NationStates Jolt Archive

I wrote this out of how awful the generalizing and over-generalizing on NationStates General is done on Muslims and Islam. Following how "All Arabs are enemies of Islam because the U.S sold ports to the Middle East" to Colodia's anger, to even Keruvalia’s endless sayings on the truth of Islam, this will, hopefully, lower the generalizing and over-generalizing done on Muslims and Islam on this Board.


A General F.A.Q About Islam



1.) Is Islam a peaceful religion? Does it promote terrorism if it is/isn’t a peaceful religion?

Yes, Islam is, infact, overall a peaceful religion and doesn’t promote terrorism. Because terrorists and a few handfuls of extremists out of all the whole Muslim population in the World do some harmful activity and claim to say Islam justifies it, the truth is, Islam doesn’t support their actions.

Proof from The Holy Qur’an –

And make not Allah.s (name) an excuse in your oaths against doing good, or acting rightly, or making peace between persons; for Allah is One Who heareth and knoweth all things. [2:224]

--

This Quote means that a Muslim is not allowed to use Allah’s name in any act that harms yourself and others. In a current example – The September 11, 2001 Attacks can relate to this Quote, for this Verse does not allow you to senselessly do dangerous things to others while taking Allah’s name. Osama might think he was acting rightly by doing this and thinks that he was doing a good action, but killing people by doing so is not permissible by The Holy Qur’an and Islam.

--

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. [2:190-193]

--

These Quotes describe the fact that if anyone attacks you, then you can fight in the Name of Allah (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,). But you must cease to attack the other person if they stop attacking you.

--

"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching."
[16:125]

--

No oppressing, no force, or no threatening can be done if you want to preach and want people to convert to Islam.

I forgot who it was, but that is probably why that one person on NationStates General went to Saudi Arabia, who believed in no God, and didn’t get harassed.

--

The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous. [42:42]

--

Wrong-doing is what the Islamic Extremists and Terrorists do. Oppressing can go as to abusing women (which can offer an answer for the 3rd question). The rest can be left to your interpretation and to the verse’s self-explanatory position.




2.) Does Islam demonize followers of Judaism and Christianity?

No. If you look into the History of Islam, the Islamic Empire did not ruthlessly kill Jewish People and Christians, but only taxed them. This shows a degree of respect for Jewish People and Christians.

In my research of The Holy Qur’an, I did not find a verse that showed Islam demonizes Judaism and Christianity, nor Jewish People and Christians. I have, however, found a verse not demonizing Jewish People and Christianity and its followers -

--

"Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in God and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve" [2:62]

--

Here you go. These verses are self-explanatory.





3.) Does Islam oppress Women?

Not exactly. There are many instances where Women are treated rightfully, but some instances may lower Women in standards (not respect).

Proof from The Holy Qur’an –

O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah. For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do. [2:282]

--

It is said here (in the bolded text) that if a person cannot find two men as witnesses in a deal, then one should get one man and two women. This can be interpreted as Two Women = One Man in terms of standards.

--

Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. [2:228]

--

Over here, it states that divorced women have similar rights to their former husbands, showing a balance of equality. However, it states that men have a slight advantage over women (in a divorce case), but would this necessarily (so far) disrupt the equality of men and women in Islam?

--

A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others). [2:229]

--

Over here, men are forbidden to take away any gifts they gave to their wives – such as property, wealth, or money unless certain circumstances occur (generalized in those verses). This shows a sign of equality.

--

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.[4:3]

--

What would be considered injustice to Women? Ofcourse it means abusing them physically or sexually, or even mentally or verbally. Or taking advantage of them, no? Injustice to Women also means that men are not allowed to harm them in a way where they falsely blame them and cause harm to them or etc.

--

And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer. [4:4]

--

Men are requested (in my interpretation of this translated verse) to give a gift to women to show a sign of good will. And if they don’t take it, you should still show a sign of good will.

--

If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. [4:15]

--

Here are verses of controversy – Women are to be punished to death if they commit sexual desire with men that they are not married to – BUT ONLY if four witnesses are PRESENT – this means false testifying can be caught. And four are needed, not one. This can show a degree of equality.

--

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.[4:19]

--

I will end my case of the Role of Women in Islam with these verses. Men are forbidden to forcefully take women and/or force them to commit what you want against THEIR will. And men must not be harsh to their women – but must live with them with kindness and fairness (unless they commit lewdness).





4.) What about how the Middle East and some Muslims around the World present Islam? They present it in a totally different way than you do, are you sure you are using trustworthy sources? Other Muslims have acted very violently over the Danish Cartoons, and they make horrible images of Jewish People and the Holocaust – can you explain what Islam says on this?

Sure thing. One, the Middle East can be hypothesized to bring out Islam in the correct way. The matter is of what the people in that region do. For example – Saudi Arabia enforces the strictest Islamic Rules, but over the actions some of the people do are, no doubt, against Islam. Not everyone is perfect, so women in Saudi Arabia might be punished to death for committing lewdness while, in reality, when four witnesses are brought up, they might actually be lying.

I am using trustworthy sources. Most of My Qur’an Quotes are found - http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the translator, is a very known and a trustworthy man who translated many Qur’an’s with accuracy.

Muslims have obviously acted very violent to the Danish Cartoons, but Islam no doubt says its better to forgive than anything else.

Proof from The Holy Qur’an –

Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant. [7:199]

--

“Hold to forgiveness” can be told to the people who caused the violence over the cartoons. “Command what is right” can be said as tell the editors/publishers what is right (in Islamic terms). “But turn away from the ignorant” can mean forgive them, tell them what is right (in Islamic terms) and then leave the rest to them.

--

The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah. for ((Allah)) loveth not those who do wrong.

But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame.

The blame is only against those who oppress men and wrong-doing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a penalty grievous.

But indeed if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs. [42:40-43]

--

This is self-explanatory. No?

--

For making the images of Jewish People in horrible stances, and the injustice depiction of the Holocaust, you can refer to the past how in the Islamic Empire, Jewish People and Christians were not forced to convert. The works of making horrible depictions of Jewish People and the Holocaust goes to the friction between Muslims and Jewish People in the past and in the present, not the works of Islam and/or the fact that Islam supports this.

--

Ask all your questions about Islam here. If anyone would like to add to this/criticize this/contradict this, it is welcome. I just wanted to clear up commonly-held misconceptions about Islam.

--The Genius Masterminds.

Suras 2-9.

Why are you so awesome?

I am shaking my head about this whole thing.

That's it.

Where did the influx of the generalizing idiots come from?

I never actually click on them, but I see several new derogatory threads every day.

Why are you so awesome?

>_<

I decided to do this after your thread about what pisses you off the most. I wanted to say the same as you did but I took a more peaceful path, lol

^_^.

I am shaking my head about this whole thing.

That's it.

You don't agree to the making of this thread or. . .?

>______________________<

mmmm, understanding. Too bad it doesn't catch on that easily.

Suras 2-9.
Which says what? In the English translation I read, it's saying that hypocrites will get fire and brimstone on Judgement Day.

Of course the Bible says the same, and goes into details as well.

Huh... Well, I was wrong on the who peaceful thing apparently, my bad, and my apology to the muslium community.

Bump!

We need more people to raise their awareness on Islam.

Like we do on AIDS/STD and etc.

!!!!

3.) Does Islam oppress Women?

Not exactly. There are many instances where Women are treated rightfully, but some instances may lower Women in standards (not respect).

Proof from The Holy Qur’an –
<snip>[2:282]

It is said here (in the bolded text) that if a person cannot find two men as witnesses in a deal, then one should get one man and two women. This can be interpreted as Two Women = One Man in terms of standards.

<snip>
Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. [2:228]

Over here, it states that divorced women have similar rights to their former husbands, showing a balance of equality. However, it states that men have a slight advantage over women (in a divorce case), but would this necessarily (so far) disrupt the equality of men and women in Islam?


I would say that the requirement of two women witnesses in place of one male witness does denote that women are not to be trusted for being truthful as a male.

Divorced women having equal rights as their ex does not offset the above, because the above is a blanket judgement on women's trustworthiness and it indeed does contribute a lot to the misogyny in many muslim societies. The shariat courts use this as reference for their rules that a woman witness's testimony is of less value than that of a male's.

4:176 also reinforces this one - two thing
They ask thee for a pronouncement. Say: Allah hath pronounced for you concerning distant kindred. If a man die childless and he have a sister, hers is half the heritage, and he would have inherited from her had she died childless. And if there be two sisters, then theirs are two-thirds of the heritage, and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things.

Btw, do you agree with this translation of 4.24
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

So does Islam permit slaves?

Can you also give your interpretation of 4:34 ?
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

I know Islam doesn't exactly treat women with equality, but neither does Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and even Confucianism.

1.) 4:176 - It's between brothers and sisters. But the male gets twice as much as the female because the male is ordered to protect his family.

2.) You have a very inaccurate translation.

4:24 states this - Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Men cannot have affairs with women that are already married. No where does it say "captives". "Right hand posses" means your other (3) wives.

3.) Wrong translation of 4:34 again -

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

The above is self-explanatory.

As usual completely correct, hopefully this will put those Bigots in ther eplace-well done sah!

Or is it just a bunch of related religions under one name? Some Muslims are genuinely good people, some are murderous barbarians. Some are Shi'ite, some are Sufi, some are Sunni. Even among each of those sects there are sub-sects. It seems that it's more like a bunch of religions using the same holy books but teaching radically different things and it makes it very confusing because some of those groups must be exterminated (the ones who's ideology provides justification, recruits and support for terrorism) while others should be left alone.

mmmm, understanding. Too bad it doesn't catch on that easily.
true

Or is it just a bunch of related religions under one name? Some Muslims are genuinely good people, some are murderous barbarians. Some are Shi'ite, some are Sufi, some are Sunni. Even among each of those sects there are sub-sects. It seems that it's more like a bunch of religions using the same holy books but teaching radically different things and it makes it very confusing because some of those groups must be exterminated (the ones who's ideology provides justification, recruits and support for terrorism) while others should be left alone.
What, like Christianity?

Or is it just a bunch of related religions under one name? Some Muslims are genuinely good people, some are murderous barbarians. Some are Shi'ite, some are Sufi, some are Sunni. Even among each of those sects there are sub-sects. It seems that it's more like a bunch of religions using the same holy books but teaching radically different things and it makes it very confusing because some of those groups must be exterminated (the ones who's ideology provides justification, recruits and support for terrorism) while others should be left alone.Sort of brings to mind another schizophrenic religion, Christianity, doesn't it.

The fact is all the major religions a fractured into sects or denominations. Beliefs fall under general guidelines but can swing strict fundimentalist to liberal progressive in all of them.

What, like Christianity?
Christians are divided into a number of sects, but most seem to be on the same page. They disagree about minor theological points, not about whether or not it's acceptable or even desirable to intentionally kill civilians in other nations.

Also when's the last time there has been large-scale violence and rioting between two christian groups? Shi'ite mosques have been suicide-bombed by sunnis on several occasions in the last couple of years. I can't recall when Methodists last blew up a baptist church. Oh, and IRA wasn't so much about religion as it was about independence for N. Ireland from the UK. That's not a valid example.

Christians are divided into a number of sects, but most seem to be on the same page. They disagree about minor theological points, not about whether or not it's acceptable or even desirable to intentionally kill civilians in other nations.

Also when's the last time there has been large-scale violence and rioting between two christian groups? Shi'ite mosques have been suicide-bombed by sunnis on several occasions in the last couple of years. I can't recall when Methodists last blew up a baptist church. Oh, and IRA wasn't so much about religion as it was about independence for N. Ireland from the UK. That's not a valid example.So the violence in Ireland between protestants and Catholics isn't relevent? And you think those bombings of Black churches were done by people who also didn't claim to be christian? And what about the Westboro baptist church, Fred Phelps and his "god hates fags" campaign?

Christains are as fucked up as any other religion.

Oh, and IRA wasn't so much about religion as it was about independence for N. Ireland from the UK. That's not a valid example.

The majority of the conflicts between the various Islamic sects can be categorized by race as well. For instance in Iraq (which seems to be the popular example of late) it is possible to describe the conflict as one between Arabs, Persians, Medes, and others.

So the violence in Ireland between protestants and Catholics isn't relevent? And you think those bombings of Black churches were done by people who also didn't claim to be christian? And what about the Westboro baptist church, Fred Phelps and his "god hates fags" campaign?

Christains are as fucked up as any other religion.
Neither the IRA nor the black church burnings were motivated primarily by religion. The IRA's stated goal was to remove the British from Northern Ireland, not to remove protestantism. The protestants were, however, loyal to England and became the IRA's enemies. The black churches were bombed not because one sect of Christianity was targeting another, but because whites were targeting blacks.

Phelps isn't a good example. He's against gays AFAIK. Not against other sects of christianity.

The majority of the conflicts between the various Islamic sects can be categorized by race as well. For instance in Iraq (which seems to be the popular example of late) it is possible to describe the conflict as one between Arabs, Persians, Medes, and others.
I did not know that. How about in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where some Shi'ite holy places were bombed and where violence marked the recent Ashura festival?

Where did the influx of the generalizing idiots come from?

I never actually click on them, but I see several new derogatory threads every day.
I'm glad I'm not the only one completely avoiding those threads. When you have five on the first page alone, however, it becomes very annoying.

Or is it just a bunch of related religions under one name?
Good question. We wouldn't even ask it about Christianity, because most of us are familiar with the fact that there are so many denominations and different interpretations. With Islam, however, people seem stuck on the belief that millions of people all think and believe exactly the same thing. Kind of wacky.

Good question. We wouldn't even ask it about Christianity, because most of us are familiar with the fact that there are so many denominations and different interpretations. With Islam, however, people seem stuck on the belief that millions of people all think and believe exactly the same thing. Kind of wacky.
Thanks for posting that. I was getting kinda sidetracked.

I know Islam doesn't exactly treat women with equality, but neither does Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and even Confucianism.

Let's not get into comparing religions. Usualy that is a slippery slope to d1ck comparision.


2.) You have a very inaccurate translation.

I used skeptic's annotated Quran. Is there an online place where I can access yours?


Men cannot have affairs with women that are already married. No where does it say "captives". "Right hand posses" means your other (3) wives.

lol...I wonder about the prevailing mores of a society that God needs to tell people that they cannot have affair with women that are already married.

However, "right hand possesses" means slaves. It is also referenced in 4:36 as
And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and unto the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin, and the fellow-traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful,


Here, it is clear that "whom your right hand possess" is not wife because it cames at the very last in the list of people to be kind to....parents, relatives, neighbor.......and at the last is your wife?

33:50 also uses the same reference
"O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war."

Neither the IRA nor the black church burnings were motivated primarily by religion. The IRA's stated goal was to remove the British from Northern Ireland, not to remove protestantism. The protestants were, however, loyal to England and became the IRA's enemies. The black churches were bombed not because one sect of Christianity was targeting another, but because whites were targeting blacks.

Phelps isn't a good example. He's against gays AFAIK. Not against other sects of christianity.Ah, so what makes you sure that the violence between sects of Islam isn't motivated by underlying causes that really have nothing to do with Religion? Religious faith typically goes along ethnic or tribal lines, you take away religion and those people would probably still be at odds with each other just like the examples in Christianity I pointed out.

Anyways, I'm out. Got to get to the bike shop.

lol...I wonder about the prevailing mores of a society that God needs to tell people that they cannot have affair with women that are already married.


No doubt! Makes me think of something I heard once...something about not coveting thy neighbour's wife...crazy!

Ah, so what makes you sure that the violence between sects of Islam isn't motivated by underlying causes that really have nothing to do with Religion? Religious faith typically goes along ethnic or tribal lines, you take away religion and those people would probably still be at odds with each other just like the examples in Christianity I pointed out.

Anyways, I'm out. Got to get to the bike shop.
Not really the point though. I got a bit sidetracked. Can we really think of Islam as one religion? That was my original question. I'd say the people who responded to me about christianity have a point. There are many religions under that banner. What about Islam? Is it similarly many religions sharing one name?

Not really the point though. I got a bit sidetracked. Can we really think of Islam as one religion? That was my original question. I'd say the people who responded to me about christianity have a point. There are many religions under that banner. What about Islam? Is it similarly many religions sharing one name?
That's how I look at it. I would never assume something about the beliefs of a person just because they say they are Muslim. I might be able to make better guesses about them based on their country of origin...but not even then (thinking about the Albanians I know who are all Christian, whereas the majority of Albanians are Muslim). I have a friend living in the UAE who says she really sees the difference between Muslims there. She can pick them out by dress (the Saudis wear the full hijab, the Filipina Muslims wear bright colours and just a headscarf) and so on, and she's learned a lot about their divergent views. I suspect, listening to her, that there is more cohesiveness among Muslims than there may be among Christians in terms of religion...but with such a wide range of ethnicities involved, things may balance out.

I did not know that. How about in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where some Shi'ite holy places were bombed and where violence marked the recent Ashura festival?

I confess that my knowledge of Afghanistan is limited. It has been my understanding that the region is quite diverse racially, with peoples of Persian, Indian, and Central Asian descent represented. However, I can provide no specific details.

Regardless, it has been my experience that racial factions to not cease hating one another simply because they share a common religion. Thus when religious splits occur, they often mirror this animosity. This effect can be seen in all major world religions.

Not really the point though. I got a bit sidetracked. Can we really think of Islam as one religion? That was my original question. I'd say the people who responded to me about christianity have a point. There are many religions under that banner. What about Islam? Is it similarly many religions sharing one name?

I believe so, yes... Different sects and variations, just like in Christianity, Judaism, and other major religions.

Islam today is not only what you find in the Koran, but what you find in the thousand years that followed - in its books and religious discussions that followed, and who followed which paths.

It's rather simplistic to say that the Koran is all that Islam is - it may very well be that the Koran is all that Islam "should be" - but that's not how it has turned out.

It's also possible to say that not ALL Muslims are raving fanatics, but substantial numbers of them are very upset, and amongst them, a significant number willing to do something that we in the West consider barbaric.

Millions of Muslims in Pakistan and Yemen and similar places live under a form of Islam that is scarcely compatible with Western values. While we might be content to ignore it or tolerate it, they are not interested in tolerating us. They see our very existence and the way we live as a threat - Western culture is anathema to their way of life in their eyes.

You need to stop posting disinformation like this - it isn't helping anything.

Islam today is not only what you find in the Koran, but what you find in the thousand years that followed - in its books and religious discussions that followed, and who followed which paths.

It's rather simplistic to say that the Koran is all that Islam is - it may very well be that the Koran is all that Islam "should be" - but that's not how it has turned out.

It's also possible to say that not ALL Muslims are raving fanatics, but substantial numbers of them are very upset, and amongst them, a significant number willing to do something that we in the West consider barbaric.

Millions of Muslims in Pakistan and Yemen and similar places live under a form of Islam that is scarcely compatible with Western values. While we might be content to ignore it or tolerate it, they are not interested in tolerating us. They see our very existence and the way we live as a threat - Western culture is anathema to their way of life in their eyes.

You need to stop posting disinformation like this - it isn't helping anything.

If it's to me, then I know.

But some people think Islam promotes terrorism, it oppresses women and that it demonizes Jews and Christians. I just wanted to make this threat to clear up that Islam, to the core (the Qu'ran) does NOT support/encourage all this.

Also, it isn't true that Muslims don't like the Western Way of Living. If this was so, not many Muslims would live in the U.S/Europe and other countries, but they would, infact, probably live in the Middle East since that region promotes/enforces Islamic Way of Living.

Islam today is not only what you find in the Koran, but what you find in the thousand years that followed - in its books and religious discussions that followed, and who followed which paths.

It's rather simplistic to say that the Koran is all that Islam is - it may very well be that the Koran is all that Islam "should be" - but that's not how it has turned out.

It's also possible to say that not ALL Muslims are raving fanatics, but substantial numbers of them are very upset, and amongst them, a significant number willing to do something that we in the West consider barbaric.

Millions of Muslims in Pakistan and Yemen and similar places live under a form of Islam that is scarcely compatible with Western values. While we might be content to ignore it or tolerate it, they are not interested in tolerating us. They see our very existence and the way we live as a threat - Western culture is anathema to their way of life in their eyes.

You need to stop posting disinformation like this - it isn't helping anything.Funny, the information I've been getting is they're just not interested in tolerating our meddling in their affairs. You know, the occuppying their lands and holy places, trying to push western values on them, that sort of thing. I haven't heard anything that indicates that if we left them to their lives they wouldn't leave us to ours.

Every 'Death to the infadels' message I ever heard gave a reason for that message. Invariably it was always a reaction to something, not just a general hate of who we are, but a specific gripe against something done to them.

Islam today is not only what you find in the Koran, but what you find in the thousand years that followed - in its books and religious discussions that followed, and who followed which paths.

It's rather simplistic to say that the Koran is all that Islam is - it may very well be that the Koran is all that Islam "should be" - but that's not how it has turned out.

It's also possible to say that not ALL Muslims are raving fanatics, but substantial numbers of them are very upset, and amongst them, a significant number willing to do something that we in the West consider barbaric.

Millions of Muslims in Pakistan and Yemen and similar places live under a form of Islam that is scarcely compatible with Western values. While we might be content to ignore it or tolerate it, they are not interested in tolerating us. They see our very existence and the way we live as a threat - Western culture is anathema to their way of life in their eyes.

You need to stop posting disinformation like this - it isn't helping anything.
Good points. I am especially opposed to those who would want to set up fundamentalist Islamic law in Western countries, namely those who think the notion of Dhimmitude should come into fruition in the West. Luckily, they are few as it is. I have no problem with Islam in general, but I do with those who think the West should subjugate itself to fundamentalist Islam.

Funny, the information I've been getting is they're just not interested in tolerating our meddling in their affairs. You know, the occuppying their lands and holy places, trying to push western values on them, that sort of thing. I haven't heard anything that indicates that if we left them to their lives they wouldn't leave us to ours.

Every 'Death to the infadels' message I ever heard gave a reason for that message. Invariably it was always a reaction to something, not just a general hate of who we are, but a specific gripe against something done to them.

If that's true, they're hypocrites. They tried to meddle in our cartoon affairs. They should stay out of it.

You don't agree to the making of this thread or. . .?



I just find it sad that it has to be done in the first place. Islam is taking quite a beating around here lately. I applaud you for doing it, but am saddened that it was necessary.

Divorced women having equal rights as their ex does not offset the above, because the above is a blanket judgement on women's trustworthiness and it indeed does contribute a lot to the misogyny in many muslim societies. The shariat courts use this as reference for their rules that a woman witness's testimony is of less value than that of a male's.I know Islam doesn't exactly treat women with equality, but neither does Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and even Confucianism.Let's not get into comparing religions. Actually lets Compare..

For example lets compare the Indian society/Hinduism.
How does Hinduism discriminates their peoples?

Unless you just wanna bash Pakistan (and Islam) as usual.

Actually lets Compare..

For example lets compare the Indian society/Hinduism.
How does Hinduism treat their peoples.. fair and equal?

Unless you just wanna bash Pakistan (and Islam) as usual.

Well, Hinduism isn't taken as extremely as islam, so although Hinduism has faults (as all religions), it's not a problem because nobody's adhering to those faults.

So the violence in Ireland between protestants and Catholics isn't relevent? And you think those bombings of Black churches were done by people who also didn't claim to be christian? And what about the Westboro baptist church, Fred Phelps and his "god hates fags" campaign?

Christains are as fucked up as any other religion.

Amen to that!

ADDITION: Which Black church bombings are you talking about? The ones in the 90s or the 60s? Either way, it was white "Christians" doing it to the Black ones -- a repeat of what happened in a lot of Catholic churches in and around New England in the 60s. Christianity: we can worship the same God, just not together. 11AM on Sunday morning is STILL the most segregated hour in America.

Let's not forget about the NUMEROUS Christian "missions" to "civilize" those "wild" _______________. Leopold I of Belgium basically ran a plantation (called Zaire) under the guise of doing something godly. Bartolomé de Las Casas did the same (Mr. Let's Not Enslave Native Americans, Let's Use Africans).

Of course he "saw the error of his ways" about a year or two before he died.
:rolleyes:

All those European Christian nations -- Catholic AND Protestant -- had their hands in the cookie jar. Arabs carried out a form of indentured servitude, but it was no where near the level of brutality as that carried out by those so-called European Christians.

And then there's that damned Inquisition... so let's not pick our noses at Islam when Christanity has plenty of horrors to its credit.

Well, Hinduism isn't taken as extremely as islam, so although Hinduism has faults (as all religions), it's not a problem because nobody's adhering to those faults.What do YOU Know about the life of the average Low caste Indian?

From Aryavartha post history.. I can say that he does not actually live in India.. and that his family belong to one of the Privileged Castes.

What do YOU Know about the life of the average Indian?

Umm... they're not blowing up embassies for continuous insults to their faith?

http://www.hinduhumanrights.org/

From Aryavartha post history.. I can say that he does not actually live in India.. and that his family belong to one of the Privileged Castes.

You know that the caste system, at least the true caste system, only exists in remote, isolated villages nowadays, right? Please tell me you knew that.

Umm... they're not blowing up embassies for continuous insults to their faith?

http://www.hinduhumanrights.org/If thats all you know.. then I suggest you wait for HIS answer to my post.

If thats all you know.. then I suggest you wait for HIS answer to my post.But of course we can talk about YOUR Religion's or MY religion's Discrimination-track-record.

I am a Christian.. I am not "Holier than thou".. Whatever you are.(even if you have no religion)

Well, Hinduism isn't taken as extremely as islam, so although Hinduism has faults (as all religions), it's not a problem because nobody's adhering to those faults.

Tamil Tigers.

And that's all I have to say about that.

What do YOU Know about the life of the average Low caste Indian?

From Aryavartha post history.. I can say that he does not actually live in India.. and that his family belong to one of the Privileged Castes.

I am not one to shy away from debates about hinduism or hindus. Go for it. I even started a thread on hinduism and explained the ideals and the practices and the ills of hindu society. Funny you missed that.

Yes, I am currently not in India. It's been 3 years since I came to US for my master's degree. I do not know why it would make my knowledge about things Indian suddenly go away because I have been away for 3 years.

I was not born in a privildged caste. Officially it is classified as a backward caste. So you can stuff your assumptions about me up your ....:)

Tamil Tigers.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Heh. I am a tamil. :p

What exactly do you have to say about it?

If the LTTE were fighting a religious struggle a la islamist terrorism, the equivalent would be the LTTE blowing up Buddhists in Thailand (Sinhalese are Buddhist majority).

Actually lets Compare..

For example lets compare the Indian society/Hinduism.
How does Hinduism discriminates their peoples?

Unless you just wanna bash Pakistan (and Islam) as usual.

Hinduism does not discriminate.

Hindus discriminate other Hindus.

As explained in this NS thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443472), hinduism is not even a single religion.

Well, Hinduism isn't taken as extremely as islam, so although Hinduism has faults (as all religions), it's not a problem because nobody's adhering to those faults.
Really? Then the number of cases of atrocities against Dalits (untouchable castes) DIDN'T rise from 7,445 in 1998 to 33,507 in 2003, most of those crimes going unpunished?* Honour killings (http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/13/stories/2004011305091200.htm) DON'T happen among Hindu families...many times based on outrage over a higher caste member marrying a lower caste member? You're right. It's not a problem, and no one is adhering to those faults.


*http://www.newint.com/, issue 380, Human Rights and Law Unit of Indian Social Institute, New Delhi

Really? Then the number of cases of atrocities against Dalits (untouchable castes) DIDN'T rise from 7,445 in 1998 to 33,507 in 2003, most of those crimes going unpunished?* Honour killings (http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/13/stories/2004011305091200.htm) DON'T happen among Hindu families...many times based on outrage over a higher caste member marrying a lower caste member? You're right. It's not a problem, and no one is adhering to those faults.


*http://www.newint.com/, issue 380, Human Rights and Law Unit of Indian Social Institute, New Delhi

Let's not derail GM's thread. He has put in a lot of thought and efforts and it is not fair to derail it like this.

I will give a small explanation here and we can take it to another thread.

Caste based discrimination exists in non-industrialised rural places (more so in states like Bihar and the "cow belt" and parts of my home state Tamil Nadu)

Numbers are not always reflective because 30,000 cases seem huge but you would have to take into account that the population is one billion. This is definitely not an excuse. I am of the view that even one case is too many.

Let's not derail GM's thread. He has put in a lot of thought and efforts and it is not fair to derail it like this.

I will give a small explanation here and we can take it to another thread.

Caste based discrimination exists in non-industrialised rural places (more so in states like Bihar and the "cow belt" and parts of my home state Tamil Nadu)

Numbers are not always reflective because 30,000 cases seem huge but you would have to take into account that the population is one billion. This is definitely not an excuse. I am of the view that even one case is too many.
I accept that we can discuss this elsewhere. I just couldn't let someone keep their rosy view of a culture, since all cultures have something horrid in them. It would be akin to denying that any Muslims use Islam to justify terrorism, or any Christians use Christianity to justify abortion clinic bombings (also terrorism) and so on.

I'm glad to see your stance on caste (which exists outside of India, and outside of the Indian 'culture'). Done:)