know who deserves to burn in hell any more then i could say who will be the first to make cold fusion a reality. Personaly i see it far worse focusing on burning zillions of people that arent your religion and in their eternal rest, compared to murdering because your stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[YmirGF]

Hello everyone,

*Waves to Fatima...*

I would like to know about each person what they know about Islam?

Everything? Lol. That is not an easy thing to answer. I don't know much because I have only read the entire Qur'an 5 or 6 times now (different English translations). I have only read several hundred hadith by Muslim and Bukhari. I have only managed to read several hundred Fatwas written by learned Muslim "scholars". I have only spoken with a few hundred Muslims since Islam rather rudely entered my consciousness on Sept. 11, 2001.

Up to that point in time, I didn't care, in the slightest, about anything to do with Islam. It just seemed like Christianity hyped up on Steroids with far too many fanatical followers - to seriously bother with. 9/11 changed all that and I have been learning as much about Islam as I possibly can ever since. I am one who has read the Qur'an, digested it and have rejected it and am FULLY aware of the implications of doing so.

I may have a secret purpose behind it ( who knows? ) , but the main reason is jsut curiosity?

A full serving of dawa, with a healthy dollop of taqqiya, most likely.

Best regards

And to you, yours.

Ps: Dont get wrong my secret purpose, its just clearing misconceptions if there are any (I thought maybe someone could die of curiosity, and I wouldnt let that happen )

Oh trust me, it's no secret to some, but I am sure many will be curious. Your remarks to Caladan are especially instructive.

 

[kejos]

It is some people's view of the history of some Muslims. (I'll explain why i still said "some" later in this post).

Perhaps that's true, but we agree that this issue a subject for debate.

Exactly, their religion doesn't advocate these actions, so why should they leave it?

That's their business. Islam continues to advocate violence in its Qur'an as it did in medieval times, and the business of Muslims is to reconcile that fact with their religion. It seems to me that it is irreconcilable with a good conscience, but others may differ.

There are 2 things:

1) Not all Islamic wars were wrong.

If there was an army to retaliate, they were all wrong.

2) We do not know what every single Muslims was doing at that time.

Ok, we'll let off those who lived in remote places.

I'm not sure i understand what you mean here.

Incitement to violence is a crime in all Western countries, afaik. Were it not for the economic interests of the West in absorbing immigrants, there would very possibly be prosecutions.

There is no violence today.

There is religious violence today, around the world, and Islam is almost always involved.

The only sense i can make of what you said is that you mean that if it weren't for violence in the past, Islam would've ceased to exist today?

Islam would never have existed but for violence- or would have been far smaller than it is, had it somehow survived.

some people's misinterpretations of religious commands

I think that radicals read perfectly accurately, according to all translations I have read; and 'moderates' aid and abet them simply by giving the Qur'an credence. The problem is with Islam itself. The inescapable conclusion is that it is the duty of all right-thinking persons to abandon it.

 

[Badran]

That's their business. Islam continues to advocate violence in its Qur'an as it did in medieval times, and the business of Muslims is to reconcile that fact with their religion. It seems to me that it is irreconcilable with a good conscience, but others may differ.

Once again, i guess it will come down to how you interpret the verses you're referring to. For me as well as many others, we don't see the Quran advocating any violent things except in certain situations.

If there was an army to retaliate, they were all wrong.

Sorry for being dense, but i don't get it. You mean if the other side had an army to retaliate with, they are all wrong?

Incitement to violence is a crime in all Western countries, afaik. Were it not for the economic interests of the West in absorbing immigrants, there would very possibly be prosecutions.

You mean that Islam advocates violence in the west? and if so, what do you mean by that?

There is religious violence today, around the world, and Islam is almost always involved.

I didn't mean there is no violence today, of course there is. I meant the message is not spread through violence.

Islam would never have existed but for violence- or would have been far smaller than it is, had it somehow survived.

Would have never existed, that's your opinion, but not resembling any facts at all. As for being smaller, probably true yes. Still i can't see what is that meant to prove.

I think that radicals read perfectly accurately, according to all translations I have read; and 'moderates' aid and abet them simply by giving the Qur'an credence. The problem is with Islam itself. The inescapable conclusion is that it is the duty of all right-thinking persons to abandon it.

I disagree completely. Millions of perfectly intelligent people are Muslims, and some others even embrace Islam independently, so at best it's a matter of preference. If you want to see it that way, that's up to you of course.

 

[Autodidact]

There is no violence today. Islam today is spread through completely peaceful ways. The only sense i can make of what you said is that you mean that if it weren't for violence in the past, Islam would've ceased to exist today?

Muslims today are not bombing and otherwise killing non-Muslims as well as other Muslims in an effort to defend and advance Islam?

 

[Badran]

Muslims today are not bombing and otherwise killing non-Muslims as well as other Muslims in an effort to defend and advance Islam?

Advancing Islamic societies conditions is different than spreading the message through violence. The deluded people you're talking about are responding to the wars on them.

As for the fact that i'm sure there are some people who still believe in that mentality of violence, including Muslims as well as any other group, wouldn't you agree, that Islam today, is not spread in that fashion? Or in other words, don't you agree that those who become Muslims today, didn't do so because they were forced to? (Assuming that this was the case with everyone back in the past).

That's what i mean. Islam's growth today has nothing to do with violence. If anything, those people you're talking about give a bad name to the religion.

 

[nameless]

1) Not all Islamic wars were wrong.

islamic conquests, right? would like know few of them.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's what i mean. Islam's growth today has nothing to do with violence. If anything, those people you're talking about give a bad name to the religion.

Agreed about giving it a bad name. Unfortunately, it does not follow that violence isn't used (or useful) to spreading Islam, particularly where there is a sentiment that people are being opressed - as in India under a Hindu majority at Gandhi's time and in Palestine in the last few decades.

The truth is that violence has a strong appeal. The lure of being right while desiring to overcome and possibly destroy those perceived as enemies is very appealing indeed. While the explicit message of Islam often warns against such appeal, it is a plain fact that it has helped in spreading Islam, both in the past and in the present.

IMO, that is one of the internal matters that Muslims will eventually have to settle among themselves. From where I stand, at least, it sure can look like there is an excessive degree of lenience towards those who want to commit violence in the name of Islam. Just agreeing with others that it is a mistake is not quite enough.

 

[Autodidact]

Advancing Islamic societies conditions is different than spreading the message through violence. The deluded people you're talking about are responding to the wars on them.

Huh. There's a war against Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Islam? What "war" are they responding to?

What do you think their goal is. So they're not even defending Islam, they're just sick criminals using Islam as a cover because it works?

As for the fact that i'm sure there are some people who still believe in that mentality of violence, including Muslims as well as any other group, wouldn't you agree, that Islam today, is not spread in that fashion? Or in other words, don't you agree that those who become Muslims today, didn't do so because they were forced to? (Assuming that this was the case with everyone back in the past).

I think the overwhelming majority of today's Muslims were brainwashed before they were old enough to question it, and should they somehow manage to free their minds from their childhood indoctrination, which is rare, they are not free to leave on pain of being murdered.

That's what i mean. Islam's growth today has nothing to do with violence. If anything, those people you're talking about give a bad name to the religion.

so they're trying to use violence to spread Islam, they're just really bad at it?

If violence were not a factor, there would be no talk of "capital punishment for the 'crime' of apostasy" as we see a reasonable discussion going on in this very minute in the Islam DIR forum, in which the Muslims are split on the propriety of this.

btw, that's absolutely barbaric and criminal, and just the fact that reasonable adults can debate is enough for me to know Islam is a barbaric, criminal religon.

 

[kejos]

Once again, i guess it will come down to how you interpret the verses you're referring to. For me as well as many others, we don't see the Quran advocating any violent things except in certain situations.

There are plenty of infidels in the world. Why are Muslims not out there settling their hash?

Sorry for being dense, but i don't get it. You mean if the other side had an army to retaliate with, they are all wrong?

It's clear when read in context.

I didn't mean there is no violence today, of course there is. I meant the message is not spread through violence.

That's the purpose of the violence- conversion by terrorism. Western Muslims effectively condone it.

Would have never existed, that's your opinion, but not resembling any facts at all.

Just one of the facts is that Islam is like Mormonism, founded upon the witness of one person. That is self-destructive- because no deity worth following would make such an arrangement- and absolutely ludicrous. Nobody would give such an idea the time of day unless there was some ulterior motive involved- or a scimitar was placed at the throat, of course.

I disagree completely. Millions of perfectly intelligent people are Muslims, and some others even embrace Islam independently, so at best it's a matter of preference.

That's no guarantee. Intelligent people will apparently believe the most absurd things in their pursuit of religious pretension.

If you want to see it that way, that's up to you of course.

A pretty sure sign of a lost cause, that comment.

 

[Caladan]

Advancing Islamic societies conditions is different than spreading the message through violence. The deluded people you're talking about are responding to the wars on them.

But isn't it telling that Islamists are fighting and terrorizing people around the globe? in Israel, in the Palestinian territories, civil wars and clashes between forces in Lebanon, civil wars in Yemen, civil wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars with Russia, terror attacks in Russia, Spain, England, India, East Asia, the clashes between Pakistani forces and terrorists inside Pakistan, terror attacks against countless of other Muslims througout the Muslim world.
today more than ever, it seems that global Islamism is a threat to political balance, and social security around the world. how long can the citizens of the major powers say 'oh but these are the deluded people, of what is otherwise a religion of peace'.
Today many Europeans feel that the Muslims are yet again at the Gates of Vienna.
I don't believe in the myth of 'religion of peace', Christianity originally preaches wonderful peace making and calls God Love, no less, but is has been instrumental in universal suffering, likewise Islam, no religion is a religion of peace, it is just a religion, it has countless of interpretations, political divisions, and an astounding numbers of social problems to deal with.

 

[Badran]

Agreed about giving it a bad name. Unfortunately, it does not follow that violence isn't used (or useful) to spreading Islam, particularly where there is a sentiment that people are being opressed - as in India under a Hindu majority at Gandhi's time and in Palestine in the last few decades.

The truth is that violence has a strong appeal. The lure of being right while desiring to overcome and possibly destroy those perceived as enemies is very appealing indeed. While the explicit message of Islam often warns against such appeal, it is a plain fact that it has helped in spreading Islam, both in the past and in the present.

IMO, that is one of the internal matters that Muslims will eventually have to settle among themselves. From where I stand, at least, it sure can look like there is an excessive degree of lenience towards those who want to commit violence in the name of Islam. Just agreeing with others that it is a mistake is not quite enough.

Yes sure, violence has helped in the past, and yes violence has a strong appeal. My point is, today, not in the past, today Islam's expansion is not through violence. I'm talking about people who independently become Muslims, how are we forcing them to do that?

As for us just agreeing that it's a mistake without doing anything. Who said that's the case? If you're talking about people who don't take a cause with their lives, thats found every where, not just Muslims. As for those who do, why aren't they fighting Violent Muslims. Well, lets see. Where most violent Muslims are. Mostly radicals that are responding to wars against Muslim nations, should i leave the enemy and fight muslims, while they are doing the same thing the others are? Or in other words, in Iraq for example, should i send an army to help the US fight the bad guys, while they are too bad guys? they are occupying land aren't they? they are ruining the country, they are killing civilians, torturing civilians in prisons, and the most appropriate thing for us to do now is to fight those groups?

However, we should condemn and denounce the actions done by these radicals, which is done, and people are fighting for women rights for example in countries like Iran and so on. So, i don't know why you think nobody is doing anything. It's just that there are other problems too.

 

[kejos]

Yes sure, violence has helped in the past, and yes violence has a strong appeal. My point is, today, not in the past, today Islam's expansion is not through violence. I'm talking about people who independently become Muslims, how are we forcing them to do that?

People like an umbrella organisation- the bigger, the better- in which to feel religious security. Islam survived and got bigger by brute force, and does not deserve its voluntary recruits.

 

[Badran]

Huh. There's a war against Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Islam? What "war" are they responding to?

What do you think their goal is. So they're not even defending Islam, they're just sick criminals using Islam as a cover because it works?

Like i said defending Islam is different than spreading Islam. I'm talking about people who weren't muslims, and become so.

I think the overwhelming majority of today's Muslims were brainwashed before they were old enough to question it, and should they somehow manage to free their minds from their childhood indoctrination, which is rare, they are not free to leave on pain of being murdered.

That's a personal opinion that we already discussed before.

so they're trying to use violence to spread Islam, they're just really bad at it?

If violence were not a factor, there would be no talk of "capital punishment for the 'crime' of apostasy" as we see a reasonable discussion going on in this very minute in the Islam DIR forum, in which the Muslims are split on the propriety of this.

No thats not what i meant. Some people, a minority, terrorists mainly, still believe in the idea of Islam dominating the world and so on. They are not coming any way near achieving that, because they are not even on the road to that. So, the spread of Islam is not helped by them, it's actually hurt by them due to the bad image they give to Islam.

btw, that's absolutely barbaric and criminal, and just the fact that reasonable adults can debate is enough for me to know Islam is a barbaric, criminal religon.

There is a debate about it, because there are Hadiths that are under dispute.

 

[Caladan]

Yes sure, violence has helped in the past, and yes violence has a strong appeal. My point is, today, not in the past, today Islam's expansion is not through violence. I'm talking about people who independently become Muslims, how are we forcing them to do that?

What about these converts?
Scientologists also claim to be the the fastest growing religion, Wiccans claim to be the fastest growing religion in the US, surveys say that neo-paganism is the fastest growing religion.
Please don't make it sound as if there is a mass conversion into Islam which is significally changing the demographics of our societies. conversions and deconversions are a daily phenomena. this forum is a testament of that, you have Americans who embraced Buddhism, Australians who have embraced Hinduism, Western people who embrace neo-paganism, and yes caucasians who convert to Islam.

 

[kejos]

Like i said defending Islam is different than spreading Islam.

Slitting the throats of book publishers and bombing churches is defending Islam?

 

[Badran]

There are plenty of infidels in the world. Why are Muslims not out there settling their hash?

I don't know what you're talking about.

It's clear when read in context.

I guess i'm stupid.

That's the purpose of the violence- conversion by terrorism. Western Muslims effectively condone it.

Who is converting who by violence?

Just one of the facts is that Islam is like Mormonism, founded upon the witness of one person. That is self-destructive- because no deity worth following would make such an arrangement- and absolutely ludicrous. Nobody would give such an idea the time of day unless there was some ulterior motive involved- or a scimitar was placed at the throat, of course.

That's your personal take on it.

That's no guarantee. Intelligent people will apparently believe the most absurd things in their pursuit of religious pretension.

Yeah, sure may be that happens, but you can't prove that all intelligent people who are muslims are fitting to what you're talking about.

A pretty sure sign of a lost cause, that comment.

Not at all, just trying not to enforce my opinion on you.