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

Created

Last reply

Replies

215

Views

17.9k

Users

24

Likes

338

Frequent Posters

Freethinker112 thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago

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 !


I am sorry, I know this is a serious topic, but I could not help but laugh at this one. Aya at least read the post you are quoting, if not the whole thread, before replying.
Freethinker112 thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
@ 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.

BTW, I am a firm believer that laws should be independent of religion. If they make a law system independent of Islam, that will be good.
Edited by Freethinker112 - 13 years ago
Aya. thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
@Freethinker

I misunderstood Hades. It happens. I was mad before reading their comment & I guess, you know...I got a little carried away.
I think I need a break from here. & anyway, I already apologized to Hades.

@Beyond the Veil

I will reply to your post hopefully 2maro.
Edited by Aya. - 13 years ago
return_to_hades thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 13 years ago

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!



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

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"?



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.

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: 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"..



That definitely is one hurdle to religious reform where people rather "explain" away problems than "solve" them.

But at least the human consciousness is working, people realize that times and frame of references have changed. The old testament still has violent commandments. Jewish people still have to reconcile their Torah with our modern sensibilities.

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?



A lot of the atrocities attributed to Mohammad are often embellished and exaggerated by people against Islam.

Also you have to consider frame of time and circumstances in history. Mohammad comes during a period of history where cruelty was a norm of society. He actually tried to bring order amidst warring tribes that were even more barbaric. You needed to wield some sort of brute force to tame many violent and waring factions that dominated the Middle East then.


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.



You are kidding me right?

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.



If your understanding of Christianity is derived from a parable of Christ, your understanding of the history of the church is seriously lacking. There was a time Christianity was not just a faith, but a political system. Forget political system it was the state. There are still Christian sects that believe in creating God's Kingdom and having Christian governments.

Coming from the same roots all the western monotheisms share similar conceptual challenges. Islam is not that radically different, it just is the most young and least evolved of them.


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".



This reminded me of the first Evangelical I met in the United States. He came up to me and asked me if I knew Jesus Christ. I answered "Yes, I went to Catholic School, so I learned a lot about Christ". The Evangelical replied "Well, Catholics are not real Christians".

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.



Interesting! Until you mentioned Allah I would have seriously mistaken you for describing the Bush Era.

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 :



Ok. You win. The website is exactly like Fox News. Fair and Balanced!
Aya. thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago

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.



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

return_to_hades thumbnail
19th Anniversary Thumbnail Stunner Thumbnail + 6
Posted: 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..



That blog post was not a proof for the liberal nature of Islam. It was more to prove that there are many different types of followers of Islam. Not all subscribe to the Taliban definition. It is irrational to think a person is a terrorist or a bad person simply because hey subscribe to Islam.

I've met more liberal Muslims in my life than conservative ones. Must be a result of growing up in Bombay. Muslims in United States are surprisingly way more conservative. My Muslim friends in India are probably heathens like me to some.

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.

Our world in general evolved despite our past, because we as humans socially evolved. The way we perceived things evolved. Our religions, culture, tradition remained the same. To reform a religion or a world as a matter of fact - we don't need to change the religion, the culture, the tradition or even history of something. We have to appeal to the humanity in people and change the way they think.

I don't think you are a big or brainwashed. I know that you are a sensible rational person. There must be a reason why you perceive Islam this way. However, I can tell you that attacking a person's belief system will never change things or make people more peaceful. It only aggravates and makes matters worse.

Religion and faith is personal. It is what people were raised in. It is their identity, who they are, what they believe in. It often defines and shapes them. When you scathingly attack a religion or belief system, you are not merely criticizing a book or a movie - you are attacking the very core values that define a person. Even if you have a very valid and good point to make, they will never be able to see it. In fact you push them back into the shell with a firm belief that western thought process is indeed attacking them and destroying who they are.

Blatantly criticizing Allah or Mohammad will just have you preaching to your own choir having no impact on anyone else. Reach out to the other side. Empathize that people hold their faiths dear and valuable. Find the common ground. Find that despite disparate faiths you can still share values. Once you establish goodwill then open the table for friendly discussion. Appeal to their own rationality and humanity and good morals. All humans have a high need to be rational and compassionate. When their own rationality and compassion conflicts with a religious leader or a belief system - they themselves will set out to reform it or even abandon it if they choose.

But if you actually want to get rid of Islam from the world in general, then the only possible way to do it would be to kill all those of faith - and then I don't see the difference between terrorists and that.
Rehanism thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 13 years ago

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.


*Facepalm*
Stop fooling yourself, woman!! You are living in denial..No wonder you believe Islam is just another religion that will become liberal once some magic man appears in Arabia and changes the meaning of words in Islamic dictionary..


There is no dispute as to who's infidel and there cannot be any moderate and liberal version of this word, except for those who want to deceive themselves with silly lies..Anyone who doesn't submit to the last and perfect faith of Allah aka Islam and give Allah the exclusive right to be worshiped, anyone who doesn't consider Muhammad as the last prophet of Allah and anyone who doesn't take Quran at the eternal guide revealed by the creator of this universe is an infidel..Infidel means non-believers/non-Muslims/Kafirs..As simple as that!! There is no metaphor or allusion here..Muhammad was an unlettered warlord and not a poet to use metaphors..

Secondly, I wasn't speaking of Church's political ambitions..I was speaking Christianity's political character, or rather lack of it..There's difference between Church seeking political control and Christianity being political in nature..If tomorrow, say, Dalai Lama becomes the political head of Buddhists that won't make Buddhism a political system..Buddha never had any political ambition nor did he ever design any political system..As for Christ's kingdom, Jesus clearly said "My kingdom is not of this world"..Clearly he was speaking of heaven being his kingdom..Islam, on the other hand has been political ever since its inception and Muhammad was its first dictator..In fact, the first year of Islam is not Muhammad's birth year or the year of his first revelation, but the year he assumed political control of the first Islamic state after leaving Mecca..

Tell me something, have you been reading Karen Armstrong?
Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago
Rehanism thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 13 years ago

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

Rehanism thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 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.


Precisely..Bid'ah, or any attempt for innovation/reform of Islam, is akin to apostasy in Islam. This is the reason why Sufis, Bahais and Ahmadiyas, who are arguably more tolerant and moderate than most Muhammedan Muslims, are considered as apostates of Islam and persecuted in Muslim majority lands..

Innovations like technological inventions, etc that doesn't go against Sharia or Sunna or against which there is no specific Islamic ruling is permitted (Bid'ad Hasanah), but any reform that contradicts Islamic deen and sunnah or seeks to abrogate its doctrines and laws is akin to apostasy (Bid'ah Say'iah)...In short there's no way we can change Sharia or any other Islamic tradition while remaining within the limits of Islam.
Edited by Rehanism - 13 years ago
Freethinker112 thumbnail
13th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail
Posted: 13 years ago
Yes, it's the same as being in a legal system which has a law that none of the laws can be amended. And you're trying to change some laws and at the same time claiming that you are not doing anything illegal. No, you are breaking a law and thus are not a follower of the law anymore.

Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".