57
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 02:09 pm
Oh theres plenty of such verses QKid. You dont wanna go there.

You dont wanna go there because, as Dagmar pointed out, there's plenty of such violent passages in the Bible too. Just like both in the Bible and the Quran there's plenty of more pacifistically-minded passages. Quoting a boatload of one or the other doesnt really prove anyone's point.

Islam, like Christianity (or any other religion), can be taken as an inspiration for reflection and restraint or for uncompromising struggle. Its sure both been done enough in either religion.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 03:43 pm
As I read the posts, the argument by some is that - Islam can be a peaceful religion and that there are many peaceful Muslims.
I agree.
However, where are the peaceful Muslim people or even nations (the Arab emirates) that are willing to condemn; reform; insist; speak out; etcetera, against those non-peaceful Muslims that have hijacked their religion?
I read a lot more than the "western press," including Al-jazeera; news from Jordan, Syria, Palestine, the Gulf, Pakistan, Lebanon and Indonesia. I also read Memri.org.
And I do not see any great hue and cry from moderate Muslims.
Why not?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 03:50 pm
We moderates in the "Christian" world are raising a great hue and cry, but no one seems to be listening. Many in the US seem to have bought into the idea of a "holy war" as the premise of this thread suggests.

Perhaps the same thing happens to the moderates in the Muslim world.

The extremists in most of the world seem to have the floor these days.
0 Replies
 
Ibn kumuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 08:48 pm
Muslim intellectuals have defamed much of the frivolous actions taking place in the Islamic world. But the Muslim Ummah (community) is blinded by rage and anger.

--Ibn
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:19 pm
Moishe3rd, try looking and listening a little harder.

Quote:
Last Wednesday, April 24, an obscure deputy in the Iranian parliament went to the podium at 10:45 in the morning to read a prepared statement.
Few in that hall could have known what was coming: a fatwa issued by one of the country's most prestigious and revered religious leaders, the Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. His message was directed far beyond the boundaries of Iran, to all members of the Shia faith. It was a powerful and politically important message: Suicide terrorism is antithetical to the teachings of Islam, and those who practice it, and kill women, children, and babies, are doomed to eternity in hell. The struggle between the Palestinian people and Israel must be resolved by other means, above all by negotiations. A tumult broke out when the import of the statement became clear, but the parliamentary president permitted the deputy to read the fatwa in its entirety.

The proceedings were broadcast live throughout Iran. Therefore, although no Iranian publication and, to my knowledge, no foreign-news service reported the event, the Iranian people were able to hear it in real time.


Quote:
The Secretary-General stated that those acts are diametrically opposed to the religion and teachings of Islam, which proscribe the unjust taking of a human life and stress the sanctity of human life. Moreover, those acts are in clear contradiction with innumerable resolutions adopted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference which condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and are also in contradiction with the Code of Conduct on Combating International Terrorism and the OIC 1998 Convention on Combating Terrorism, which makes it crystal clear that Islam repudiates and denounces terrorism and exhorts the Member States to "refrain from assisting or supporting terrorists in any way, shape or form, including the harboring of terrorists and granting them financial help or other forms of assistance."


Quote:
The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia -- "It is obligatory upon the Scholars of the Muslim Ummah that they explain the truth concerning the likes of these affairs (i.e. terrorist attacks) and that they make clear to the world at large that the Shari'ah of Allaah and the religion of Islam does not sanction these types of actions, ever."


Quote:
"When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan," think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators." -- "We're flirting with a world war between Islam and the West. And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants. That's why he did this."


Links to all of the above can be found HERE.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 09:41 pm
Oh, and Moishe3rd, how often do you read Aljazeera?

This article is only a week old. Razz
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 02:12 am
Re: Are there any peaceful muslim nations?
CerealKiller wrote:

...or are there peaceful muslim nations?


Khwarism and the Ismailian (assasin) kingdom...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 04:02 am
Al Bawaba offers a broad, frequently updated (several times daily) survey of Arab World press in one location, for those who care to take the effort to find out for themselves what The Arab World says it thinks. Apart from the news articles, there are archives of previous stories and articles, op-ed pieces, "Letters to the editors", and discussions.

Just to toss a little fuel on the fire here, tough, its interesting to note The Tunis Declaration, full text Here, buries mention of repudiation of terrorism in 3 paragraphs of an addendum closing the document (while calling for the differentiation of "legitimate resistance" from "terrorism"):
Quote:
2.9 - Establish stronger relations of friendship between Arab countries and other countries of the world, and work out a new approach of cooperation and solidarity-based partnership with other countries, out of the keenness to consecrate dialogue between religions and cultures and highlight the civilisational and humanist mission of Islam which calls for the dissemination of the values of tolerance, understanding and peaceful co-existence between peoples and nations and rejects hatred and discrimination.

2.10 - Reaffirm the commitment of Arab States to carry on their contribution as part of the international efforts to fight all forms of terrorism, avoid confusing Islam with terrorism and differentiate between legitimate resistance and terrorism.

2.11 - Call for the holding of an international conference under the aegis of the United Nations for the setting up of an international code of ethics for the fight against terrorism while working to tackle the root causes of this phenomenon.


There would, by this evidence, appear to be a mindset problem; its not "Terrorism" if it "Serves the Arab Cause".
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 07:14 am
Adrian,
Thank you for posting those articles. This is why I use forums. To become better educated.

And, although I am very sincere in my thanks and interest in what you posted, it does not seem to contradict my point that there is not a "moderate Muslim voice" out there condemning Islamic Fascist Death Cults.

The Iranian piece is extremely encouraging. I believe that, once Iraq begins to flourish under a stable Iraqi government, the Iranians will throw out "the Rule of the Jurist" governnment in favor of something more moderate.
However, that is my dream, the reality remains:
Quote:
A tumult broke out when the import of the statement became clear
and
no Iranian publication and, to my knowledge, no foreign-news service reported the event


And, unfortunately, what you are quoting from the Grand Mufti has one very big loophole, which is used constantly by Islamic Fascists Death Cults:

Quote:
1. That these matters that have taken place in the United States and whatever else is of their nature of plane hijackings and taking people hostage or killing innocent people, without a just cause, this is nothing but a manifestation of injustice, oppression and tyranny, which the Islamic Shari'ah does not sanction or accept, rather it is expressly forbidden and it is amongst the greatest of sins.

2. That the Muslim who learns the details of his religion, and who acts upon the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) does not allow himself to fall into the likes of these actions, due to what they contain of exposing oneself to the wrath of Allaah, and then what results from them of harms and corruption (upon the earth).

3. It is obligatory upon the Scholars of the Muslim Ummah that they explain the truth concerning the likes of these affairs (i.e. terrorist attacks) and that they make clear to the world at large that the Shari'ah of Allaah and the religion of Islam does not sanction these types of actions, ever.

4. It is upon the media outlets and whoever is behind them, from amongst those who make accusations against the Muslims and who strive to revile this noble and upright religion, and describe it with that which it is free from, all in order to kindle tribulation and to harm the reputation of Islam and the Muslims and to separate the hearts and constrict the chests - it is obligatory upon them to restrain from this misguidance and to realize that every sane and just person knows of the details of Islam, and knows that it is not possible for him to describe it with these descriptions, and that he cannot make these types of accusations against it, this is because on account of the passing of history, the nations have not known the followers of this religion, and its adherents except to be those who fulfill their rights (due to others) and their absence of injustice and oppression.

And what has preceded is in explanation of the truth and to remove any confusion, and I ask Allaah that he inspires us with that which contains our guidance, that he guides us to the ways of Islam, and that He strengthens His religion and makes high His word, indeed He is the Most Kind, the Most Generous, and prayers and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions.

The Grand Mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
President of the Committee of Major Scholars and the Centre for Knowledge Based Research and Verdicts
'Abdul-Azeez bin Abdullaa bin Muhammad Aal ash-Shaikh


There are many, many more articles, such as the ones you posted, which, when read in their entirety, and when compared to other speeches or fatwas, emphasize the sympathies that "moderate Muslims" appear to share with their immoderate brothers.
I wish it were not so.
And, I believe that it will change.
Islam will reform itself.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 07:45 am
And Adrian, (re:Aljazeera)
CAIR's condemnation a few weeks ago after the world was confronted by Muslims gleefully cutting off Nick Berg's head and proudly making a video of it, was an attempted whitewash of a deliberate ISLAMIC atrocity. They tried to lump it together with non-deliberate actions by Israelis, the majority of whom do not believe in the religion of Judaism or Americans, where Christianity is being outlawed by the ACLU (oy, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of worms).
The point being that the slaughter of Nick Berg was a self proclaimed religous act by Muslims; the Israelis and Americans are not performing religious atrocities perpetrated by Jews or Christians.
Cair's ad in full:

Quote:
"Over the last few weeks, Americans of all faiths have been horrified by images of violence in the Middle East. The Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal does not represent America or Christianity. The Israeli missile that killed innocent Palestinian children in Gaza does not represent Judaism. And the beheading of an innocent American man, Nicholas Berg, does not represent Islam.
"Islam, Christianity and Judaism share the basic values necessary to create a world in which tolerance and peace prevail. We have an opportunity to build bridges between our faiths and to challenge those who attempt to divide humanity along religious and ethnic lines.
"American Muslims condemn all acts of terrorism and are as outraged as their fellow Americans by atrocities committed in the name of God and their faith. Two weeks ago, we invited Muslims in America and all over the world to support our stance against terrorism by signing the 'Not in the Name of Islam' online petition posted on our web site: www.cair-net.org. So far, individuals and organizations representing more than 500,000 Muslims are signatories to this petition.
"We now call on our fellow Americans of all faiths to join us in opposing those who promote hatred, violence and bigotry. Let us all say 'not in our name.'"


And, CAIR's reaction to another, not quite so horrific event:

Quote:
Mahathir delivered his diatribe at an Islamic summit meeting on Oct. 16. His theme was the anti-Semite's timeless plaint: The Jews are few but crafty, and the world is in their grip.

"The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy," Mahathir told the leaders of 57 Muslim nations. "They get others to fight and die for them." He lamented that Jews are an enemy "who think. They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented . . . socialism, communism, human rights, and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong -- so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries."

And how should the world's Muslims deal with the Jews? Mahathir urged them to learn from Mohammed's example -- to buy time by making "strategic retreats" and signing peace accords, then building up their strength until they are ready to launch a "counterattack" that will lead to "final victory."

Mahathir's Judeophobia is an old story. More than 30 years ago he wrote: "The Jews . . . are not merely hook-nosed but understand money instinctively." He has blasted Jews as "monsters"; in 1994 his government banned the movie "Schindler's List" for being too pro-Jewish. When the Malaysian currency collapsed in 1997, Mahathir blamed it on George Soros, an American investor. "We do not want to say that this is a plot by the Jews," he thundered at a rally, "but in reality it is a Jew who triggered the currency plunge -- and coincidentally Soros is a Jew."

The Bush administration tried to cast Mahathir's latest screed as simply the invective of a lone bigot. "The comments were hateful," Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told reporters, adding "I do not think they are emblematic of the Muslim world."

Would that were true. Unfortunately, while many in the West voiced outrage at Mahathir's poisonous remarks, the Muslim world's official reaction ranged from utter indifference to hearty approval.

The audience to whom Mahathir spoke -- the presidents, kings, and emirs of the nations that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference -- rewarded him with a standing ovation. The applauders included not only the Muslim world's dictatorial fanatics but also its reputed moderates, including President Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, and Jordan's King Abdullah.

Even America's Muslim allies and clients admired Mahathir's views. The foreign minister of Egypt -- a country that receives $2 billion a year in US aid -- pronounced the speech "a very, very wise assessment." Hamid Karzai, the US-installed president of Afghanistan, praised it as "an eye-opener to a lot of us and . . . what the Islamic world should do."

Mahathir's speech raised no storm of controversy among most Muslims because the Muslim world by and large has no problem with anti-Semitism. Even in the United States there was little shocked repudiation of Mahathir's venom by American Muslim leaders. A Nexis search turns up just one mild quibble: When CNN invited the head of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, to comment, he said only that he doesn't believe Jews run the world, "so I see that statement as a misguided opinion."

On Tuesday I asked six American Muslim organizations -- CAIR, the American Muslim Association, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Institute, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council -- whether they had any reaction to Mahathir's words. Three never replied; two replied by saying they had no comment. Only MPAC condemned Mahathir for his "extremely offensive, anti-Semitic comments."

The Muslim world suffers from many problems, but none is more crippling than its culture of intolerance. Rampant anti-semitism anywhere is always a sign of grave moral sickness. Until more Muslims are prepared to confront and conquer that sickness in their midst, the Muslim world will remain the benighted backwater that so many Muslims deplore.
(from the Boston Globe; Jeff Jacoby)
0 Replies
 
Idaho
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 06:38 pm
Do you mean external peace or internal peace?
Compare the US, for example, with Iran. The US is predominantly Christian and you can arguably say that other religions don't get as much say in how things are run, BUT there is not a systematic, planned destruction of those other religeons. In fact, just the opposite - minoritie groups hold a lot of power. In Iran, which is predominantly Muslim, while other religeons do exist, they are forced to follow Islamic law. There are many people of other religeons brutally murdered every year. It doesn't get a lot of press (none at all). This has been typical in predominantly Muslim countries. I am NOT saying that your average Muslim agrees with these practices, but the religious and government authorities (usually the same people) encourage the behaviour of the readical killers rather than condemning it. Broadcasting an newscast condemning the killing is pretty whimpy if you ask me. Where is the action? Why are the killers not sought out and jailed? We can't, or course, claim that Christianity didn't go through this as well, but for the most part that was hundreds of years ago. It would be nice to see the Muslim countries join the modern world and learn to live side by side with their neighbors.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 08:48 pm
Quote:

In Iran, which is predominantly Muslim, while other religeons do exist, they are forced to follow Islamic law. There are many people of other religeons brutally murdered every year. It doesn't get a lot of press (none at all).


What are you talking about here? This is a pretty brash statement to make without giving anything to back it up.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 08:51 pm
Incidently, Iran does live in peace with its neighbors.

They did have a problem with Saddam's Iraq (as did we) but we fixed that for them very nicely.
0 Replies
 
buffytheslayer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 09:48 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Incidently, Iran does live in peace with its neighbors. They did have a problem with Saddam's Iraq (as did we) but we fixed that for them very nicely.

We didn't fix much. The Iraq/Iran war ended in a stalemate after 8 long years, despite US intel, US weapons, and US money.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 12:34 am
Idaho, where exactly you read or heard about those brutal murders every year. In case of Iran it's not true at all - Iran might have strong religious influence, but is far from some bigoted country where other religions are constantly supressed or members of those killed.
There are, however, some islamic countries where you can find such behaviour, but you can as well find it in some christian countries in Africa for example. It's more about level of civilization in general terms and much less about religion.

And fact that islamic terrorists are more dangerous for rest of the world then christian terrorists in Africa is partially american responsibility. Al Qaeda wouldn't be so financially strong without american money. I am not sure that Nigerians that slaughtered thousands of Muslims in that country wouldn't fly planes into skyscraper in some Muslim country if they could afford it.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 12:37 am
or maybe they wouldn't because there is no islamic country in the world with such influence as USA has. Of course, that doesn't mean that 9/11 attacks are understandable in any way and that someone can approve them - but it is logical that terrorists will attack USA and not Poland which is, for example, much more "Christian country" then USA is....
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 06:40 am
ebrown_p wrote:
They did have a problem with Saddam's Iraq (as did we) but we fixed that for them very nicely.


Problem.... an understatement I call that :wink:
0 Replies
 
Chain
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 09:52 pm
Moishe3rd wrote:
As I read the posts, the argument by some is that - Islam can be a peaceful religion and that there are many peaceful Muslims.
I agree.
However, where are the peaceful Muslim people or even nations (the Arab emirates) that are willing to condemn; reform; insist; speak out; etcetera, against those non-peaceful Muslims that have hijacked their religion?
I read a lot more than the "western press," including Al-jazeera; news from Jordan, Syria, Palestine, the Gulf, Pakistan, Lebanon and Indonesia. I also read Memri.org.
And I do not see any great hue and cry from moderate Muslims.
Why not?

I can tell by your avatar that you support the States. Then tell me, why does not the USA condemn or speak out against Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bolivia, Tajikistan, Egypt, Israel, etc, but instead actually fund these pro-torture, corrupt countries military and economically? This is where the great saying with the stone and the house made of glass comes in.

I'm not trying to blame anyone or any nation here. I'm just trying to get a little perspective on the whole situation.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 02:42 am
I agree with your point Chain, however, it would be fair to note that Egypt and Turkey (and Bolivia is also definitely not on same level with Saudi Arabia or Israel) shouldn't be on that list anymore. They certainly have more problems then Sweden, but then again, almost all world have more problems then Sweden when it comes to democracy and human rights.
0 Replies
 
Chain
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 05:17 am
MyOwnUsername wrote:
I agree with your point Chain, however, it would be fair to note that Egypt and Turkey (and Bolivia is also definitely not on same level with Saudi Arabia or Israel) shouldn't be on that list anymore. They certainly have more problems then Sweden, but then again, almost all world have more problems then Sweden when it comes to democracy and human rights.

As if that's a reason to support ther governments? Confused
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 12:32:03