Freedom of expression/Inflaming religious senti's - Page 15

Originally posted by: Aya.

You make it sound like Muslims are the only ones in the world who are killing people !

Muslims have been killed in Palestine, Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Berma, Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt & in so many places in Africa & in the Middle East.

I agree Muslims are killing each other in their own land, but it's because of those evil leaders like Gaddafi, Assad, & Ali Abdullah Saleh. The innocent Muslims are just fighting for their rights !

I agree that it's those leaders who give Islam a bad name !

Women are being treated like trash everywhere in the world. Not just in some Islamic countries, but also in places like Africa, India, etc. Men in India throw acid on women ! That pisses me off !

Originally posted by: Rehanism

"The entire article itself is a work of interpretation by the author. In order to claim that Islam cannot be reformed, the author interprets the Quran and the fact that Mohammed is the last prophet in a way that supports his argument. " - Explain this..Explain how exactly should be the proper interpretation of Quran and Muhammad's prophet-hood!

Originally posted by: Rehanism

And what was that? Interpret in a more humanist manner? You mean translate things like "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" into "Kiss the unbelievers wherever you find them"?

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Let me tell you this, many do try to interpret Islam in a civilized manner to the best of their ability. For instance Islam gives man the right to beat his wife. Now this is unacceptable in modern world and no one in their right mind can consider this to be a civilized behavior. So what Islamic apologists do is that they tell you "Oh! this is not an actual beating, its rather a gentle padding with a handkerchief or a feather as a symbolic chastisement"..No matter how stupid this interpretation is, several Muslims are convinced by this. But when you read the Hadiths you find Aisha's account of being actually thrashed by Muhammad for leaving home without permission or Abu Bakr beating his wives and later on having a laugh about it with Muhammad and you find Muhammad saying "Man will be never asked why he beat his wife"..

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Religious moderation, especially in case of Islam, is like covering up one lie with another..Muhammad was not a flawed human, he was a psychopath - a megalomaniac narcissist..He believed himself to be the raison de'tre of the existence of this universe and that's what Muslims believe him to be. He murdered hundreds in a single day in Banu Quraiza just like that, he raped and allowed his men to rape women captured in war, he looted caravans, raided villages, kidnapped women and sold them in market, he tortured people to extract the location of their treasures, he sent assassins to brutally murder those who had offended him - which included men women and old people. Murder, rape, genocide, sex trade, slave trade, highway robbery, assassination, pillage, pedophilia, torture, crimes against humanity - there's hardly a crime known to mankind this monster didn't commit..Even Adolf Hitler is dwarfed before him..And Muslims believe him to be the most perfect of all creations, seal of prophets and a mercy upon worlds and try to emulate him..You believe that some miracle would happen and all these facts would somehow change? And why should we pretend that Muhammad was just another human being who erred? Why then we don't attempt to find some "moderate" Nazism or "liberal" Fascism? Why, then, shouldn't we try to justify Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot? Because they were not religious leaders?

Originally posted by: Rehanism

You ask if Christianity can be reformed why not Islam? Because despite the political power that the Church wielded in medieval Europe, Christianity itself never had a political character.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Christ was never interested in politics or worldly powers..When a citizen asked him whether they should pay their taxes to Caesar or to God, Jesus held up a coin and asked them "Whose face do you see?". They replied, "Caesar's". Jesus said "Then render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God that is God's"..This very statement laid the foundation of the principle of secularism that forced the Church to relinquish its hold upon politics, military and society of Europe..Christianity, on itself, is plainly a faith. Its not a political system. Islam is. Islam is not a mere devotional creed. Its politics, its military, its society, is culture, its state and its constitution and above all it is decreed by the creator of the universe to be the last, perfect and unchangeable religion..Secularism is not merely alien to Islam, its also antithetical to Islam. God is the head of the state and the sovereign dictator of all its affairs. There is no way of separating state, society, culture and religion in Islam. In short if you are to qualify as a good Muslim, you must lead a scripted life with little choice over your life style and behavior. And this is what makes Islam different from other religions..Islam is not just another religion. Its a cult of controlling the individual and the world.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

For once and for all, lets cut the crap about this "moderate" or "liberal" Islam..There's no such thing. There's only one Islam and that's Muhammad's Islam that is meant for all times. Even the simplest deviation from Islamic tenets have led to massacres and pogroms. Moderation is against Islam. No one has the right to reform or reinterpret Islam. Islam, as Muhammad designed and sealed it, is the perfect word of God for 1.6 billion Muslims..The ones who appear to be moderate Muslims or Secular Muslims are actually Munafiqs (hypocrites) in Islamic vocabulary. Its only ill-informed intellectuals like yourself who use these witless words like "moderate Islam" or "liberal Islam" or "extremist Islam".

Originally posted by: Rehanism

.The problem with you guys is that you don't know what it is actually like to believe in God, in salvation, in damnation, to believe that someone - some invisible big daddy - is constantly keeping an eye on you, your every movement is being watched and you'll be judged for every damn thing that you do..Have you read George Orwell's novel 1984? Islam is exactly like the nation state of Oceania and its Party and Allah is the Big Brother.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

You called FFI biased - alright, then prove it wrong!! Whichever part you find is presumptuous or incorrect - present your own evidence against that! Before that watch this :

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Precisely my point. There is no proper interpretation. It is all subject to the reader and interpretor.



Could you cite which specific Surah you are referring to so I can see the full context. Most of the instances of such commandments I recollect in the Quran were similar to the narratives in the Old Testament.

The Quran does have several instances where it maligns infidels and calls for action against them. The specific action "kill" is translative. The more appropriate translation is usually "destroy". Now destroy in itself is not a constructive word, but still it is subject to the mind frame of the interpretor.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100324203244AAUdePd

Just read the Best Answer only, since that person explained it well.

You told me that the Quran mentions to kill infidels & I just wanted to correct that so, please do click on the link & read the first person's answer.

Firstly we have who do we consider as an "unbeliever" or "infidel". The extremists will say anyone who does not believe in Allah. Moderates might loosen it to be people who lack faith. While liberals interpret it to mean any person who is not essentially good. The most liberal interpretation is that even if a person is an atheist or of another faith, if they in essence are good people who try to do good, then they still follow Allah's commandments.

Also when you consider "destroy" you could take it literally or figuratively. You destroy the lack of faith or infidelity, not the person themselves. Some take it to mean conversion or sharing their faith. Most liberals take it very loosely to bridge gaps with people of other faith.

Abraham Lincoln said "Am I not destroying my enemies, when I make friends of them". The interpretation of a commandment is completely dependent on the integrity of the individual.

Precisely my point. There is no proper interpretation. It is all subject to the reader and interpretor.

My comment in blue, Hades.

Edited by Aya. - 13 years ago

Originally posted by: Rehanism

The problem is its the "extremists" who follow Islam the way its founder intended it to be followed, whereas the so called moderates and liberals dilute their faith and culture to pursue a more comfortable life style..

I remember reading a post in your blog where you pointed out things like Salman Khan respecting other religions and worshiping Ganesha or Shahrukh Khan keeping Lakshmi and Ganesha idols along side Quran or Sania Mirza wearing shorts - and you used these as proof of Islam's liberal nature..There is a serious flaw with this assumption - and that is you are using those behaviors that are strictly haram in Islam to prove its greatness..If Shahrukh Khan keeps idols in his house or brings up his children in an inclusive atmosphere, or Salman Khan celebrates Ganesha Chaturthi or Sania Mirza wears shorts, that's not because of Islam - that's despite Islam..All these are strictly forbidden in Islam..I have no qualms in accepting that there are millions of Muslims who are good, tolerant, liberal etc, but that's not because of Islam - that's because they have consciously chosen to forsake Islam's rigidity or perhaps they are simply not aware of its doctrines..

Taliban follows the purest form of Islam - the Islam that Muhammad and his Sahabha preached and practiced in 7th century and there's hardly a knowledgeable person who would dispute that. Why don't you use Taliban's example to prove the greatness and liberal nature of Islam? Why are you using heretical practices of Muslims to prove your point? You claim you have problem with stoning, amputation, wife beating, polygamy etc etc and yet you seem to have no problem with Islam that is the source of these and many more such evils in these societies? You have no problem with the system that has sanctioned and institutionalized these evil practices under the guise of divine commandments and thus made them immutable?

I know you might think that I am bigot or perhaps brainwashed or have got some personal reasons to hate Islam and I don't have any means to convince you that I don't. However I oppose Islam because I find it to be a very tyrannical system founded by a psychopath and a warlord; whose words and actions are criminal and obnoxious to the last degree.. And as long as Muslims consider this man to be the greatest human being or an eternal guide, there is no hope for Islamic world..If Islamic world has to reform and bring itself upto the standards of the West, then it has to abandon Muhammad and his cult..This is the plain truth..You may continue to pretend that people can consider someone like Muhammad to be a role model and yet somehow end up being Mahatma Gandhi themselves, but I personally prefer truth to lies no matter how sweet and palatable those lies might be..

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Firstly we have who do we consider as an "unbeliever" or "infidel". The extremists will say anyone who does not believe in Allah. Moderates might loosen it to be people who lack faith. While liberals interpret it to mean any person who is not essentially good. The most liberal interpretation is that even if a person is an atheist or of another faith, if they in essence are good people who try to do good, then they still follow Allah's commandments.

Also when you consider "destroy" you could take it literally or figuratively. You destroy the lack of faith or infidelity, not the person themselves. Some take it to mean conversion or sharing their faith. Most liberals take it very loosely to bridge gaps with people of other faith.

Abraham Lincoln said "Am I not destroying my enemies, when I make friends of them". The interpretation of a commandment is completely dependent on the integrity of the individual.

Precisely my point. There is no proper interpretation. It is all subject to the reader and interpretor.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

There's one little problem here..There's no such word such as 'Liberal Muslims' or 'Moderate Muslims' in Islamic dictionary..The ones whom you call Liberal Muslims, Islam calls them Munafiq or Hypocrites - i.e. people who are Muslims only in name but act contrary to its doctrines. Islam doesn't give anyone the right to choose and pick their favorite verses..Doing so incurs capital punishment as they are considered traitors..Such people existed even in Muhammad's times; they accepted Islam but didn't like participating in Jihad or financing Muhammad's expansionist programs..They were all killed by the Muslims in retaliation..

If Muslims dilute the elements of their religion, that is not Islam - that is their own life style..It is not upto anyone to reform Islam..Islam cannot be reformed if you are sincere to it or if you understand it..Yes, Muslims can choose to ignore its doctrines and wean out of its influence to lead a more comfortable, updated life style..But then they cease to be Muslims..Being Muslim is not just about having an Islamic sounding name or praying to Allah and fasting. Islam is a complete institution - or deen - that includes society, culture, politics, military etc etc - based on Muhammad's practices or sunaah. The true Muslim, therefore, is one who follows Islam the way Muhammad, the perfect creation of Allah, wanted them to follow and that is why Taliban is an exemplary of true Muslim whereas Shahrukh Khan or Salman Khan are munafiqs and murtads...If Shahrukh or Salman or any other moderate or liberal Muslim were to debate a member of Taliban, they would be simply routed from the forum..Because Taliban has the support of Islamic theology and authentic scriptures to back-up their ideologies and actions; Shahrukh or Salman or other self-styled moderate Muslims do not - they have diluted their faith on their own authority, trespassing the boundaries of Islam.

You asked :

If the more liberal Muslims, those who don't mind taking part in Ganesh Utsav, those who are OK letting their spouses practice their religions, those who let women wear shorts and tank tops, have careers became the majority - wouldn't Islam be reformed.

Well, no..Islam wouldn't be reformed..It will be abrogated then..Because doing things that directly contradicts Islamic doctrines do not reform those doctrines - it does away with those doctrines and henceforth you are no longer a Muslim. That is why I guess several fatwas were issued by clerics declaring Salman Khan as an apostate.

Today we use these dimwitted terms like Moderate Islam, Liberal Islam, Political Islam, Radical Islam, Feminist Islam, Gay Islam and so on, as per our convenience..which have no meaning in Islamic circles..These are words coined by our politically correct intellectuals and media to fool us..This does nothing but provide cover to the real Islam and gives it immunity from the criticism that it deserves..Islam is a complete system that has been sealed till the end of time..Now you either take it completely or leave it..There's no middle path - at least not one under Islam's purview..
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOQukCn0kg[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNndF8RP7Lw[/YOUTUBE]

Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

@ Everyone

Well, here is what I understand about the point Rehan is trying to make. You people are saying that Islam and Quaran should be amended to make it more moderate but what he is trying to say that you cannot change Quaran within the scopes of Quaran. Quaran is said to be God's own words. If you are changing a part, basically you are saying that we know better than God. And if you think you are wiser than God, then there is not much point in following the book at all, as you know better. And this is what the book doesn't allow, that a man can be wiser than Allah. That's why you cannot change Quaran and accept Quaran simultaneously. Changing amounts to you rejecting it. At least, that's what I understand.