PDA

View Full Version : Islam: Religion or political ideology?



Major_Armstrong
13 Aug 04,, 23:56
Islam: Religion or political ideology?


By Ali Sina

In an article titled “Islam: Religion or political ideology?” the author Robert Spengler of Asia Times wrote:

“Ali Sina is wrong: Islamic expansionism arises from religious motives, that is, a holy rage against the encroachment of death upon traditional society. In the form of Islam, the West confronts a challenge quite different from communism.”

In his essay Mr. Spengler argued “Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. Religion is what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous.”

I suppose our differences is just is semantics. What do we mean by religion? Religion is one of those terms that to each has a different meaning. Paul Connelly says:

“A number of modern scholars of religion have commented on the difficulty of defining what religion is. Over the centuries, influential thinkers have offered their own definitions, with greater or lesser degrees of assurance, but virtually all of these definitions have been found wanting by the majority of scholars. In some cases the definitions are too narrow, defining religion in terms of the speaker's religious beliefs or those of his or her culture and tending to exclude the religious beliefs of other cultures. In other cases the definitions are so vague and inclusive that they do not sufficiently delimit religion from other areas of human thought such as psychology, law, economics, physics, etc”

Connelly offers an "inclusive enough" definition of religion to not leave out any of the beliefs and practices that seem religious to most intelligent people. He says:

“Religion originates in an attempt to represent and order beliefs, feelings, imaginings and actions that arise in response to direct experience of the sacred and the spiritual. As this attempt expands in its formulation and elaboration, it becomes a process that creates meaning for itself on a sustaining basis, in terms of both its originating experiences and its own continuing responses.”

If we take this broad and "inclusive enough" definition of religion then hardy any belief that tends to reshape some aspects of human behavior can be excluded.

Take the example of People’s Temple , the cult created by Jim Jones whose members willingly fed a poison-laced drink to their children, administered it to their infants, and drank it themselves. Their bodies were found lying together, arm in arm; over 900 perished.

A tape recorded as the final ritual was being enacted reveals that the believers, with only few exceptions, voluntarily drank the poison and fed it to their children.

Jim Jones was an atheist. He was advocating social justice, communism and socialism. He did not believe in a god or afterlife. He was THE sacred and THE cause.

Jeanne Mills, who spent six years as a high-ranking member before becoming one of the few who left the People's Temple wrote:

"There was an unwritten but perfectly understood law in the church that was very important: No one is to criticize Father (Jones), wife, or his children " (Mills, 1979). Deborah Blakey, another long-time member who managed to defect, testified: “Any disagreement with [Jim Jones’s] dictates came to be regarded as "treason."” [Blakey, June 15, 1978.] www.cultbuster.faithweb.com/jimjones.htm

Could we possibly consider People’s Temple as a religion? Spengler writes:

“All religion, Franz Rosenzweig argued, respond to man's anxiety in the face of death (against which philosophy is like a child stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting, "I can't hear you!").

People’s Temple , fall into this definition. Jim Jones warned his followers of an imminent nuclear disaster and took them to the jungles of Guyana , promising them that after the end of civilization they would be the only ones who would survive. If the belief in afterlife is irrelevant to categorize a doctrine as a religion, then People’s Temple was a religion by all means.

Spengler agrees that even communism can be thought of as a religion where History or dialectic materialism takes the place of God and acts as the inevitable destiny of the society. Nonetheless, he sates that History is no god, and cannot be equated to an omnipresent omniscient god that takes the form of a being.

Therefore it is all the question of definition. Spengler himself acknowledges that we require a working definition of religion before making further sense of the issue.

Is Judaism a religion? Based on Connelly’s inclusive definition of religion sated above and on Spengler’s and Rosenzweig’s idea of religion that vests any doctrine that “responds to man's anxiety in the face of death” with the authority of religion, yes it is. Judaism is a religion for the “Jew is confident in his portion of immortality because he believes the Jews to be an eternal people”. By that token Islam is also a religion for it has the belief in an afterlife, punishment and rewards.

By that definition all cults can be called religion. Seventy four followers of the Order of the Solar Temple committed mass suicide and shot their children in the head because they believed their fiery ritual murder-suicides will take them to a new world on the star "Sirius." The suicides were not intended to end the life but to perpetuate it and immortalize it in another plane. The founders of the cult, Luc and Joseph, in a letter delivered after their deaths, wrote that they were "leaving this earth to find a new dimension of truth and absolution, far from the hypocrisies of this world."

We have similar statements made by Muhammad, the founder of Islam. He wrote:

"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah...the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They rejoice in the Grace and the Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least)." (Q.3:169)

Whether the belief of immortality is in an imaginary heaven or in an imaginary star is immaterial. The point is the same; death is glorified for a promise of a better existence. Therefore if Islam is a religion so is the Order of Solar Temple. If the requisite of a religion is to have a body of sacred beliefs then People’s Temple is also a religion. Jim Jones was a sacred being for his followers and his cause was sacred.

Examples abound. We can talk of the Japanese Shoko Asahara and his cult Aum Supreme Truth. The leader of this cult ordered his followers to release Sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo that resulted in the death of a dozen of people and hundreds of others were injured. Furthermore this cult is suspected of a series of slayings and kidnappings of anti-cult activists and of preparing to overthrow the Japanese government -- all in the name of "good karma."

According to Shoko Ashahara "poa" killing relieved victims from everyday life and the inevitable accumulation of bad karma. Thus what we call cold-blooded murder was regarded "as a beautiful 'poa,' and wise people would see that both the killer and the person killed would benefit”

Compare that to Muhammad’s raids and killing sprees in the name of monotheism. Assassinations, murders, looting, rapes and even genocide were considered to be acts of piety if done in the name of Allah and for the promotion of his cause. What to us is terrorism, to a Muslim is Jihad and a pillar of Islam.

So if we are to take the “inclusive” definition of religion proposed by Spengler, then all the cults must also be accepted as religions.

I have no problem with that definition. And perhaps that is the more accurate definition of religion. In that case I fully agree with Spengler that Islam and Judaism are religions too. But he must also agree that with that definition all cults also qualify to be called religions.

When I said Islam is not a religion, I had a less philosophical, a more popular notion of religion in mind. The popular understanding of religion is that it is a set of codes of conduct to elevate the individual’s spirituality, to uplift his soul and make him a better human being. In practice, perhaps few, if any of the present religions qualify for this definition. When religions are firmly believed then they become instruments of mind control and not of liberation. In practice religion is often used to justify cruelty and violence. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), philosopher and mathematician wrote: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

History can witness that what Pascal says is the reality. That is what religions do in practical terms. However, in theory religion is meant to teach people goodly manners, honesty, compassion, forbearance, tolerance, love and unity. It is to this theoretical definition of religion that I was hinting when I said Islam is not a religion.

Which religions fall into that definition? Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and to some extent Hinduism and Christianity! Why Islam and Judaism are not religions is because these doctrines were created not as end to themselves but as tools to achieve a temporal and a political goal. They are not doctrines created to teach man spirituality, or make him enlightened. The spiritual message in Judaism and Islam are secondary. They are used as baits to lure the believer and give him the feeling of sacred and otherworldliness. The promise of a reward whether in the form of resurrection or afterlife, is essential to muzzle people and goad them to do things that normally they would not do. Judaism and Islam were created to advance political objectives -- religion was the pretext.

Richard E. Friedman in his well researched and well documented book “Who Wrote the Bible?” explains how Judaism was invented in the seventh century BC by four priests that he calls “J," "P," "E," and "D" for the purpose of bringing together the divided nations of the Jews under one faith. During that time the tribe of Judea was living apart from the rest of the Israelites. They had a separate holy book and even worshiped a different god. In the Old Testament there are references to two gods, Jehovah and El. These two deities were not different names of the same deity. They were two distinct deities. Jews were not monotheists prior to that. This is clear from Psalm 82 where it says that the Lord Jehovah assembled all the gods and judged them and rebuked them for being inept gods.

The above Psalm disparages other gods but it does not deny their existence. Furthermore there are numerous verses that prohibit the Jews bowing down and worshipping the gods of other people. In numerous places it also makes it clear that the god of the Jews is a jealous god. (Ex: 20:5 Ex. 34:14, Deut. 4:24) Now how can one be jealous of an inexistent being? It is clear that those who wrote the Bible were sure that each nation had its own god, and of course the god of the Jews was superior.

The stories of the Pentateuch are repeated in two different versions. There are so many inconsistencies in these five books attributed to Moses that one has no other choice but to agree that these books are the amalgamation of two separate religious traditions with different gods and different holy books.

Friedman argues that the reason for the merging of the two distinct beliefs and their gods was to foster the sentiment of national unity among the Jews. Therefore the religion of Judaism was created as a catalyst to bind the two separate nations together by giving them a common belief.

The Jewish Rabies used religion as a tool of national unity. Muhammad used the same as a tool of domination. Muhammad was a megalomaniac narcissist with the reveries of grandiosity. He created Islam to dominate people and make them do what he desired. Religion, God, monotheism, prayers and other rituals were instruments that he employed in order to grab their attention and impose on them his will. These were just excuses to keep the people busy and hooked.

Narcissists do not promote themselves directly. This would make them repulsive. They instead manipulate people and promise them heaven and earth. They give them "a cause" and present themselves as the personification of that cause. The cause becomes the most important thing and it can't exist without them. Hence indirectly they become the center of the universe and the most important person.

In People’s Temple , social justice was the pretext and Jones was the personification of his cause. Jeanne Mills writes:

“There was never a question of who was right, because Jim was always right. When our large household met to discuss family problems, we didn’t ask for opinions. Instead, we put the question to the children, "What would Jim do?" It took the difficulty out of life. There was a type of "manifest destiny" which said the Cause was right and would succeed. Jim was right and those who agreed with him were right. If you disagreed with Jim, you were wrong. It was as simple as that. [Mills, 1979.]

Hitler, who also created a cult of personality around himself was not openly glorifying his person but rather the cause of Aryanism and superiority of Germany .

Muhammad did not ask his followers to worship him. He claimed to be just a messenger of a god that only he could see. Once that belief was established, then he demanded obedience by adroitly calling his followers to obey “Allah and his messenger” and since this imaginary Allah was Muhammad's own alter ego, the obedience was to Muhammad alone.

The causes are to hide the hidden agendas of the cult leaders. Dr. Sam Vaknin a psychologist and an expert in narcissism writes:

"Narcissists use anything they can lay their hands on in the pursuit of narcissistic supply. If God, creed, church, faith, institutionalized religion can provide them with narcissistic supply, they will become devout. They will abandon religion if it can't."

With this understanding, is it still correct to call Islam a religion? Islam was an instrument of domination, a way to fool the gullible to wage war for Muhammad, kill and be ready to get killed to advance Muhammad's designs and satisfy his ambitions. That is why Islam was invented. After Muhammad his religion was used for the same very purpose. It bounded the followers together; it inspired them to sacrifice themselves, commit unthinkable atrocities and fulfill Muhammad’s dreams of conquest.

The religious aspect of Islam was created later by Muslim philosophers. A theology was invented, mystical and esoteric interpretation were given to banal and asinine sayings of Muhammad. The religion was molded gradually by the followers and the passage of time gave it the seal of antiquitatem and credibility.

Therefore the answer to the conundrum whether Islam is a religion or not depends on how we define religion. If Islam is a religion, so is Nazism, communism, Satanism, Heaven’s Gate, People’s Temple, Branch Davidian and all other cults. They all should be considered as religions too. But if we think of religion as a philosophy of life created to educate, to bring forth the human potentials, to stimulate his spirituality and make him enlightened, then Islam fails that litmus test and should not be regarded as a religion.

Islam is politics in the garb of religion. I wholeheartedly agree with Spengler when he says “Religion is what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous.”

What makes Islam dangerous is not because it is a religion but because it is not. Islam is a thief in police uniform. The agenda of Islam is entirely political but its methodology is religious. It is this disguise and duplicity that makes it unpredictable and dangerous.

Neither religion nor politics are dangerous. Both politics and religion have their place in our world. Each fulfils a specific role and satisfies a certain need. But when we have a political movement with seventh century mentality, that aims to conquer the world and presents itself in the garb of religion and demands religious status; we are dealing with an imposter and there lies the danger. The danger is that while Islam claims to be a religion, its followers do not shy away from political assassinations, subversive activities, terrorism, sabotage, espionage and other ballistic acts that have little to do with religion and spirituality and are purely political in nature.

Islam has one goal and that is to overthrow the present governments and establish the Khalifat. Let there be no mistake as to what Islam is about. Let us listen to the words coming out of the mouth of the horse or in this case the horse is Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Spokesperson:

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

Whether it is through education or through violence and Jihad, the aim is clearly stated. Islam is not created to make people enlightened, spiritual, loving, caring and decent people. Islam is not a religion of personal growth. Islam is a tool to mobilize the masses and to ultimately score political victories, subvert the governments and establish the Islamic domination.

Whether we want to call Islam a religion or not is a question of semantics. How we define religion is up to us. We can define it so inclusive that Islam also could be qualified as a religion. However, under no circumstances we should neglect that Islam is first and foremost a political movement. Its aim is not purely spiritual but very political.

Once Islam is recognized as politics then it would be up to the politicians to oppose it. Disguised as a religion, it not only fools its followers, encouraging them to sacrifice their wealth and their lives for its political agenda, it also remains immune from being opposed by other political parties. It actually procures the assistance of the rival political parties while surreptitiously it advances its own political goals undermining the stability of all other parties and the host government.

Judaism is also a political movement. One cannot really separate Judaism from Zionism. The religion is created to preserve the integrity of the Judaic nation. This however, does not present any danger to anyone else. We all have our nations and we are all protective of them. For the Jews nationalism has a religion overtone. But nationalism per se is not a dangerous sentiment. What is dangerous is imperialism. Imperialism is dangerous because it tries to extend the authority of one group or nation on others by establishing economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Judaism is purely nationalistic, but it is not imperialistic. On the contrary Islam is not nationalistic but purely imperialistic. Unlike what Spengler says Islamic expansionism is not just “a holy rage against the encroachment of death upon traditional society.” Yes, he is right, to a certain degree. Muslims feel threatened by the western civilization, by science, by secularization, by democracy, by equal rights for women and by enlightenment. Probably to that fear you could attribute the Islamic revolt of the 1979 in Iran. But today’s Islamic terrorism is inspired by Islamic imperialistic fervor. What is it that Muslims want to protect in America or in Europe? They are doing Jihad here, not to protect Islam but to expand it.

Our problem is that we fail to listen. All we have to do is to listen to what the Muslims say. Let us listen this time to the words coming out of the mouth of the other horse, Osama Bin Laden. In his letter addressed to America he wrote:

“As for… what are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.”

The message is very clear. Muslims are waging a Jihad to take over the world. They can preserve their traditional society and live in the caves if they like. No one is forcing them to educate and modernize. But that is not what they want. They want to impose their traditional society on our society. They want to dominate and take over the world and religion is just a convenient tool in their quest.


http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40811.htm

List
15 Aug 04,, 10:44
Bleh. Islam is a religion. If it was the primary religion of the first world, it would not be as extreme as it often is. Since it is the primary religion of many third world countries, countries that are much easier for "religious" groups to exploit, it is much more extreme, and much more political. If Christianity and Islam were reversed, the situation would probably be similar.

There's a point in there negatively talking about the prospects of a cult being described as a religion. I think cults are religions, in the sense that they're no less likely to be correct than any religion. Maybe there are powerful aliens who created us and want our chosen ones to ascend to be with them through mass suicide. All religions have beliefs that probably seem rediculous to many followers of other religions, that's just how it works.

I happen to agree, that, to a certain extent, most(if not all) religion is a response to our own mortality. Even if one religion is correct, it's a good psychological reason for the extistence of most of the others.

Sina critisizes Judaism as being purely political, but ignores the intensely political discourse that went into the creation of the currently accepted New Testament. Most major religions, have, at one point or another, been used as political tools.

Sina talks about religion preaching "goodly manners, honesty, compassion, forbearance, tolerance, love and unity," however the Old Testament preaches all of these things. I don't have the necessary knowledge of Islam to speak for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if these values are tought in Islam also. Many holy books are vague and often self contradictory, and thus can be interpreted in a number of ways. If you pick and choose, you can make it mean whatever you want. Besides, this definition of religion is entirely subjective. If my deity wants me to be badly mannered, dishonest, neglectful, intollerant, and hateful, and my deity represents my only possible source of salvation, my beliefs represent no less of a religion than anyone elses.

roshan
15 Aug 04,, 14:23
You can debate with Ali Sina at forum.faithfreedom.org . I post there also.

Nisaar
18 Aug 04,, 17:31
Firstly, I do not intend to start a religious war here, but I feel that there are a few things I have to clarify about Islam. Forgive me if I offend or insult anyone or their beliefs.





"Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance from their Lord. They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah...the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. They rejoice in the Grace and the Bounty from Allah, and in the fact that Allah suffereth not the reward of the Faithful to be lost (in the least)." (Q.3:169)


This is simply a statement of the Quraan that can be seriously misunderstood if read out of context. This statement was said by Mohammed after a battle they had fought, where many muslims died.The people were demotivated and feared for their loved ones that they lost and had asked Mohammed what was to become of them. This message was to ease their pain. God here in this message is in no way asking the muslims of future generations to kill, he is telling muslims of the past what happened to those that had just died. If you read the entire chapter and not just an extract, you will understand what I am trying to say.

A jihad or holy war, by what I have read in the Quraan is not a war that you wage to convert people to islam, but a war that you wage if you are attacked first.It is a war that is faught defensively and not offensively.

I guess you forgot to mention statements in the Quraan like :

"fight in the cause of Allah, those who fight you and be not aggressors ".
The foregoing verse makes it clear that war can only be declared against those who fight you. The believer in islam is not allowed to be the aggressor, since God(in the Quraan) loves not the aggressors. If the enemy is inclined to peace, Muslims should at once agree.

The Holy Quraan states:

"But if the enemies incline towards peace also incline towards peace and trust in Allah! For He is the one that hears and knows (all things)".


If Muslims are at war with a particular sect of humanity, and people from that sect come to the muslims claiming that they do not want to fight the Muslims, the muslims can:

1.)Ask for the persons conversion to Islam.

2.)Ask that the person pay a 'Jizya', or amount of money that is not unreasonable on the person. On the person doing so, this money must be spent on the persons defence against the people he defected from, extra money must go towards the welfare of the state and this only applies to people who can afford the 'Jizya'.

3.)Ask that the person opt for military service.


Certain people can be exempt from 'Jizya'

i) Innocent Females

ii) Children

iii) The old

4) The blind, paralysed and crippled

5) The monks. Or religious people that believe in God. Taken to be holy christian priests and Rabbi's. As muslims accept that Christians and jews, and even zoroastrians(among some religions) believe in the same god as they.





History can witness that what Pascal says is the reality. That is what religions do in practical terms. However, in theory religion is meant to teach people goodly manners, honesty, compassion, forbearance, tolerance, love and unity. It is to this theoretical definition of religion that I was hinting when I said Islam is not a religion.

Islam does preach these things, he should consider reading the Quraan in its entirety before passing judgement.




The Jewish Rabies used religion as a tool of national unity. Muhammad used the same as a tool of domination. Muhammad was a megalomaniac narcissist with the reveries of grandiosity. He created Islam to dominate people and make them do what he desired. Religion, God, monotheism, prayers and other rituals were instruments that he employed in order to grab their attention and impose on them his will. These were just excuses to keep the people busy and hooked.


Almost all the wars fought By Mohammed were wars faught in defence. Mohammed never lived the life of a wealthy man either, so you cant say that he exploited the people. Mohammed never horded money for personal gain as well.




Muhammad did not ask his followers to worship him. He claimed to be just a messenger of a god that only he could see. Once that belief was established, then he demanded obedience by adroitly calling his followers to obey “Allah and his messenger” and since this imaginary Allah was Muhammad's own alter ego, the obedience was to Muhammad alone.


Mohammed never claimed to see God actually. What he did claim was that he was being given divine inspiration and told words via the angel Gabriel and since he was not literate, he asked groups of people whom he trusted to write it down.


There was one incident where he almost saw God. We believe that a being known as a Buraaq carried the prophet one night (Known as laylatul mehraj)
to the highest heaven and the prophet stood before God, but even then there was a 'literal-veil' between Mohammed and God.




The religious aspect of Islam was created later by Muslim philosophers. A theology was invented, mystical and esoteric interpretation were given to banal and asinine sayings of Muhammad. The religion was molded gradually by the followers and the passage of time gave it the seal of antiquitatem and credibility.


The Quraan was completed just before Mohammeds death and even non-muslims testify to the fact that it hasn't been alterd since....
There are mystic statements and books that leaders of Islam issued forth, but these were only attemptsat explanations and not added to the religion.
No addendums have been made to the Quraan for over 1400 years or since the prophets death.




Islam has one goal and that is to overthrow the present governments and establish the Khalifat. Let there be no mistake as to what Islam is about. Let us listen to the words coming out of the mouth of the horse or in this case the horse is Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s Spokesperson:



Firstly, none of the governments in existence today were around then.How then did the prophet make a book to overthrow governments that would come about only centuries later.
This is totally untrue, it is sad that people pass judgement before they even study something. Islam has probably the most vast rules and regulations of all religions.
So does Christianity and Judaism. It is unfair to think that these three religions have an ultimate goal which is the destrustion of man.


it is through education or through violence and Jihad, the aim is clearly stated. Islam is not created to make people enlightened, spiritual, loving, caring and decent people. Islam is not a religion of personal growth. Islam is a tool to mobilize the masses and to ultimately score political victories, subvert the governments and establish the Islamic domination.

If it is not created to enlighten, then why did the prophet say,'Oh people, study from the cradle to the grave'.

The Quraan even tells us to go out into space.
It says:

'Oh!, assembly of jinns and men, If you can penetrate the regions of space then penetrate them. You will not penetrate them save with a power'

The latter verse seems a bit mystical and vague, but the point I am trying to make is that Islam is trying to promote the well-being of man-kind, not its destruction. Of what benefit would the 'penetration' of space 1400 years after Mohammeds' death be to Mohammed.


As I am a Muslim myself, I felt it nessessary to respond to these heinious statements made about Islam and other religions.

Asim Aquil
18 Aug 04,, 21:29
It'd be extremely helpful if posts are kept short. If an article is huge, just post a link to it and put it in your own words for us. Anyway this debate is constantly raised amongst muslims as well. Should Islam be just a part of our personal lives or should be a governance system.

Of course when it comes down to discussing with non-muslims it breaks down to one thing. Islam was spread by the sword, like cheese is spread on toast. Quite frankly, I do not conform to those views. True the Ottoman Empire was an expansionist Empire. But which Empire wasn't? The greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, were just as much expansionist if you simplify things down to basic levels. They all used their colonies to milk them for cash. The centre declared the religion of choice, and if the colonies remained under one control for long, they slowly converted over a period of 100-200 yrs. This was done by every Empire. Thats how things were done back then.

Among muslims, I feel the realization is slowly creeping in that Islam should be a part of our personal lives, but to be fair with other religions that form a part of our citizen bank, we have to adopt systems that conform to everyone's needs.

Ray
19 Aug 04,, 09:10
IAmong muslims, I feel the realization is slowly creeping in that Islam should be a part of our personal lives, but to be fair with other religions that form a part of our citizen bank, we have to adopt systems that conform to everyone's needs.

Well said.

Confed999
20 Aug 04,, 01:15
Well said.
Yes, very well said...

Ray
20 Aug 04,, 07:51
Yes, one must be loving for the remainder mankind and not think that his way to God is the best and his God is the only God. Or impose conversion when he defeats a people. That way, Iraq should now become Christians!

Love for Mankind is more important than Hate or relgious wars or conversion by force etc.

Well, that is my opinion.

I am also aware that those who preach Hate, War and Conversions by the Sword will still continue to do so.

Such is life! :frown:

Nisaar
20 Aug 04,, 08:41
Yes, one must be loving for the remainder mankind and not think that his way to God is the best and his God is the only God. Or impose conversion when he defeats a people. That way, Iraq should now become Christians!


That is true. The problem with religion is that everybody always ends up forcing their beliefs on everybody else. Infact, we received Islam from Turks that invaded India and forced the religion on to my Grandparents from my Indian side.(Or at least thats what my grandparents said.)

But ultimately, the more man progresses, the more intelligent he becomes. I beleive a time will come where all religions (or more broadly,beliefs) can be practised openly.
Apart from God, if there is one other thing I have faith in, its mankind.
I mean seriously, we only learnt how to fly like some 90 years ago and already America is on the verge of sending a colony to Mars. Ninety years in the 'Grand-scheme' of things is like a fleeting moment.

I think we'll be okay.

tarek
11 Sep 04,, 21:13
"The message is very clear. Muslims are waging a Jihad to take over the world. They can preserve their traditional society and live in the caves if they like. No one is forcing them to educate and modernize. But that is not what they want. They want to impose their traditional society on our society. They want to dominate and take over the world and religion is just a convenient tool in their quest"

WHo can argue against this??? Are all Muslims Jihadis and those who are not, are they really Muslims?? Muslim lite?? Religion or political ideology?? Yes, is it false that the construction of our reality depends on the ideas we use as foundations?

Alright, let me if I understand the general drift of the responses (and display my ignorance): Since most respondents, well, OK, all the respondents, seem to think that Islam, it's relationship to adherents and non-adherents, is fixed and immutable - and that the only PC approach is to escape the public realm -- Boo hoo, is it any wonder we see little respect for "moderation"?, it's almost as if we are wiling to surrender that Islam is rabid and those of us "enlightened", seek to mask this quality -- hiding in the private is not possible, can one hold in private that all persons are NOT equal before the law, can one privately hold God has cursed entire nations - and can one disguise this and is it realistic that this will NOTseep in to the public??

It's almost as some refuse top acknowledge the root of the word "good" and insist that ritual and works of the past somehow OUGHT to serve to maintain Islam in splendid sleep, as if it has ossified -- alas, conscience- satisfying and cruel, more cruel than mere defensiveness (Nisaar, take note) -

Ray
15 Sep 04,, 20:51
I think it is ridiculous to keep posts short on controversial issue. It leads to misunderstanding and flame wars and trolling.

A simple sentence may not be accepted by m,any, but with an explanation, even those who disagree can explain their point of view.

Thus, there is education for those not in line of the discussion.

We are here for education and not only to give our two pneny bit to show how brilliant and educated we are.

Take the Major's post:

Islamic expansionism arises from religious motives, that is, a holy rage against the encroachment of death upon traditional society

I would like to make an amendment. Indeed, the Moslems at least in my country are very sensitive about encroachment of traditional society or Moslem thought (as some perceive). Population explosion in India requires control. Be it of any relgion. Most Indian Moslem agree, but the Moslem Personal Board is wild against any control since it is against the Sharia, though another Maulana said that is bunkum. There is nothing like that in the Sharia he said.

When will reality dawn? Must be be buckled under an uncontrolled population explosion? Are we to prosper or are we to take our begging bowls to the US, which too is a country the Moslems hate. Satan, I believe. I haven't seen the US or Satan and so I won't comment.

I am sure that the Sharia has nothing preventing self control. These self styled Moslem religious head honchos want to make an ass of all so that their importance to behave like Stalin is not lost.

I asked some Moslem friends and they say the Moslem Personal Board is a set of freaks.

Nisaar
16 Sep 04,, 14:52
" alas, conscience- satisfying and cruel, more cruel than mere defensiveness (Nisaar, take note) -

Umm, I'm sorry if I upset you in any way, But I don't think I understand what you are saying in the post.
If you can explain it again , I'll gladly respond.
:)

Nisaar
16 Sep 04,, 15:05
Speaking on the Sharia, it actually contains some pieces of info. that contradict the Quraan, and many muslims don't except it. I am one of them. Like the one on 'Stoning' women to death!. The sharia was built up both before and after Muhammeds(s.a.w) reign and as such doesnt have much of a relationship with Islam but actually with the people of that area. The JEWS used to stone women to death for adultery,(until CHRIST abolished it.), and strictly speaking, they were practising a 'sharia' law.

Stoning women to death? Yikes! , thats bad.
I am just saying here what I have been told by my Maulana(Pastor) and I haven't read the entire sharia myself( Few lines, so I shouldn't pass judgment), but when I do I am sure I'll have a few interesting things to say.
:)

(This yello face looks kinda cool)