Announcement

Collapse

Islam Guidelines

Theists only.

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.



Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Future of Islam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Another example:

    Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/saudi-court-sentences-man-to-10-years-2000-lashes-for-atheist-tweets/




    Saudi court sentences man to 10 years, 2,000 lashes for atheist tweets.

    A court in Saudi Arabia has handed down a guilty verdict in the case of a professed atheist accused of posting hundreds of tweets denying God’s existence and criticizing religion.

    His sentence: a decade in prison, a fine and a flogging.

    According to a Saturday report in the Saudi newspaper Al-Watan, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice — the Saudi religious police force whose duties include monitoring social media — found more than 600 tweets posted by an unnamed 28-year-old dissenter.

    According to the report, the man refused to repent for the tweets and said that he had the right to assert his opinions.

    In addition to the 10-year prison term, the court sentenced him to pay 20,000 riyals — about $5,330 — and receive a beating consisting of 2,000 lashes. Such floggings are generally broken up into weekly bouts of 50 lashings each and administered according to specific guidelines.

    The legal basis of the court’s decision is a series of Interior Ministry regulations introduced in 2014 under the late Saudi King Abdullah.

    The laws ostensibly seek to combat terrorism, but also allow authorities “to criminalize virtually any expression or association critical of the government and its understanding of Islam,” according to the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

    These regulations contain provisions — including one that criminalizes “calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based” — that Human Rights Watch says have been used to silence activists and peaceful dissidents.

    Atheism is a taboo subject in Saudi Arabia, where the government derives legitimacy from its adherence to an ultraconservative form of Islam, but a 2012 WIN/Gallup International poll found that 5 percent of Saudi respondents described themselves as atheists, and anecdotal reports suggest that unbelief may be on the rise in the kingdom.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #32
      Muslim Majority countries have problems and it would be great if there was a more open environment in which these issues could be tackled honestly---but the spread of Islamophobia and Wahabism does not produce such an environment......

      Unjust policies should not be defended---but, it is not as if the West is free of such problems----threats to the "state" are dealt with similarly whether a country is Muslim or non-Muslim for example---
      Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and many, many others...
      --Arrested for online speech---(British teenager)
      "The following day, Ahmed was arrested and “charged with a racially aggravated public order offense.” The police spokesman explained that “he didn’t make his point very well and that is why he has landed himself in bother.” The state proceeded to prosecute him, and in October of that year, he was convicted “of sending a grossly offensive communication,” fined and sentenced to 240 hours of community service" from https://theintercept.com/2015/01/06/...online-speech/
      or France---(French teenagers)
      https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...ronic-comments

      ....and more....

      This is a modern problem that comes about because of abuse of power by the state.....

      Comment


      • #33
        Islam is a theocracy

        My opinion is that this is not a necessary criteria for Governance in "Islam" (Islamic philosophy, Sharia, Quran...etc) That is, there is nothing particularly for or against such a system....If people choose to have a Theocracy, it is upto them, if they choose not to, that is also upto them....There has been debates in Islamic philosophy on whether a Caliph is necessary or not---and opinions had been divided. IMO, Most Muslim scholars today reject the idea of Caliph/Caliphate (according to a Convention held in Singapore) but some Modern groups such as Hizb-ut-tahrir apparently advocate for it.....

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by siam View Post
          Muslim Majority countries have problems and it would be great if there was a more open environment in which these issues could be tackled honestly---but the spread of Islamophobia and Wahabism does not produce such an environment......

          Unjust policies should not be defended---but, it is not as if the West is free of such problems----threats to the "state" are dealt with similarly whether a country is Muslim or non-Muslim for example---
          Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and many, many others...
          --Arrested for online speech---(British teenager)
          "The following day, Ahmed was arrested and “charged with a racially aggravated public order offense.” The police spokesman explained that “he didn’t make his point very well and that is why he has landed himself in bother.” The state proceeded to prosecute him, and in October of that year, he was convicted “of sending a grossly offensive communication,” fined and sentenced to 240 hours of community service" from https://theintercept.com/2015/01/06/...online-speech/
          or France---(French teenagers)
          https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...ronic-comments

          ....and more....

          This is a modern problem that comes about because of abuse of power by the state.....
          This is not a modern problem, nor a problem of Western influence, International Law and Western modern Law, which do not advocate such laws.

          These are laws related to historical Sharia Law. Many of the killings of atheists and homosexuals in Islamic countries by Muslims themselves and not the government, based on the Qur'an and and historical Sharia Law. More references to follow.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by siam View Post
            Muslim Majority countries have problems and it would be great if there was a more open environment in which these issues could be tackled honestly---but the spread of Islamophobia and Wahabism does not produce such an environment......
            Nor is it a problem caused by Islamaphobia, which is indeed an effect of the problem, not a cause.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              @ Robrecht---Islamophobia and extreme Wahabism are co-related---both promoting the same type of "Islam" which they both claim is the "real" Islam. However, Islam (the religion) is not the cause in the rise of either phenomenon, it is a search for strong identity-constructs in a globalized world. Both groups offer a cause and strong identity-constructs that create a sense of unity and purpose...This type of extremism can be seen elsewhere in the world too. Both of these phenomenon are also heavily financed.

              Someone said that ideas have to be fought with ideas.... and so bad ideas have to be changed with good ideas. Though this is happening, it is a much slower process. In some places, Christianity was considered a "bad idea" and was replaced by Enlightenment/Secularism...etc
              This was a choice that the people of the West made---but it is not necessary that non-Westerners make the same choice with regards to their heritage and history. China, India, are examples of civilizations with a long history and a sophisticated heritage---they can look back at their own past and sort out their best practices that they can bring to their future. Rather than the world being a homogeneous lump of uniformity---it would be great to have diversity so that we can grow in compassion and mercy towards each other. Likewise, Islamic civilization may not have as long a history, but we do/did have a sophisticated heritage---one that absorbed the wisdom of Egypt, China, India, Persia, Greeks, and made it is own.

              @ Shuny
              Modern problem---whatever label we decide to put on it---we can both agree that it is a problem....?....
              Present laws vs historical/traditional Sharia---
              This is from the article you posted---
              "The legal basis of the court’s decision is a series of Interior Ministry regulations introduced in 2014 under the late Saudi King Abdullah.

              The laws ostensibly seek to combat terrorism, but also allow authorities “to criminalize virtually any expression or association critical of the government and its understanding of Islam,” according to the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch."

              The other article you posted also gave similar reasons----these "laws" criminalize anti-government sentiments and such actions are similar in many Modern countries.

              Traditional Sharia---"Justice" is based on the idea that all humanity is created inherently equal before God---Also---that there is only ONE God and all humanity worships the One God. "The universal religion is not merely the religion that claims to be for all; it is the religion that claims that God has always been for all. There can be no Muslim scandal of particularity" ---Sheikh A.H. Murad.
              God's compassion and mercy extends to all humanity--none is left out.

              One way of Understanding the Quranic concept of "Justice" = the means to heal moral injury and/or restrict its occurrence in order to promote tranquility and peace in all degrees of human relationships.
              In order to promote the ideal of peace, 5 "Purpose" of law were outlined as protections (Maqasid al Sharia)
              Religion (deen)---the Arabic word means "way of life" and included freedom of conscience.
              life (nafs) ---the Arabic word means self or soul and refers to both the human body and the human soul.
              Lineage/progeny (nasl) ---includes the protection of "Identity"
              Intellect (aql)--- In the Quran, children have the (God-given) right to the acquisition of knowledge and the responsibility to fulfill this is given to the Parents
              Property (mal)

              (Dr Jamal Badawi has written about Sharia and Maqasid sl Sharia)

              Therefore---If all humanity is inherently equal, if Justice is the promotion of peace and tranquility and one of its aims is the protection of Deen (way of life)---then it obviously follows that injustice/enmity against others for their "way of life" (Deen) goes against the purposes and principles of Traditional Sharia.
              (Surah 5 verse 8)
              Oh you who believe, be steadfast witnesses for God in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that you deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty to god. God is aware of what you do."

              Comment


              • #37
                Homosexuality---There is a difference between Traditional perceptions of this issue (LGBT) and Modern ones. (in Islam)

                Traditionally, human beings were not labelled for their sexual preference---this categorization/division of human beings according to sexual preference is Modern. Sex in public was illegal. Sex outside of marriage, if witnessed by 4 reliable witnesses (..or it caused injury such as marital discord) was an offence. Since the marriage contract (nikah) is structured to be between a man and a woman---this automatically puts sex between men as "outside of marriage" similarly to adultery (sex between male and female outside of marriage).
                However, the Story of Lot and their homosexuality is in the Quran---though interpretations vary because of vague wording--nevertheless it is understood that homosexuality (sex between men) is not moral (halal/permissible). Therefore if practiced in the public sphere it would be criminal (against public interest--Istislah), if practiced in private, it is a matter between the people involved and God.



                Comment


                • #38
                  I'd just like to make a few remarks:

                  1) You state: "Islamophobia and extreme Wahabism are co-related---both promoting the same type of "Islam" which they both claim is the "real" Islam. However, Islam (the religion) is not the cause in the rise of either phenomenon".

                  My response would be along the same lines as I have articulated before, namely, certain interpretations of the Quran, which seem to be quite popular and prevalent on a global scale, is a significant driving force behind radical Muslim groups and manifestations of the Sharia Law in Islamic nations. These groups, motivated by their interpretation of the Quran and obedience to Allah, are responsible for heinous acts on other practicing Muslims and religious minorities. Moreover, these groups, governments, etc. have created societies, based upon their interpretation of the Quran and obedience to Allah, that are a horrendous place to live for the vast majority of humanity. This popular and prevalent strain of Islam has created oppressive, hateful, and dangerous environments for humanity.

                  2) You state: "In some places, Christianity was considered a "bad idea" and was replaced by Enlightenment/Secularism...etc This was a choice that the people of the West made"

                  I will try and lay out the rationale of Western society in the simplest, albeit crudest, fashion possible. Essentially the Western world strives to create a microcosm of an ideal global community where there is freedom to practice and believe whatsoever you choose. Many in the West are faithful Christian's and remain so in this context. Some Christian's might be offended by a Muslim wearing a burka. However, they recognize basic human rights, and permit her to exercise her freedom of choice. In the free world, people are at liberty to remain faithful to their beliefs, or not. They can openly criticize and enter into dialogue with opposing viewpoints without any fear of backlash. Basic human rights govern the system, and though not without it's flaws, it seems to be a great model conducive to human flourishing and progress. This model is sharply contrasted with the law of the land - based upon the interpretation of the Quran and obedience to Allah - of Muslim majority nations. I think the root of this problem can be traced to many Muslims refusal to apply critical thought to the Quran. This lack of the critical thought and reason applied to the Quran creates an environment that is conducive, not to human flourishing, but rather, extremism and blind faith that lends itself to dangerous and primitive views of the world. Many Islamic countries use the Quran as their guide and literally enforce commands of Allah such as those found in Surah 5:38: "[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise." Apostates are likewise killed or severely marginalized and ostracized by the faithful. The picture I am painting is one that displays Islam as still mired in a primal state that desperately needs a reformation. I think Muslims on a global scale are under mass confusion because many of them are leaving fundamentalist contexts and being exposed to the global community and academics of many different perspectives. Some see this process as a test from Allah and interpret it as such, others see it as opening their eyes - which they now realize were blind for so long. This process and exposure on a global scale is producing differing reactions - everything from modernization of Islam, to apostasy, to a more entrenched fundamentalism - the latter of which, often times, the global community is suffering as a result - some manifestations of entrenched fudamentalism include acts of terrorism, dangerous bigotry, and machinations of the global domination of the world governed by Sharia Law carried out through covert Jihad via mass immigration to non-Islam land - all of which are absolutely Islamic in nature - inspired by particular, and unfortunately, popular interpretations of the Quran.
                  Last edited by Scrawly; 06-17-2016, 03:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    @ Scrawley
                    I agree with your first point, disagree with the 2nd....

                    1) Certain interpretations of the Quran/Islam---These type of interpretations did not arise in a vacuum---they arose in response to the circumstances that Muslims found themselves in. Wahabism (and other Purist movements) arose in Modernity as a response against colonialism. This became radicalized when Russia invaded Afghanistan (perceived as oppression by a foreign power.... the U.S. Pakistan and Saudi favored the extremists instead of the moderates and it became international when these freedom fighters (Jihadi) went off to fight in the wars in Europe and elsewhere...)
                    I personally prefer diversity and have been amazed at the diversity of interpretations and practices within Christianity---Such diversity can be empowering because it can be understood as "freedom of conscience". So, Wahabism has a right to exist, even if I personally disagree with some aspects of it. Wahabists/Salafist have a right to interpret the Quran/Islam/Islamic philosophy/Islamic history...etc. (...and mainstream Muslims have a right to disagree with those interpretations....) Regardless...when the actions of those Muslims cause injury then Justice MUST be called for. Anyone is free to believe what they want--but no one is free to cause injury. The Quran discourages a) murder b) "mischief on earth" (fitna) c) oppression, ...and encourages humanity to deal with these problems with Justice.
                    Wahabism is heavily financed which helps its spread---but IMO, Muslims must also recognize that the attraction of Wahabism is a sense of purpose and belonging it can give to those who are unsure of their identity and/or values. But this is also the case for any other Modern radical movements such as Hindu nationalists who massacred 3000 people in India in 2002 or the Buddhists nationalists (who have killed and continue to) thousands of their people...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJTPuAKGsQ

                    That is why I think it is imperative that we bring religion back to the forefront---(good)Religion can give people ethical/moral values as well as a sense of purpose (altruism) that will benefit all of humanity--if we don't...then we allow bad ideologies to take over and destroy humanity. That is why the Quran/Islam is the best way to combat ISIS---to turn people away from hate and destruction to construction, and compassion.

                    Your 2nd point is well articulated---but there are a few incorrect assumptions.
                    ---The Islamic "world" was a free world before Modernity---it is in Modernity that it became oppressive. This was not due to the Quran/Islam but due to the propping up of secular Dictators/Kings or corrupt leaders that sold out the resources of their country for self benefit...
                    ---You point out that the Western system is a great model, even with its flaws---but Non-Western people also have a right to self-determine whatever system they choose and if they want to experiment with systems that come from non-Western traditions and heritage---they should have that right because we Non-Western people are human beings that have as much right to determine how our own societies are structured as you do....
                    Critical thought---I agree that lack of critical thinking is an aspect that needs serious consideration---but confining it to the Quran is not going to be helpful---a more broad look into philosophy, history, law, economics, social dynamics, and modernity would be more helpful in forming a coherent, consistent and compassionate future that is based on Islamic ethical values and principles. Again, history is an example---the search for knowledge and critical thinking is what fueled the Golden Age in Islamic history....so, for Muslims, looking back at our history and accomplishments is one way to build our future...
                    ---Fundamentalism and terrorism---Yes those (Purists) who hold exclusivistic and dogmatic views have the potential to cause violence---HOWEVER, in Islam/Sharia, a person is innocent until proven guilty---to have Purists views is not in itself a crime because Islam/Sharia promotes freedom of Deen (conscience)---but violence is a crime and that should be dealt with in a Just manner by the rule of law.
                    Yet, Purists views are often based on revisionist versions of history (which are modern constructs) and their choice of scholars can be problematic....on these and other points---mainstream Muslims/scholars can dialogue and persuade.
                    ---Abuse of Laws/Sharia by the State---Many Muslim organizations are already working on this issue--particularly organizations such as Sisters-in-Islam, Musawa and others that are led by Women. Oppression must be dealt with as a whole---to divide humanity into groups and deal with oppression piecemeal is inefficient and unjust. (It is one reason the term "feminism" is not preferred by Muslims)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The quote is from the comment by Scrawly but the response is for general...
                      I was going to let the comment go---but it is too amusing so I decided to respond.....

                      "...manifestations of entrenched fundamentalism include acts of terrorism, dangerous bigotry, and machinations of the global domination of the world governed by Sharia Law carried out through covert Jihad via mass immigration to non-Islam land - all of which are absolutely Islamic in nature"

                      If we take terrorism, dangerous bigotry, global domination, mass immigration as "Islamic"---then those European colonists who came to the Americas and Australia and terrorized the natives, because of dangerously bigoted views that they claimed entitled them to world domination so that they immigrated in mass to colonize those non-European countries ....were in fact "closet Muslims" motivated by the Quran???!!

                      Perhaps a critical look at Western philosophy, history, morality.....etc might be advisable?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        1) You stated: "These type of interpretations did not arise in a vacuum---they arose in response to the circumstances that Muslims found themselves in. Wahabism (and other Purist movements) arose in Modernity as a response against colonialism."

                        I don't think that's an entirely accurate representation. I think the Quran and life and teachings of Muhammad provide fertile ground for dangerous fundamentalism to grow. Moreover, the fact that Islam sees itself as a theocracy has enormous ramifications for the behavior of Muslims. Islam is not merely a religion but also a political ideology - in the eyes of Muslims - the only true legitimate form of government is Allah's government. As a result all other governments are not only inferior but actually at war with Allah and the Muslims. Therefore, Muslims typically divide the world into two spheres, Dar al-Islam - the "house of Islam" (governed by Sharia Law) and the Dar al-Harb, the "house of war" (non-Sharia Law governments which are fundamentally, therefore, at war with Allah). Islam’s ideology imposes on Muslims the duty to fight for Allah's community through expansion and conquest. Muhammad's life was a perfect example of this, and though defensive in large part, Islam will not settle for mere peaceful containment. Islam continually has it's eyes set upon bringing the Dar al-Harb under submission to Allah's law. Only by continual jihad can the manifest destiny of Islam to bring the world into submission to Allah be fulfilled. Islamic fundamentalism has always existed, and it is growing in strength in our modern world. This will ultimately lead to a clash of civilizations and worldviews - which is what we are witnessing now, piecemeal.

                        2) You stated: "I personally prefer diversity and have been amazed at the diversity of interpretations and practices within Christianity---Such diversity can be empowering because it can be understood as "freedom of conscience"

                        Yes, but within all the diversity in Christendom there exists no virulent strains or interpretations that are used to motivate and justify atrocities. Christian's commit all sorts of violence, of course, but there are no groups formed around an interpretation of the Bible that call for violent behavior. In fact, I cannot think of any religion, in the modern world, that derives motivation from their holy book to commit all sorts of atrocities - except Islam. This is a unique phenomena within the Islamic world and there is a growing sentiment of fundamentalism, see for example: https://www.wzb.eu/en/press-release/...-widely-spread This fundamentalism, I think, is only superficially different from Islamic sects such as ISIS. The basic mentality, worldview, and goals are virtually identical. They have the minds for war and global domination. The time is not yet ripe for the actions to follow. The clash of civilizations and civil wars are on the horizon as long as Islamic fundamentalists grows in devotion and numbers: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." (Surah 9:29).

                        3) Thanks for your other points and the link to the video. Despite our differences we, of course, have our common humanity.
                        Last edited by Scrawly; 06-18-2016, 12:33 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by siam View Post
                          The quote is from the comment by Scrawly but the response is for general...
                          I was going to let the comment go---but it is too amusing so I decided to respond.....

                          "...manifestations of entrenched fundamentalism include acts of terrorism, dangerous bigotry, and machinations of the global domination of the world governed by Sharia Law carried out through covert Jihad via mass immigration to non-Islam land - all of which are absolutely Islamic in nature"

                          If we take terrorism, dangerous bigotry, global domination, mass immigration as "Islamic"---then those European colonists who came to the Americas and Australia and terrorized the natives, because of dangerously bigoted views that they claimed entitled them to world domination so that they immigrated in mass to colonize those non-European countries ....were in fact "closet Muslims" motivated by the Quran???!!

                          Perhaps a critical look at Western philosophy, history, morality.....etc might be advisable?
                          Right, but the actions and behaviors of the colonists were not motivated by the teachings of Christ or his Apostle's, but rather were motivated by the corrupt human nature that Christ came to forgive and the Apostle's taught to mortify. What we have with Islamic fundamentalism is the same scenario in relation to human nature, but an added dimension of dangerous religiosity motivated and inspired by the Quran. This is a unique phenomena in the world of religions. This uniqueness, unfortunately, is taken to be an indicator of truth and faithfulness - a pure and uncorrupted religion from the unchanging, eternal Allah.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                            1) You stated: "These type of interpretations did not arise in a vacuum---they arose in response to the circumstances that Muslims found themselves in. Wahabism (and other Purist movements) arose in Modernity as a response against colonialism."

                            I don't think that's an entirely accurate representation. I think the Quran and life and teachings of Muhammad provide fertile ground for dangerous fundamentalism to grow. Moreover, the fact that Islam sees itself as a theocracy has enormous ramifications for the behavior of Muslims. Islam is not merely a religion but also a political ideology - in the eyes of Muslims - the only true legitimate form of government is Allah's government. As a result all other governments are not only inferior but actually at war with Allah and the Muslims. Therefore, Muslims typically divide the world into two spheres, Dar al-Islam - the "house of Islam" (governed by Sharia Law) and the Dar al-Harb, the "house of war" (non-Sharia Law governments which are fundamentally, therefore, at war with Allah). Islam’s ideology imposes on Muslims the duty to fight for Allah's community through expansion and conquest. Muhammad's life was a perfect example of this, and though defensive in large part, Islam will not settle for mere peaceful containment. Islam continually has it's eyes set upon bringing the Dar al-Harb under submission to Allah's law. Only by continual jihad can the manifest destiny of Islam to bring the world into submission to Allah be fulfilled. Islamic fundamentalism has always existed, and it is growing in strength in our modern world. This will ultimately lead to a clash of civilizations and worldviews - which is what we are witnessing now, piecemeal.

                            2) You stated: "I personally prefer diversity and have been amazed at the diversity of interpretations and practices within Christianity---Such diversity can be empowering because it can be understood as "freedom of conscience"

                            Yes, but within all the diversity in Christendom there exists no virulent strains or interpretations that are used to motivate and justify atrocities. Christian's commit all sorts of violence, of course, but there are no groups formed around an interpretation of the Bible that call for violent behavior. In fact, I cannot think of any religion, in the modern world, that derives motivation from their holy book to commit all sorts of atrocities - except Islam. This is a unique phenomena within the Islamic world and there is a growing sentiment of fundamentalism, see for example: https://www.wzb.eu/en/press-release/...-widely-spread This fundamentalism, I think, is only superficially different from Islamic sects such as ISIS. The basic mentality, worldview, and goals are virtually identical. They have the minds for war and global domination. The time is not yet ripe for the actions to follow. The clash of civilizations and civil wars are on the horizon as long as Islamic fundamentalists grows in devotion and numbers: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." (Surah 9:29).

                            3) Thanks for your other points and the link to the video. Despite our differences we, of course, have our common humanity.
                            Islam/Theocracy---inaccurate. Islam DOES NOT have a church structure. (as in...a formal hierarchy of priests) It has Ulama--which is a bunch of scholars who give opinions (fatwa) and if it hits your fancy you follow the opinion, or else ignore it. However, the Ulama have a Shura (consultation) which makes some opinions normative across "Islam". So, for example, there are some selection of Tafsir (exegesis) that are normative and others that fall outside the norm. If this "system" is a theocracy---then it is a democratic theocracy....IMO, a Caliph (Leader) was not part of the Ulama (scholars)---Further, Islam does not have the concept of "the Divine right of Kings"---since all human beings, regardless of status (king or pauper) are EQUAL. ---so technically the political system would not really be a "theocracy". Nevertheless---if the people (citizenry) decided they wanted to be led by scholars (Ulama) then they could choose to do so. Islamic philosophy does not have stipulations on the form/system of government---only that it adheres to ethical/moral principles. Principles of equality, justice, compassion, mercy---etc. Therefore, in terms of political philosophy, Islam does advocate for ethical politics.

                            Political ideology---Muslims have a right to experiment with various political solutions in order to create just societies and social structures. The Enlightenment was also an experiment within the western heritage to create just societies. Non-western people are not obligated to follow the western model. They have the SAME right, as the West, to develop their own models of governance.

                            Allah's government---there is no concept of the "Divine right of Kings"---this is a Pagan/Christian concept....

                            Inferiority---If all humanity is inherently equal---then no one/group is superior or inferior. This value is what facilitated international trade in the Islamic era. Muslim merchants were trading with the native Australians without decimating their culture/heritage/customs the way Europeans did. Within the "Islamic" territories, a variety of Christianities that had been labelled in the West as heresy, survived even into Modernity.

                            Prophets life---There is much to learn about Pluralism and co-existence from the life of the Prophet. He made peace treaties so as to avoid war, He even tried to negotiate peace with the Meccans---the Treaty of Hudaibiya. When he was invited to Medina---he initiated a mentorship program (Ansar) so that the Muslims and the people of Medina could learn about each other and get to know one another---IMO, it was a brilliant strategy to avoid the "clash of civilization"....

                            Dar-al-Islam---if anyone is interested will inform more about it.....

                            Surah 9:29---Have already commented on this previously but if interested will do so again----though there are plenty of Muslim scholars who have videos on the topic on the net......

                            Virulent Christianity---I would suggest you look at your history again....
                            Colombus and the Taino massacre...etc....
                            http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Hi...s_History.html
                            or present day...
                            the Christian fundamentalist group "Britian First" and its Christian terrorist that killed a British MP
                            and in case that is not violent enough for you...
                            Then there are the Christian terrorists in CAR (Central African Rebublic---beheading and massacring)
                            or the homophobic Christian terrorists (Lords resistance army)...etc
                            here is more
                            http://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_mo...nores_partner/

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                              Right, but the actions and behaviors of the colonists were not motivated by the teachings of Christ or his Apostle's, but rather were motivated by the corrupt human nature that Christ came to forgive and the Apostle's taught to mortify. What we have with Islamic fundamentalism is the same scenario in relation to human nature, but an added dimension of dangerous religiosity motivated and inspired by the Quran. This is a unique phenomena in the world of religions. This uniqueness, unfortunately, is taken to be an indicator of truth and faithfulness - a pure and uncorrupted religion from the unchanging, eternal Allah.
                              I agree that the Teachings of Jesus Christ (pbuh) align with compassion and mercy...but these have not always been properly understood by Christians---some Christians do distort these teachings....
                              for example see the Valladolid debate---among other things---it debated the idea of how "human" were non-Christians....(in order to justify colonialism)
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate...

                              Islam is uniquely evil---I have heard this many times and the sentence does not make sense to me...The idea that Christianity is uniquely evil may have found favor with enlightenment thinkers....Thomas Paine had some harsh things to say....But as a Muslim, such a sentiment seems to imply lack of free-will....because good or bad is done by human beings---"Islam" is a paradigm (world-view) not a person who can go about doing good/bad. A Muslim is a person/human being and Muslims can do good/bad because they have a choice. Therefore what this sentence might actually mean is that Muslims (as believers of Islam) are uniquely evil...and this simply cannot be unless Muslims are non-human/aliens (or the "devil")---because if Muslims are human beings---then they are not particularly "unique"...they are equally human as any other....
                              ...on the other hand if Muslims are non-human beings such as the "devil"---then sure---they could be "uniquely" evil...?.....and I have also heard the phrase Islam is from the devil. I suppose such a sentiment may also mean Muslims are devils.....in any case, from a Muslim perspective such a sentiment is polytheism (shirk) because it accords to the devil---powers, and only God is most powerful. In the Islamic context, Devil/Satan has no powers....which is why at judgement day the excuse "the devil made me do it" won't fly with God....
                              For those who happen to harbor any secret fear that Muslims are devils---might I suggest a remedy? It is Ramadan and some mosques have open iftar (Free dinner!) perhaps "breaking bread" with others may cure one of such fantasies?......

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by siam View Post
                                @ Robrecht---Islamophobia and extreme Wahabism are co-related---both promoting the same type of "Islam" which they both claim is the "real" Islam. However, Islam (the religion) is not the cause in the rise of either phenomenon, it is a search for strong identity-constructs in a globalized world. Both groups offer a cause and strong identity-constructs that create a sense of unity and purpose...This type of extremism can be seen elsewhere in the world too. Both of these phenomenon are also heavily financed.

                                Someone said that ideas have to be fought with ideas.... and so bad ideas have to be changed with good ideas. Though this is happening, it is a much slower process. In some places, Christianity was considered a "bad idea" and was replaced by Enlightenment/Secularism...etc
                                This was a choice that the people of the West made---but it is not necessary that non-Westerners make the same choice with regards to their heritage and history. China, India, are examples of civilizations with a long history and a sophisticated heritage---they can look back at their own past and sort out their best practices that they can bring to their future. Rather than the world being a homogeneous lump of uniformity---it would be great to have diversity so that we can grow in compassion and mercy towards each other. Likewise, Islamic civilization may not have as long a history, but we do/did have a sophisticated heritage---one that absorbed the wisdom of Egypt, China, India, Persia, Greeks, and made it is own. ...
                                Trying to blame Islamophobia for violent forms of Islam is irresponsible.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X