Islam - What's your view on it?

[sumbrownkid]

Haha I'm blushing guys.

It's just a page from a book of philosophy called "Get Real".👍

Unfortunately many of the Muslims I know see the world as a coin that always flips against us. What they need to learn is how to properly correct the hand that flips the coins into favoring us.

Through good work, educating yourself and others, holding any anger at bay while using reason and understanding to solve our issues. Hatred only begets more hatred. Hatred is a useless emotion, and only brings out the worst of people. Life is simply too short to be filled with hatred. A life of hatred is a life wasted.

The Qu'ran is literally a book of poetry, to be read with context and reasoning. Not just through the literal word. And the hadiths also. Someone asked the prophet what is the best way to control anger. He replied simply, go wash yourself with water (wadu), because anger is the emotion of fire, and water is the substance that vanquishes it. You can't put it anymore beautiful than that!

These extremists don't even know how to read properly let alone interpret it. There's a reason why Allah asks Muslims to educate themselves of worldly matters so in turn they can understand their own religion more. I can't even begin to tell you how many of my brethren don't know of the glorious Ummayad or Abbasid caliphates successes and struggles. Or how Arabs were able create Algebra with no calculators. Or how they kept Greek works, and other great scholarly works of famous pagans like Socrates and Aristotle from harm from outside and from within.

Then you have countries so mired in mediocrity like Afghanistan that, at least when the Taliban were in power, reading anything else besides the Qu'ran in school is a grave sin. They don't even acknowledge the great advancements our Muslim predecessors did for the sciences, arts, philosophy, and literature.

If you don't know where you've come from, then you don't know how to make your future.

And what extremists must learn is that hardline Islam simply does not work in the modern, globalized world. Where a woman has to work unfortunately to help make ends meet. Where a woman has to interact with the opposite sex to make a better life for her and for her family. Where it is her decision ultimately on how she wants to live her life. A man can only guide her, but not control her.

It's ignorance from within really, that's killing Islam. Even for the moderate Muslim like myself.

That and the lack of mercy they have. If God and the Prophet are described to be merciful in Islam and in history alike, then why can't Al-Qaeda?

Why can't Iran? Or Saudi? Or Malaysia?

 

[JediRage]

...
The Qu'ran is literally a book of poetry, to be read with context and reasoning. Not just through the literal word. And the hadiths also.
...
These extremists don't even know how to read properly let alone interpret it. There's a reason why Allah asks Muslims to educate themselves of worldly matters so in turn they can understand their own religion more.
...
Then you have countries so mired in mediocrity like Afghanistan that, at least when the Taliban were in power, reading anything else besides the Qu'ran in school is a grave sin. They don't even acknowledge the great advancements our Muslim predecessors did for the sciences, arts, philosophy, and literature.
...
And what extremists must learn that hardline Islam simply does not work in the modern, globalized world.
...
It's ignorance from within really, that's killing Islam. Even for the moderate Muslim like myself.

That and the lack of mercy they have. If God and the Prophet are described to be merciful in Islam and in history alike, then why can't Al-Qaeda?

Why can't Iran? Or Saudi? Or Malaysia?

Admirable sentiments. If only more people can 'live and let live'. 👍

But I don't agree with the bolded parts. Even if those numerous verses are taken in context (and that would be a great concession in itself), it is simply chilling and hair-raising to hear/read them. If the context is left to the whims of the leader of a congregation (whoever that maybe), those verses have enough ammunition to whip up a frenzied mob.

Not to mention those that believe the book must be followed word for word and try to live like you-know-who.

People that indulge religious extremism as a form of religious expression have forgotten the struggles of the people who came before them. Those people who fought against the establishment to separate religion and state and let everyone choose to follow or not to follow a religion. By indulging extremism they are thereby denying the right of people in hardline religious countries (or even in their adopted countries) their chance for their own Renaissance.

Or maybe they're just looking for the patriarchal votes in the next election.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned that a victim of racial abuse and a victim of religious mockery (whatever that means) are not the same because a person can't help being of a certain race. Well, in Islam, if you are born a muslim, you're stuck for life. There is no 'choosing to follow a set of beliefs'. The price of 'choosing' to leave is death in most Islamic countries, unless I am mistaken.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^No you're right on the Muslim countries placing death penalty on those who leave the faith. It's not up to us to end another life on anything besides murder. Any punishment for such an act, if it is deemed so in judgement by God, is really up to God. Him or her leaving the faith does not really affect me at all.

As for the disagreeing with the bolded part, you can disagree all you want. I'm still gonna believe that God and his messenger intended the religion to spread through non-violent means.

Remember war was brought to the Muslims first when Islam was just established. The people of old Makkah found his message as a threat to their oppressive power base and greed. The first Muslims were slaves and the oppressed who faced the threat of violence if they try to undo whatever Makkah at the time stood for. They were alone before the onslaught of the tyranny, but yet the Prophet still hesitated to pick up his sword. It took a decree by God, and constant begging by his uncle for the Prophet to arm himself and fight back. After all the mockery, objects thrown at him, beatings of his followers, and death threats, and actually harming him to the point of making him bleed until his shoes were red.

As for the words sounding chilling, the Qu'ran itself was revealed over a period of 20+ years. Not everything came at once to him. Events over that time period lead to revelations being unveiled slowly. Some were revealed during peace time. Others during war.

But unfortunately those words that do sound chilling are inappropriately enforced without much understanding of why that revelation came to begin with.

 

[JediRage]

...
As for the disagreeing with the bolded part, you can disagree all you want. I'm still gonna believe that God and his messenger intended the religion to spread through non-violent means.
...
But unfortunately those words that do sound chilling are inappropriately enforced without much understanding of why that revelation came to begin with.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to change your beliefs or asking you to reject them. In my view, one can practice whatever they like as long as its peaceful and doesn't seek to interfere in my sphere of existence.

But like you said, I am just reacting to the incessant enforcement of those 'chilling' words in history (distant and recent) and to the incessant call for its enforcement in the present.

 

[theotherspongey]

Islam: It's a religion. So is Christianity and Buddhism.

'nuff said.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to change your beliefs or asking you to reject them. In my view, one can practice whatever they like as long as its peaceful and doesn't seek to interfere in my sphere of existence.

But like you said, I am just reacting to the incessant enforcement of those 'chilling' words in history (distant and recent) and for the incessant call for its enforcement in the present.

Oh no I understand where you are coming from bro.👍

If I came out too strong at you then I apologize.

The enforcement of the strictest measures of punishment is an issue, and I agree with you on that.

I'd rather much put a man in jail for robbery than cut his hand off. Even though Sharia does suggest that punishment, I'm sure Allah will understand if I'm not willing to do such a thing, and perhaps may even credit me for granting mercy on the fellow.

 

[photonrider]

Ask a Muslim.

The times have changed. Silence once spoke volumes, but now it seems like the people themselves speak. A peaceful revolution, with words as the weapons - in the name of the Prophet.

sumbrownkid - knowing you for well over a year now, and familiar with the fact that you are a follow of the Muslim faith, as well as being one of the more kindest, humourous, and well-read guys around in this Forum, I am not surprised at the more educated view you have of your religion and the peaceful morals that it promotes.
Obviously you have had your personal experience of the Quoran, and quite possibly many related books on the subject, whether deriding, analysing, or touting it; it shows in your posts. Thank you for thanking the time and effort to do this - and I agree with Scaff; if there were Gold Stars being handed out, I'd be throwing one your way.

I have lived and worked in the ME myself, as an expat, as has been mentioned before in some other thread, and I have also grown up beside many Muslims. They are just people. They eat different, they pray different, they talk different, they smell different. So what? So do we. It all depends on the point of one's programmed perspective.
I myself enjoyed the sights, smells and sounds of the Muslim world while I lived there - albeit I lived in one of the more cultured countries (in fact super-cultured even compared to other developed countries). A trip to Dubai can be an eye-opener. And the other Emirates in that country aren't too shabby either.
But that doesn't mean one doesn't find roadside food vendors, or illiterate tea-boutique owners there, who think freedom of expression in the way some Western and European countries think. I have sat with them, and eaten with them to know this. What the government says is a strong part if what is acceptable and what is not - and since the governments of most of these countries are actually sometimes run by the clergy - or Royal Families, that have the clergy looking over their shoulders - the more western-uneducated of the citizens of the Muslim World tend to take the view that if the government of a certain country is 'broadcasting' mockery of their faith, then it's almost a declaration of war.
They do not in the faintest realise that freedom in the West can mean packing a gun, mouthing off against one's leaders, and indulging in sex, drugs, and Rock and Roll.
That is shockingly decadent to them. Just freedom to others.

But the medium is the message. One can't fool all of the people all of the time. Freedom to communicate will work both ways when they realise that Western Governments are not the ones mocking religions . . . but individuals who are exercising their 'inalienable' rights. To their fullest.
When everybody in the Muslim World understands this, they will understand better the different roles that governments have in the New World Order. The New World Order has to include the whole world. No can can be left out because they are 'different'. All the more reason they should be let in. That goes for everyone.

Were these flame-throwing radicals more than masked? Were they also blinded?

 

[sumbrownkid]

These radicals are more blinded than masked. Since they do not understand the concept of Freedom does not necessarily equal automatic debauchery. A person in America can be more morally upright than a person in Jerusalem or Medina.

Me personally, most radicals reject the Western's notion of Freedom just because it is Western to begin with, and anything Western to them is of great heresy. They don't understand that it is really self-control on the individual's part than society's influence that makes or breaks a person. And you're right about Muslims not being able to distinguish a government's independence from the individual's personal beliefs.

 

[JacksHerer]

Islam means 'Voluntary Submission to God'

Being from a Zionist country, I suspect you are bombarded with Anti islam hatred by your 'free' press.

so to wash your brain, read here - http://www.islam-guide.com/

 

[ProjectVRD]

You can question it all you want, but Islam has serious problems regarding radicals. And an idiot in a powerful position giving out money for a murder doesn't help either.

But in those Islamic regions they ask why we just sit around complaining when Christian leaders (like Bush, Obama, Blair and Cameron) rain bombs down upon their heads. The idiots in our society carry a lot more power and have a lot more money at their disposal to carry out their campaigns.

 

[Carbonox]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/449070/...-malala-yousufzai-injured-in-firing-incident/

Again a horrid example of what Islam extermists manage to cause.

 

[Furinkazen]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/449070/...-malala-yousufzai-injured-in-firing-incident/

Again a horrid example of what Islam extermists manage to cause.

Taliban. The most Extreme of Extremists, not representative of most muslims or islamic people.

 

[DK]

^ Exactly. It's like saying Rick Santorum or the IRA should be used to represent every Catholic.

 

[Carbonox]

I did not use the Taliban cowards to represent every Muslim though.

 

[Furinkazen]

But posting it in a thread about Islam in general coupled with how some of your previous comments have been interpreted, did make it seem that way. Apologies if I mis-understood Carb .

 

[Public'sTwin]

But posting it in a thread about Islam in general, coupled with how some of your previous comments have been interpreted, did make it seem that way.

Because that's exactly what he did. Regardless of what he says after the fact to defend himself, the effect of his post is the same. I urge you therefore to ignore his disclaimer: we measure men by their actions, and not their words—remember?

 

[Carbonox]

we measure men by their actions, and not their words—remember?

Care to elaborate? This looked somewhat out of place

 

[Flaco13]

I don't want to express my personal thoughts about Islam, it might lead to controversy.

Attacking a religious believe under the screen of freedom of speech/opinion like in the Mohammed caricatures Newspapers and magazines published this year is of one purpose only: deliberate provocation

It is absolutely stupid and must stop! IMO

Respect another mans believe, you must not share it, but accept it.

Some Islamists group called 'salafists' gave out free Q'ran copies within cities in europe, this is basically a missonary act, obviously. The thing is in the Q'ran, prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H himself said that any missionary act is forbidden for a muslim! So those people sealed their own destiny dissobeying their prophets words, no need to argue with them.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Attacking a religious believe under the screen of freedom of speech/opinion like in the Mohammed caricatures Newspapers and magazines published this year is of one purpose only: deliberate provocation

It is absolutely stupid and must stop! IMO

Respect another mans believe, you must not share it, but accept it.

But there's more to it than simple provocation. For muslims to be integrated in western society they will have to learn not to take offense so much. They have to adapt to secular society just like christians have. Another big point which seems to get lost is the fact that the Muhammad thing is a religious rule. It doesn't apply to anyone else but it's followers.

A muslim has no right to forbid a non muslim to draw Muhammad. That would be forcing your beliefs on others.

 

[Flaco13]

But there's more to it than simple provocation. For muslims to be integrated in western society they will have to learn not to take offense so much. They have to adapt to secular society just like christians have. Another big point which seems to get lost is the fact that the Muhammad thing is a religious rule. It doesn't apply to anyone else but it's followers.

A muslim has no right to forbid a non muslim to draw Muhammad. That would be forcing your beliefs on others.

Saying they have to adapt secular society would be forcing your point of view on others aswell, where is the difference? Why is it ok for a secular society to force religous people on their 'believes' or points of view but not vice versa? Thats not fair.

Btw. many arab countries are having a secular society, some separate government and religious institution just like the western world.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Saying they have to adapt secular society would be forcing your point of view on others aswell, where is the difference? Why is it ok for a secular society to force religous people on their 'believes' or points of view but not vice versa? Thats not fair.
.

The difference is huge, because it's a must for freedom of speech and freedom of religion to exist.

You don't have the right to not get offended in a free society.

Of course muslims have every right to express their disgust a such things in a democratic way, but not through threaths.

It's quite simple really.

 

[Flaco13]

The difference is huge, because it's a must for freedom of speech and freedom of religion to exist.

You don't have the right to not get offended in a free society.

Of course muslims have every right to express their disgust a such things in a democratic way, but not through threaths.

It's quite simple really.

I don't see any difference in it. It is nothing but provocation, you can't say freedom of speech is in danger to lose its existance if your no longer able to make caricatures of mohammed.

2 examples:

1. You can not publish an Israel critical articel in a german newspaper without beeing called an anti-semite and your public reputation getting destroyed... please google 'Günter Grass' 'german author'.

2. It is forbidden to show and advertise Nazi-propaganda to a certain level... although I agree this must be forbidden it clearly shows that 'freedom of speech' already has it's boundaries and it would not be a problem to increase freedom of religion and decrease freedom of speech in religious aspects... although it wouldn't be even necessary to do that if the provocations wouldn't be done in the first place.

Like I said before, respect other peoples point of view and beliefes... It applies to both the caricature publishers and the offended counterpart.

 

[Tornado]

Saying they have to adapt secular society would be forcing your point of view on others aswell, where is the difference? Why is it ok for a secular society to force religous people on their 'believes' or points of view but not vice versa? Thats not fair.

No one is forcing Muslims to share beliefs with some Dutch cartoonist. Especially not Muslims far removed from the original intended audience for the infamous Muhammed comic, as the ones who practically rioted over the situation in the Middle East were. But it sure seemed to have worked in the opposite way, since now many Western media companies/groups are absolutely terrified of showing anything with Muhammed in it now to the point of outright censorship.

1. You can not publish an Israel critical articel in a german newspaper without beeing called an anti-semite and your public reputation getting destroyed... please google 'Günter Grass' 'german author'.

2. It is forbidden to show and advertise Nazi-propaganda to a certain level... although I agree this must be forbidden it clearly shows that 'freedom of speech' already has it's boundaries and it would not be a problem to increase freedom of religion and decrease freedom of speech in religious aspects... although it wouldn't be even necessary to do that if the provocations wouldn't be done in the first place.

Two examples where it was wrong to limit free speech but it was done anyway (and it isn't as if Germany isn't known for going completely off the deep end regarding those two topics anyway, Hitler or not) are not two examples of why it is okay to limit free speech.

 

[Flaco13]

Two examples where it was wrong to limit free speech but it was done anyway (and it isn't as if Germany isn't known for going completely off the deep end regarding those two topics anyway, Hitler or not) are not two examples of why it is okay to limit free speech.

So your honestly trying to tell me Nazis should not be limited in there freedom of speech, allowing them to spread their propaganda and allow all the banned political parties to get active again? Seriously???

The other example about the author wasn't ment to be pro-limitation of freedom of speech but an example to show that in some cases it is done, like you did admit. I didn't say it was ok to what was done to Dr. Günter Grass, not at all.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I don't see any difference in it. It is nothing but provocation, you can't say freedom of speech is in danger to lose its existance if your no longer able to make caricatures of mohammed.

2 examples:

1. You can not publish an Israel critical articel in a german newspaper without beeing called an anti-semite and your public reputation getting destroyed... please google 'Günter Grass' 'german author'.

2. It is forbidden to show and advertise Nazi-propaganda to a certain level... although I agree this must be forbidden it clearly shows that 'freedom of speech' already has it's boundaries and it would not be a problem to increase freedom of religion and decrease freedom of speech in religious aspects... although it wouldn't be even necessary to do that if the provocations wouldn't be done in the first place.

Like I said before, respect other peoples point of view and beliefes... It applies to both the caricature publishers and the offended counterpart.

Both cases are wrong though. It should be allowed. No one has the right to forbid someone from expressing their opinion.

And there's still the fact that it's a religious rule. It doesn't apply people outside islam.

All this talk about respect is irrelevant.

 

[Tornado]

So your honestly trying to tell me Nazis should not be limited in there freedom of speech, allowing them to spread their propaganda and allow all the banned political parties to get active again? Seriously???

Unless you can give me a valid reason why that just isn't the same hyperbolic, slippery-slope nonsense that Germany uses as a pretext to ban it, then I'm not exactly seeing what the shock and awe is about, no.

 

[Flaco13]

Both cases are wrong though. It should be allowed. No one has the right to forbid someone from expressing their opinion.

And there's still the fact that it's a religious rule. It doesn't apply people outside islam.

All this talk about respect is irrelevant.

Ah, ok.

Your not a religious person so your free to draw a picture of a prophet and pee on it taping it with a camera, while the religious men have to shut up and watch because respect is irrelevant.

Weird point of view to me but since I said we should respect each other I'll practice what I preach, respect your opinion but use my right to ignore you from now on. cheers

 

[Encyclopedia]

Ah, ok.

Your not a religious person so your free to draw a picture of a prophet and pee on it taping it with a camera, while the religious men have to shut up and watch because respect is irrelevant.

Weird point of view to me but since I said we should respect each other I'll practice what I preach, respect your opinion but use my right to ignore you from now on. cheers

No one would be forced to watch. You could look the other way. And you're always entitled to express your dislike with words. But the rule applies to drawing Mohammad in any way. Respectful or not. It doesn't have to be coupled with obscenity.

If you want to ignore me for expressing my views that's your choice but maybe the opinions forum isn't the place for you.

 

[Flaco13]

Unless you can give me a valid reason why that just isn't the same hyperbolic, slippery-slope nonsense that Germany uses as a pretext to ban it, then I'm not exactly seeing what the shock and awe is about, no.

Keeping them from gaining power and influence, maybe?
I'm not sure this only a german issue, don't many other countries forbid extreme right or left parties to be active?

As far as I know democratic gouvernments see any extremist movement as a threat to their democracy.
Islamist terrorists, right/left extremists, christian fanatism etc.

 

[Tornado]

Your not a religious person so your free to draw a picture of a prophet and pee on it taping it with a camera, while the religious men have to shut up and watch because respect is irrelevant.

In not so many words, yes. Because the religious man is not only not forced to view it, but he's also allowed to express his opinion on it. It would be hypocritical to say the religious man has a right to express that he is offended (which he does) and that the artist doesn't have the right to express his. As was already pointed out, you don't have the right to not be offended.


What the religious man is not allowed to do, and what you are advocating under the guise of "fairness," is to dictate to the person drawing the picture what that person is and isn't allowed to draw. And since the Mohammed comic was posted and all of the death threats and craziness happened, that has been the reality of the situation in the West now. You can't even show a picture of Mohammed to satire the original comic without being censored because people are so afraid of what people from a different culture outside the audience for the comic will do when they find it.

Keeping them from gaining power and influence, maybe?

I doubt that we will see a resurgence of a Nazi party as a serious source of power in Germany in our lifetimes. And keeping it hidden away only makes it more alluring.

I'm not sure this only a german issue, don't many other countries forbid extreme right or left parties to be active?

Not democratic ones, no. Not without it becoming a huge issue when they try.