What does the RF Muslim community make of this video?

[Kerr]

so are you denying that islam is the most physically destructive religion on the world at this moment?

I was saying that things don´t have to make sense. And no, I am not denying it because it is not the case.

 

[Badran]

once again, all muslims want to knowingly kill any apostate?

No. And not only that, but even not all of those who think that killing apostates is part of the religion, actually want to do it.

they want to be able to kill people who draw images of mohammad?

No.

You realize this already occurs,

Sometimes, yeah. As is the case with any other religion.

in every country that holds to sharia law... EVERY ONE.

No, i'm afraid not.

why are people here thinking that i should give muslims special treatment and not speak the truth?

You shouldn't, you should actually speak the truth. That is the problem with what you're saying, its simply not.

 

[beenie]

Jonman you are so full of hatred that it's impossible to have a dialogue with you. You're going to believe what you will, and so will the extremists that you so criticize. I'm not sure which is more dangerous.

 

[Quagmire]

so are you denying that islam is the most physically destructive religion on the world at this moment?

Materialism is and has always been the most destructive religion on the planet.

 

[YmirGF]

The appliance she's referring to, is different than the appliance of your thread.

I wasn't referring to my recent thread, but to one that is far older. (It's a couple of years back now - I think.)

 

[Cypress]

The thread YmirGF is referring to, was discussing applying sharia arbitrary on only muslims, who also want to use it. As in it is not a law, it does not compete with the law of the country, nor does it apply to non-muslims, or muslims who don't want it to, under the supervision of the law of that country.

When Sharia is not a law, what then is it?
In countries where Sharia is in place, are only Muslims affected by it or non-Muslims too?

 

[Badran]

I wasn't referring to my recent thread, but to one that is far older. (It's a couple of years back now - I think.)

Oh okay.

Did they say the want sharia to apply to non-muslims, in a non-muslim majority country? If so, i'll assure you that is not a regular opinion, or one that is usually held.

 

[Badran]

When Sharia is not a law, what then is it?

Lets call it sharia based arbitration, or Islamic arbitration, what its surely is not in the case of the thread i was referring to, is that its not a law. In other words, it would be in that case just an alternative for minor issues, such as inheritance, divorce and so on, for those who want to use, it would not be even mandatory on muslims.

In countries where Sharia is in place, are only Muslims affected by it or non-Muslims too?

Well, before i answer, please bare with me to explain something.To live in a majority muslim country means having the law in the light of Islamic teachings. The effect of that on your life would not mean you have to meat any of the teachings of Islam, but only means you'd be dealt with as far as crimes are concerned in the same way. This is a complicated idea because you might have trouble seeing where the line is drawn, and what in that case would be considered criminal.

Non of the existing countries today which apply sharia is applying it correctly at all. For more than one reason, and thats why we always say that there is no Islamic state today. Applying sharia today is very complicated and something that shouldn't be done until somethings are dealt with. So, to answer your question i couldn't say that non-muslims in the countries who apply sharia today are not affected, i'd be pretty sure they are, but thats wrong, and is not the way it should be.

There are also a lot of sharia laws today that are actually false, because unlike what some people think, to have an Islamic law, does not mean to have a static system that doesn't change (since its based on religious teachings, it would be easy to assume that). But thats not the case. A lot of our work would go into making laws and changing ones in the same manner any other law is done.

Since it is so complicated, and difficult to achieve in the light of some problems that are evident, i would not aspire to live under the current supposed sharia law, let alone aspire for it to be imposed over non-muslims in a non-muslim country, which is a ridiculous idea of course wether i agreed with the current implementations or not.

 

[Cypress]

Thank you for the explanations Badran.
What I do not understand is why there has to be an Islamic arbitration concerning worldly matters at all.
Religion should deal with spiritual matters, not with matters like inheritance and they like.

 

[jonman122]

Lets call it sharia based arbitration, or Islamic arbitration, what its surely is not in the case of the thread i was referring to, is that its not a law. In other words, it would be in that case just an alternative for minor issues, such as inheritance, divorce and so on, for those who want to use, it would not be even mandatory on muslims.

Well, before i answer, please bare with me to explain something.To live in a majority muslim country means having the law in the light of Islamic teachings. The effect of that on your life would not mean you have to meat any of the teachings of Islam, but only means you'd be dealt with as far as crimes are concerned in the same way. This is a complicated idea because you might have trouble seeing where the line is drawn, and what in that case would be considered criminal.

Non of the existing countries today which apply sharia is applying it correctly at all. For more than one reason, and thats why we always say that there is no Islamic state today. Applying sharia today is very complicated and something that shouldn't be done until somethings are dealt with. So, to answer your question i couldn't say that non-muslims in the countries who apply sharia today are not affected, i'd be pretty sure they are, but thats wrong, and is not the way it should be.

There are also a lot of sharia laws today that are actually false, because unlike what some people think, to have an Islamic law, does not mean to have a static system that doesn't change (since its based on religious teachings, it would be easy to assume that). But thats not the case. A lot of our work would go into making laws and changing ones in the same manner any other law is done.

Since it is so complicated, and difficult to achieve in the light of some problems that are evident, i would not aspire to live under the current supposed sharia law, let alone aspire for it to be imposed over non-muslims in a non-muslim country, which is a ridiculous idea of course wether i agreed with the current implementations or not.

You do realize that those countries that impose sharia law actually use the sharia law from the qur'an, and that you are just interpretting sharia law in a way that you see is not nearly as horrendous as it truly is.

how can you say that the countries that uses sharia law are using it wrong? Who has the majority vote on what sharia law is then, just like the majority of muslims arent terrorists but the ones that are, are so vicious that they put islam on the spot light for criticism?

I'd say the countries that use sharia law know what they're doing, or they wouldn't impose it. Every muslim there would be up in arms because the qur'an wasn't being followed properly.

like i said.. Islam, at this moment, is the religion that causes the most killing at this point in time. You can use whatever argument you like, "they aren't the right TYPE of muslim, they don't follow the TRUE tenants of the qur'an, they are extremists and just because they kill thousands doesn't mean anything should be said about islam just because they all have the same religion" and you're still going to be wrong.

I don't hate islam, i just don't look at it from behind a veil of faith.

 

[Badran]

Thank you for the explanations Badran.
What I do not understand is why there has to be an Islamic arbitration concerning worldly matters at all.
Religion should deal with spiritual matters, not with matters like inheritance and they like.

You're most welcome.

I guess it would come to how we view religion. Some view it as a spiritual matter like you said, some view it as a standard for morals and virtues and a way to encourage good things. Some view it as a combination of things.

For most muslims, our religion is much more like a guide in life, from which we can make our lives better in all aspects. Spiritually, morally, and as means to have a better life all around. It has moral teachings, rules and stories. The rules are for us to apply on our selves, part of it voluntarily, as in the personal stuff, and others as rules for how to function as a society.

 

[Badran]

You do realize that those countries that impose sharia law actually use the sharia law from the qur'an

Partially from the quran, partially from the Hadiths, and finally with the addition of their own work. Through out these three sources, they have done mistakes, and the outcome contradicts Islam in many ways.

and that you are just interpretting sharia law in a way that you see is not nearly as horrendous as it truly is.

If you mean "my" interpretation, is not horrendous, but its not the true one, i disagree.

how can you say that the countries that uses sharia law are using it wrong?

Because they contradict the teachings. and luckily, in a very easy way to show. As in, it won't come down to each of us having their interpretation, because their mistakes, are very obvious ones. And even if we bring it down to that, well how many countries apply that supposed sharia today? And what do you think of us condemning a lot of the actions done by these countries, for things they do under the cover of sharia?

Who has the majority vote on what sharia law is then, just like the majority of muslims arent terrorists but the ones that are, are so vicious that they put islam on the spot light for criticism?

And that exactly is the case. The problem is that those terrorists, are the ones that attract attention, and grab the spot light, so it is so easy to come to generalizing conclusions.

I'd say the countries that use sharia law know what they're doing, or they wouldn't impose it. Every muslim there would be up in arms because the qur'an wasn't being followed properly.

Here once again you come to a generalizing and naive conclusion. What makes you think there is a country on this planet where all people agree or think alike?

like i said.. Islam, at this moment, is the religion that causes the most killing at this point in time.

That statement is not true on more than one level. First, Islam can't be dangerous, you mean muslims. Because religion doesn't do stuff, and because you do not know the motive behind those who commit their atrocities. Second, if i follow your lead, and label religions as dangerous, then it won't turn out to be Islam.

You can use whatever argument you like, "they aren't the right TYPE of muslim, they don't follow the TRUE tenants of the qur'an, they are extremists and just because they kill thousands doesn't mean anything should be said about islam just because they all have the same religion" and you're still going to be wrong.

I could be wrong, but not because you say so. Extremism is not exclusive to muslims, the majority of muslims are not extremists, and they are not causing the most damage to the world, and lastly the actions of extremists contradicts with the teachings.

I don't hate islam

Thats good to know.

i just don't look at it from behind a veil of faith.

True, but perhaps your opinion might be a little affected by propaganda.

 

[Cypress]

@ Badran
When no country today interprets & realizes Sharia in the correct way, how would it look like when Sharia was realized they way it should be done?
Example: A woman is found quilty to have had sex with another man than her husband.
The way Sharia is practiced today, she would be stoned.
What would happen if Sharia was interpretet and followed as it should be done?

 

[Badran]

@ Badran
When no country today interprets & realizes Sharia in the correct way

Its worth mentioning that only very few countries actually do implement Sharia.

how would it look like when Sharia was realized they way it should be done?
Example: A woman is found quilty to have had sex with another man than her husband.
The way Sharia is practiced today, she would be stoned.
What would happen if Sharia was interpretet and followed as it should be done?

The proper punishment for sex between a man and a woman, if not married to each other, or married (not to each other obviously), or one of them is married, according to the Quran is lashing for both. If 4 witnesses witnessed it. Which is concluded that it means sex in public, because its pretty much impossible to have sex with 4 people around, unless in such situation. Also, the lashing shouldn't be like torture.

 

[TashaN]

1- False. Abrogation is very limited in the Quran, and it's even contraversal whether it exist or not. The clip made it the first point so that whatever the Muslims might say as a defense would considered to be invalid because it might be based on "abrogated verses" teachings, quite ... smart.

2- False. Allah says in the Quran that if he wills, he would make ALL people Muslims, but it's his will to test us. He also says in the Quran that he made us into different colors, tribes, etc so we may get to know each other, and learn from each other.

3- False. Muslims are allowed to lie only if that would save their life, other than that, it's a sin. Prophet Mohammed said that the signs of a hypocrite are three, when he talks he lie, when he promises he breaks his promises, and when being entrusted with something he betrays. Hypocrites will be punished in hell more than the non-Muslims because they are in the last level of hell. Lying has no religion, because lie is a lie, and it doesn't matter whether someone lie at a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

do you see christian fundamentalists blowing up buildings? terrorising the world? How do these fundamentalists get this from a book that is supposedly good?

I see Americans doing that. How do we get that from a Constitution that is supposedly good?

 

[England my lionheart]

And what do the rest of you think?

[youtube]ZHdMlT3E7cg[/youtube]
YouTube - 3 Things You Should Know About Islam ما يجب أن تعرفه عن الإسلام

Nothing new there really but its a generalisation,the reality is there are many sects of Islam and varying degrees of interpretation,for Joe public Muslim in the West is a different creature to the Taleban or Hamas who like Hasan Al Bannas or Syeed Qutbs interpretation of Islam.

 

[Octavia156]

also, where does it say that the Qur'an needs to be taken literally??

Erm.. :areyoucra

Isn't that the whole problem? That Muslim's take the Qu'ran literally?

Isn't that the problem with all exoteric religion!?

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings. Since there is such reasonable, bright being participating in this thread and after consulting with Badran the following message is posted to get all the issues out. It circulates in email.
The email:

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A German's View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'
We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history; it is the fanatics who march...it is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers..
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts--the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world-wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late.

Emanuel Tanay, M.D. 2980 Provincial St. Ann Arbor , MI 48104 734-997-0256

 

[autonomous1one1]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Been trying to validate this one and found a reference in wikipedia:

Tanay received and widely forwarded a viral email entitled A Holocaust Survivor's View on Islam, an essay originally written under the title Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant by a Canadian named Paul E. Marek who fled Czechoslovakia as a child to escape the Nazis. Tanay is often thought to have been the author of the essay. Marek's essay argues that that although the assertions that "Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace," may well be accurate, they are 'entirely irrelevant" since small numbers of "fanatics" have taken over governments and committd mass murder in many places. Tanay concludes that "Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence..... like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun."[5][6][7]

Emanuel Tanay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[/FONT]