58
   

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

 
 
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 08:03 am
@timberlandko,
timberlandko wrote:

You're proceeding from a logical falacy ... the one has nothing to do with the other. How many Catholic nations would pass your test? Not too many in Latin America, not Spain or Ireland, nor Greece, Cyprus, or Malta. How many nations populated predominantly by those of Sub-Sahara African descent would pass your test? Not too many anywhere. How many current or former Communist nations could pass your test? Not very many there, either, are there? How many Asian nations would pass your test, or Third World nations, or emergent democracies?

What you've got there is a prejudice, not a premis.
It's quite a valid premise. What you speak of is historical irrelevance. Muslims war eachother because of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
High Strangeness
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 10:12 am
@Smileyrius,
asked- "So peaceable Muslims are ok then? Just trying to clarify your position. And what is involved in ass busting?"
------------------------------------------------------

If muslims don't go around blowing people up, shooting them and running them over with cars and trucks etc, I'm sure we'd all like them more.
Otherwise yeah, they need their asses busted just like any criminal who steps out of line..Smile
"These men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed.." (2 Peter 2:12)

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 10:16 am
@HexHammer,
For one thing, you're trying to have a discussion with a dead man. For another, timberlandko was spot on!
sky123
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 12:34 pm
@vikorr,
Mr/Ms Vikorr,
I am a practicing Shia Muslim. I have a teacher in religious aspects who is the grandson of one of the most well known Shia clerics of the history. He got his MS from university of Manchester in mechanical engineering long years ago. Also some other degrees that he hasn't talk about for me.He had lived in Australia for years and visited a lot of other countries. He is an intelligent man. So by any means he is not a blind man.
His book (it was a religious book) was selected as the best book of the year in Iran a few years ago. After years, still I am going to his class to learn more about my religion.
From the way you talked about the abrogation and the sample that you gave us, I understood that your knowledge of Islam is not enough at all.
Quote:
2.256 "There is no compulsion in religion."
abrogated by 9.29!!!
2.255 and 2.256 are one of the firmest verses of Quran (to understand the meaning of firm, please see Muhkamat and Mutashabihat), A firm Ayah doesn't abrogate by any other Ayah.
(also, please be aware that there are 114 Surah each one divided into verses called Ayahs, there are about 6200 Ayahs. There is a relatively slight difference in the number of Ayahs, dependent on how to count them).
Once prophet Muhammad was selected as prophet, his society (Hijaz) was unimaginably primitive. Having a girl child was a shame for families. Worse than that, killing a girl child was a value. In such a society, he kissed the hands of his girl and said, Women are nearer to God than men because their heart is milder.
Let me have my do respect for you but pleeeeeease:
Before any strong confident judgment gather enough information.)


vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 02:40 pm
@perennialloner,
Quote:
You're being dishonest because you call Islam a dangerous religion but say you aren't judging Muslims. How is that possible?
*cough* even the religion itself differentiates between the religion, and the person who is a follower:

A. the religion is Islam
B. the follower is Muslim

Surely if even the religion differentiates between the religion and the follower, you can grasp the difference.

A. one is a system of ideas
B. one is a human being

A. one is a system of ideas
B. that system of ideas is interpreted and adhered to in many different ways - some good, and some bad, by different human beings. To criticise the good people who don't follow the negative ideas of (A) while still identifying with most of (A) is silly.
-------------------------------------------------------------


Ideas as we know, are always found in the leadup to wars, and always found in the leadup to terrorist events. Such negative ideas should be able to be criticised.
HexHammer
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 03:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

For one thing, you're trying to have a discussion with a dead man. For another, timberlandko was spot on!
No, look in the middle east how they are warring each other. The question wasn't in countries where the muslims are a minority, it's where the muslims are ruling.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 03:14 pm
@sky123,
Hello Sky123

Yes, having religious teachers, rather than self education has been one of the reasons Islam has been able to develop into a fairly peaceful religion. In this way, they were able to disregard the more intolerant / violent tendancies of the Quran.

I understand why it is taught by Imams and scholars. Firstly there's no chronology to the Quran / Hadiths. Secondly there is no context. Thirdly, the Hadiths vary in value / reliability. and Lastly, most muslims don't speak Arabic. The first 3 alone created huge problems.

What has changed in the last decade, is access to the internet. Now, Muslims (and non Muslims) are able to look into the founding texts for themselves. They are able to establish the chronology, and the context. They are able to compare how these matched (or didn't match) the behaviour of Mohammad. Changed too is the social media aspect (youtube / facebook etc), and it's impact upon Muslims who hold to the Islamic concept of Umma.

What has changed since the 1970's, is the rise of Saudi Arabia, and it's exportation of it's particular brand of Salafism / Wahabism.

Also changed is the conflict landscape around the Middle East.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In terms of violent tendancies of the Quran - those who would have understood the interpretation best, the direct followers of Mohammad (those who he spoke to), and the following several generations...committed to war until they had spread from the Arabian peninsula to India, to the Atlantic. Ocean...all in the next 2oo years.

This behaviour is in direct correlation with the behaviour of Mohammad towards the end of his life, and the last commands Mohammad gave - Surah 9.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The two major texts on which Abrogation is based ( inserted for non-Muslims. I'm sure Muslims know them)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

Quote:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
— Qur'an 2:106, [1][4]

When We substitute one revelation for another, – and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),– they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
— Qur'an 16:101, [2][4]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
2.255 and 2.256 are one of the firmest verses of Quran (to understand the meaning of firm, please see Muhkamat and Mutashabihat), A firm Ayah doesn't abrogate by any other Ayah.
How then, do you resolve the glaring contradictions then, between that, and what is in Surah 9?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Having a girl child was a shame for families. Worse than that, killing a girl child was a value. In such a society, he kissed the hands of his girl and said, Women are nearer to God than men because their heart is milder.
He had plenty of good qualities. By all reports he was very charasmatic, a good judge of people, a fine military leader, a great politician, and show compassion and understanding in many places...that doesn't mean he wasn't also a warrior prophet, not does it mean that he didn't leave a legacy that created both good, and bad.

perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 03:23 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
*cough* even the religion itself differentiates between the religion, and the person who is a follower:


That is not the point. You are judging Muslims. You may say you aren't, but you are. Yes there is a distinction b/w the religion and the follower of the religion, but you still think that Muslims, the followers of the religion, are more likely to be bad ppl and do bad things, precisely because Islam, the religion, is -- in your view -- a uniquely dangerous and violent ideology, which means-- coming full circle -- its adherents are in a state of mind that makes them more susceptible to bigotry and violence.

On another note--
Islam cannot be defined in whatever terms you see fit, but you have ignored that and taken it upon yourself to reduce the religion to an ideology which you have constructed. With this ideology you have constructed to characterize Islam, you have determined that the bad Muslims are the ones who actually follow it and the good Muslims only think they follow Islam's ideology but are really just lying to themselves. They apparently don't follow an Islamic ideology. If they did, it would mean you'd need to reevaluate your definition of Islam, which obviously doesn't suit your agenda.

Quote:
Ideas as we know, are always found in the leadup to wars, and always found in the leadup to terrorist events. Such negative ideas should be able to be criticised.


yes negative ideas should be criticized. however they should not be seen as representative of the views of self-identifying Muslims around the world, who are indeed Muslim, follow an ideology of Islam, and do not subscribe to such negative ideas.

you should hold the people actually responsible for crimes accountable, not the people who have taken absolutely no part in those atrocities. when you start talking about ideology, suddenly it's not about bad people doing bad things, but about Muslims the world over who people like you give a greater propensity for terror.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 03:36 pm
@perennialloner,
Quote:
That is not the point. You are judging Muslims.
As I've asked you before - can you please provide quotes where I judge muslims, rather than the ideology of Islam.

You've held to this view quite stringently. It's time to back it up with some quotes.
perennialloner wrote:
negative ideas should be criticized. however they should not be seen as representative of the views of self-identifying Muslims around the world, who are indeed Muslim, follow an ideology of Islam, and do not subscribe to such negative ideas.


We agree, as I said in my last post to you, quote below. So why you raise it I don't know.
vikorr wrote:
B. that system of ideas is interpreted and adhered to in many different ways - some good, and some bad, by different human beings. To criticise the good people who don't follow the negative ideas of (A) while still identifying with most of (A) is silly.


Quote:
you should hold the people actually responsible for crimes accountable, not the people who have taken absolutely no part in those atrocities.
Again we agree. Have you read any of my multiple posts on not buying into blame, but rather, personal responsibility and contributing circumstances?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 03:40 pm
@perennialloner,
Quote:
when you start talking about ideology, suddenly it's not about bad people doing bad things, but about Muslims the world over who people like you give a greater propensity for terror.
You need to explain your meaning a bit more clearly.
perennialloner
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 03:55 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
We agree, as I said in my last post to you, quote below. So why you raise it I don't know.


If you agree that "[such negative views] should not be seen as representative of the views of self-identifying Muslims around the world, who are indeed Muslim, follow an ideology of Islam, and do not subscribe to such negative ideas," then why do you have a problem with this:

- 'the terrorists are not true muslims'
- 'the terrorists have hijacked Islam' etc.

Quote:
It is the (Islamic) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Islamic terrorism;


you could substitute Islamic for anything else, and this statement would make sense.

It is the (Christian) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Christian terrorism.

It is the (Buddhist) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Buddhist terrorism.

etc...

Yet no one would question someone who called those Christian or Buddhists non-Christians/Buddhists.

Clearly, however, those terrorists got the religious justification from somewhere to commit acts of terror.
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:01 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
You need to explain your meaning a bit more clearly.


Whether or not it is your intention for people to criticize good Muslims, if you say there's a dangerous and violent Islamic ideology you still end up associating those people with danger and violence. i.e., you assign (i initially used "give") them, wrongfully, a greater propensity for terror.

Again, the fear of the ideology overshadows the faces of the people who committed the crimes, and instead a new image comes to the forefront--anyone associated with the ideology.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:10 pm
@perennialloner,
Quote:
If you agree that "[such negative views] should not be seen as representative of the views of self-identifying Muslims around the world, who are indeed Muslim, follow an ideology of Islam, and do not subscribe to such negative ideas," then why do you have a problem with this:

- 'the terrorists are not true muslims'
- 'the terrorists have hijacked Islam' etc.
Hmmm. Do you not understand what you have been writing about differences?

There are all sorts of different versions of Islam. Within each version of Islam there are different interpretations. Within each interpretation, there are individual interpretations.

That one Muslim believes AAAA does not make the Muslim who believes BBBB not a muslim.

That one Muslim disregards the violent verses of the Quran / Hadiths, does not mean that the one who does pay attention to them, has hijacked Islam.

Quote:
you could substitute Islamic for anything else, and this statement would make sense.

It is the (Christian) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Christian terrorism.

It is the (Buddhist) religious motivation that is the sole common motivator that runs through all of Buddhist terrorism.
Yes you could.

Quote:
Yet no one would question someone who called those Christian or Buddhists non-Christians/Buddhists.
I don't know enough about Buddhism to comment on that, but in terms of Christianity, you are quite right.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:21 pm
@perennialloner,
Quote:
Whether or not it is your intention for people to criticize good Muslims, if you say there's a dangerous and violent Islamic ideology you still end up associating those people with danger and violence. i.e., you assign (i initially used "give") them, wrongfully, a greater propensity for terror.

Again, the fear of the ideology overshadows the faces of the people who committed the crimes, and instead a new image comes to the forefront--anyone associated with the ideology.


Ah.

Yes, my views may lead to Muslims feeling angst. That in turn may contribute to a greater victim mentality. Both of those together may contribute to greater violence...in the name of their religion. Is that the gist of your thoughts?

So what I should do, is worry about those who may be offended by their holy books ideology. I should not talk about violence in the name of Islam, not about the contributing ideology. I should not talk about an escalating worldwide issue, taking up more and more of our police, intelligence, and security services time.

What I should do is silently while people deny that a problem exists. What I should do is sit quietly while people refuse to even discuss the problem (openly and honestly). What I should do is sit quietly while people say 'this has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam'....because any criticism only leads to the spread of violence in the name of Islam...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:21 pm
@vikorr,
Why there is even a subject about "peaceful Muslims" in the first place reinforces the idea that Muslims are violent. Add to that the rhetoric of Donald Trump, and we now have that subject reinforced into our society.
perennialloner
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:24 pm
@vikorr,
You misunderstand me. Yes it could be considered Islam, but why do you have a problem with it not being considered Islam. What do you think is wrong with that approach?
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:37 pm
@perennialloner,
Quote:
You misunderstand me. Yes it could be considered Islam, but why do you have a problem with it not being considered Islam. What do you think is wrong with that approach?
Mostly because:

- the West has little to no knowledge or understanding of the religion, and it's holy texts. So when they say it has nothing to do with Islam, they are speaking out of Ignorance.

- In that Ignorance, they are making decisions to try and mitigate the problem...which won't be as effective. Solving problems decisions based in ignorance are never as effective, and in some cases can lead to longer term problems.

- Keeping to that line (it has nothing to do with Islam) will eventually lead to politicians losing control of the message / debate (as more terrorist incidents occur, more and more people start to disbelieve that line, and trust political messages less and less). Which in turn leads to the rise of extreme right wing groups, which leads to the physical/verbal/violent targeting of Muslims, which leads to increased terrorism

-------------------------------------------------
If politicians and the public understood the religion, and with the cooperation of the Islamic faiths, they were knowingly using 'they are not of Islam' as part of a path to an 'Islamic Rennaisance' (so to speak) , then that would be fine.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Why there is even a subject about "peaceful Muslims" in the first place reinforces the idea that Muslims are violent.
Like the use of the term 'Law Abiding Citizens' reinforces that there are criminals in our midst? Yes I can see that

Quote:
Add to that the rhetoric of Donald Trump, and we now have that subject reinforced into our society
I can't tell you how many people in Australia are worried that he might become your president. Very, very few people I know are a fan of his here.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 04:52 pm
@vikorr,
This is why I worry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#!
High Strangeness
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2016 05:11 pm
@sky123,
said- "I am a practicing Shia Muslim"
----------------------------------------------

Fascinating! And just for the record which bit of this don't you like?-
"Love God, love one another, feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the destitute, tend the sick, visit the prisoners, look after the poor"- Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 12:30, John 13:34, Matt 25:37-40)

PS- and I'd like to ask the same question of all nonchristians and atheists..Wink


 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 06:57:04