1
   

Muslim Outrage

 
 
bluebaby
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 03:30 pm
what about the THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH abuses in IRAQ every couple of days the news show alot of terrible photos or shots to barbaric actions carried by some soldiers against armless men is this fair?? most of the accidents that u mentioned my dear r local somehow and why r u stereotyping and saying muslims why not relating its action to its nationality ..as u made me feel that in america or any european country there are not any accidents or any criminals.. Exclamation
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 04:47 pm
BB, this isn't an AOL chat session. Type out your words.

As for your assertions, the media loves to highlight what they feel is newsworthy and draw attention to their network. Showing the good work being done by American and British troops isn't on their agenda.
0 Replies
 
kudlaite
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 04:54 pm
I'd tend to agree with Sozobe. There is really no religion that does not have a history at some point of having a barbaric subgroup. I hate those groups as much as anyone else. But condemning an entire religion ?
Having said that, I'd like to say a thing or two about the Muslim religon as such. A lot of religions have had the weirdest of beliefs. Centuries ago, the church would gladly have the head of a suspected witch lopped off, Hindus would ask that women burn themselves alive on their husband's funeral pire, Muslims believe that if you see the ankle of a lady you must marry her. The point is that a religion must grow with the times. While other religions have recognized that some things need to done away with, somehow Muslims seem to have clung on to their age-old beliefs a tad too strongly.

Take an example. Centuries ago, it was normal for a man to marry several women and leave them at the drop of a hat. Muslims laid down the rule that you cannot marry more than 4 women, or you will be in contempt of the religion. I think that was a real bold and severe step. But looks whats happened today. They don't wan to give up that belief. So they are still okay with marrying upto 4 women and leaving them by simply uttering "Talaq" 3 times.

In my opinion, thats the whole problem. While the religion is really all about love, just as any other, they have not reformed the outdated beliefs to adjust to the changing world. This makes them harder and harder to adjust to the rest of the world.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 04:56 pm
Agree with kudlaite.

I don't think anyone condemned the entire religion.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 05:17 pm
in canada, many muslim leaders have been on television and have had interviews and editorials in plenty of newspapers in which they declared the rioting and killing as unacceptable .

just last week there was a half-hour show (during prime-time on TV-ontario) , where a very moderate and a not-so moderate cleric debated the issue. both agreed, that tha koran did not forbid showing a picture of the prophet, but that eventually it became a custom not to show an image of him. while the not-so-moderate cleric was quite outspoken in his condemnation of the cartoon, he also spoke out quite clearly against any violent protest.

i've kept an eye and an ear an tv-coverage of some of the protests during the last few days (flag-burning etc). the story line they usually give is ..."hundreds of protesters"... and they are reporting from countries like indonesia, which has a population greater than the united states !

i've seen more protesters and flag-burning on some of the washington protest marches.

violence in which people are killed or maimed cannot and should not be condoned - though it has happenened in other protests - remember the kent university student protest ?

i also think that both sides would be much better of to talk rather than to fight, scream and foam at the mouth - and that goes for all sides in these protests. hbg
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 05:19 pm
Sanctuary wrote:
Everyone knows it, but what can we do about it as a whole without violence breaking out? It's not like we can sit down at a table and say, "look, there's a problem..." - being rational is out of the question.


The problem is larger than just muslims. Some groups of people react emotionally rather than rationally, and those predispositions are usually preyed upon by leaders who have their own agenda.

Sanctuary wrote:
So, there's a BIG problem. But how the hell are we going to fix it?


Bring them out of poverty. Educate them. Those who have little, will risk much.

The solution to poverty and education lies with their own wealthy governments who grow fat on western money for oil while suppressing their own populations and allowing dissention to draw the crowd's focus away from themselves, and to focus it on the west.

There are a couple of ways to break that cycle... reduce the west's dependence on oil, or promote a non-corrupt government in an oil-rich country in the middle east and try to fix the internal structure so that wealth and education are shared. One such country could draw the gaze of the crowds in other countries, and focus their anger back on their own governments (caution: this is a very difficult plan to bring to fruition, fraught with pitfalls every month of the millenium it will take to execute it.).
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 05:30 pm
interesting article in toronto's 'sunday star'.
canada will be sending more troops and aid-money to afghanistan, so the paper sent an old hand - who'd been to afg several times - to get a fresh reading on the situation in afg.
he reports that the village people have become much more distrusting over the last few years. they were promised that more aid would be given to help them to plant crops other than opium . the aid still hasn't arrived yet - you want to guess where it might be ?
he said, that the farmers he spoke to, told him that the taliban were bad, but that the new government is corrupt and that the aid never gets to them in the village, therefor ...(and you can fill in the rest). hbg
0 Replies
 
Raul-7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:01 pm
Lash wrote:

Mohammad's own words bear analysis.


The Quran is not Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) words they're the words of God; as goes for the original Injil (Bible) and Taurat (Torah).
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:08 pm
Interesting thread.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:14 pm
I've also heard of muslims - leaders and the avergae guy - speaking out against this ****. I guess what you hear largely depends on which news station you listen to.
0 Replies
 
Raul-7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:17 pm
kudlaite wrote:
I'd tend to agree with Sozobe. There is really no religion that does not have a history at some point of having a barbaric subgroup. I hate those groups as much as anyone else. But condemning an entire religion ?
Having said that, I'd like to say a thing or two about the Muslim religon as such. A lot of religions have had the weirdest of beliefs. Centuries ago, the church would gladly have the head of a suspected witch lopped off, Hindus would ask that women burn themselves alive on their husband's funeral pire, Muslims believe that if you see the ankle of a lady you must marry her. The point is that a religion must grow with the times. While other religions have recognized that some things need to done away with, somehow Muslims seem to have clung on to their age-old beliefs a tad too strongly.

Take an example. Centuries ago, it was normal for a man to marry several women and leave them at the drop of a hat. Muslims laid down the rule that you cannot marry more than 4 women, or you will be in contempt of the religion. I think that was a real bold and severe step. But looks whats happened today. They don't wan to give up that belief. So they are still okay with marrying upto 4 women and leaving them by simply uttering "Talaq" 3 times.

In my opinion, thats the whole problem. While the religion is really all about love, just as any other, they have not reformed the outdated beliefs to adjust to the changing world. This makes them harder and harder to adjust to the rest of the world.


It is not true that you must marry a women if you see her bare ankles; it is just a sin to stare at women in the first place. Of course the Quran is only protecting us, because God knows the weakness of his creations and how easily one can resort to fornication once he is turned on; even though it is considered one of the biggest sins.

Originally, all the Godly books are a guide for mankind on how to live their lives (law of marriage, stealing, etc.). About the Quran or any Godly book for that matter, they cannot be changed to the needs of man - this will only lead to corruption. Simlar to Christians who disagree about various points about the Bible - if they resort to the unchanged Gospel (if it still exists) they will find all of their doubts answered; similarly with the Torah. That is why God sent down the Quran as the last book and he vowed that it will not be changed untill the Day of Judgement.

About talaq, the wife has the right to it just as much as the man. Of course talaq is only permisable for a good reason.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:17 pm
Raul-7 wrote:
Lash wrote:

Mohammad's own words bear analysis.


The Quran is not Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) words they're the words of God; as goes for the original Injil (Bible) and Taurat (Torah).

So, Mohammad didn't write any of that, eh?
0 Replies
 
Raul-7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:18 pm
Lash wrote:
Raul-7 wrote:
Lash wrote:

Mohammad's own words bear analysis.


The Quran is not Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) words they're the words of God; as goes for the original Injil (Bible) and Taurat (Torah).

So, Mohammad didn't write any of that, eh?


No; he was illiterate.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:20 pm
So, God wrote it?

PS--If God knows how weak his creatures are, why don't the men wear burkas?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Feb, 2006 10:39 pm
Raul-7 wrote:
God knows the weakness of his creations and how easily one can resort to fornication once he is turned on; even though it is considered one of the biggest sins.


And, of course, punishable by death in some muslim countries. There's some outrage.
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:49 am
kudlaite wrote:
I'd tend to agree with Sozobe. There is really no religion that does not have a history at some point of having a barbaric subgroup. I hate those groups as much as anyone else. But condemning an entire religion ?
Having said that, I'd like to say a thing or two about the Muslim religon as such. A lot of religions have had the weirdest of beliefs. Centuries ago, the church would gladly have the head of a suspected witch lopped off, Hindus would ask that women burn themselves alive on their husband's funeral pire, Muslims believe that if you see the ankle of a lady you must marry her. The point is that a religion must grow with the times. While other religions have recognized that some things need to done away with, somehow Muslims seem to have clung on to their age-old beliefs a tad too strongly.

Take an example. Centuries ago, it was normal for a man to marry several women and leave them at the drop of a hat. Muslims laid down the rule that you cannot marry more than 4 women, or you will be in contempt of the religion. I think that was a real bold and severe step. But looks whats happened today. They don't wan to give up that belief. So they are still okay with marrying upto 4 women and leaving them by simply uttering "Talaq" 3 times.

In my opinion, thats the whole problem. While the religion is really all about love, just as any other, they have not reformed the outdated beliefs to adjust to the changing world. This makes them harder and harder to adjust to the rest of the world.


And if it's all about love, then why do you need a religion to tell you that? It seems to only beg the question. Yet only religion will curse the earth and the beauty of fornication, of pleasure, and of sex, of the earthly world in general. And it has been only religion that has cursed man to nothing more than a spiritual prison, creating limits for a man who is already festering on the fringes of finitude, he becomes even more finite, even more obtuse, and even more limited.

With regard to Islam, ever since the Sunni ulama in the 11th century monopolized Islamic jurisprudence and banned the ijtihad, that is when stagnation fell on the Muslim world. And so the dogmatists imposed their own myopic judgements on Islamic jurisprudence, and this has been the norm for over a millenium and explains Islam's inability to bend or curve with times. I have not lived under Islam, but my relatives, and generations prior of my family, have lived under Islam and know what it is like to be second class. So all this gobbledygook about a religion of peace or love is simply the inanity that the few good apples want to make themselves believe. People are the way they are because of themselves, not because of a religion, or a philosophy, or an ideology, or any other nonsense people cook up. Anyone can proclaim the "corruption card", yet it proves everything and it proves nothing.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 06:08 am
sozobe wrote:
Lash, do you see that the "hiding" stuff (above) could get old for people who see the rational and peace loving Muslims (in person or their words) all the time?

I'm not enough of an authority on either the Koran or the Bible to address your question intelligently. What I know is that the dreck is in both books, and there are lots of rational adherents of both books. That's a fairly straightforward rational exercise.

I have looked at Islam by itself in a great deal of depth -- more than any other religion, probably, and I've studied lots of religions. I'm very impressed by it, in general. It's sad that there are people set on corrupting it -- and also sad that people are so willing to believe the worst, and thereby help the corrupters' cause.

Because that's my thing, here. (Convoluted analogy excised for being too convoluted). I think that half of what we need to do to help stop this is condemn the wrong-doers -- and the other half is not to alienate the truly rational and peace-loving Muslims. Whether they are more than half or less than half, do you think they exist at all, Lash?




I am very intrigued by your comments re Islam.


Can you say what impressed you particularly?



I am commencing a personal quest to understand more about it, (and its desert siblings...and the recent rise of fundamentalism in these religions, because I think understanding is a key for everyone re this stuff) and have become quite fascinated by a woman called Karen Armstrong, and have purchased the following books by her:


"A History of God : The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam "

Title on Amazon



Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet

Amazon page



The Battle for God

(About the rise of fundamentalism in Islam, Chriostianity, and Judaism I have just started this,m and it is fascinating)


Amazon page



Islam : A Short History

Amazon page


and I am interested if you have any other good sources re Islam?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:33 am
These are the two books I still have, from when I took a class on the subject:

"Islam from Within: Anthology of a Religion" by Kenneth Cragg and Marston Speight

and

"An Introduction to Islam" by Frederick Mathewson Denny

Aside from that I know a lot of people who are themselves Muslim, either observant or raised Muslim and currently pretty secular (several of them are people my husband works with, and nobody in the sciences seems to be particularly religious -- maybe it's own topic) and the whole Muslim/ Hindu thing is a huge aspect of the many modern Indian novels I've read. I've also taken other classes in which Islam was at the periphery, such as whatever class I took for which "Wombs and Alien Spirits" was a textbook. (Fascinating book.)

My main influence, though, I've talked about before -- the professor of the class I took in college about Islam. He was one of those too good for this world types, just gentleness incarnate, and so upset at what extremists were doing to his beloved religion. (I took the class a few years after the fatwa on Rushdie.) He placed a lot of emphasis on the kindness, generosity, and gentleness of the religion, and made a convincing case.

This is one aspect I remember making an impression on me (copied/ typed out from Denny's book):

    [b]Zakat: Legal Almsgiving[/b] The earliest documents we have regarding Muslim practices -- the Qur'an and other contemporary and somewhat later sources -- speak often of calling the people to worship by means of the salat and of almsgiving by means of the [i]zakat[/i]. These two basic religious activities are clear indicators of the importance of the vertical relationship between humankind and God through prayer and obedience, on the one hand, and [b]the horizontal relationship of Muslims with one another through the giving of one's wealth[/b], on the other. [b]Next in importance to worship is concern for others, both individually and as a community of Muslims[/b]. The zakat is a legal, obligatory act and considered part of one's service to God, as a technical part of worship in the sense of [i]'ibada[/i]. Zakat is not to be confused with charity, which is known as [i]sidaqa[/i]. [b]Muslims are commanded to give charity often and freely, with emphasis on discretion and concern for the feelings of the recipients[/b]. Zakat, however, is more like a tax payable once a year and computed as a percentage of one's various forms of wealth. A manual of Islamic practices written for English-speaking converts describes zakat as being owed on "three C's: cash, cattle, and crops." The Arabic word [i]zakat[/i] has as one of its meanings "purity", and though that sense is secondary, it does apply as a characterization of the wealth remaining to the owner after alms have been paid. That is, the wealth is purified for use of its owner. If no zakat has been paid on it during the year in which, acccording to Islamic law, it was due, the property is considered to be illicitly held and "unclean". [b]This, again, is a powerful symbol of Islam's sense of community.[/b]


(Bolding within text is my emphasis.)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:39 am
sozobe wrote:
How am I not confronting reality?

I missed this.

You aren't addressing the Suras and Hadiths that support violence.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 10:44 am
Sure I am, twice.

One -- that there is official religious dreck in virtually all religions (I can't immediately think of any that are exempt -- maybe Buddhism?) but those religions still have scads of rational, wonderful followers. The fact that the dreck exists doesn't mean that everyone who follows the religion supports or performs the drecky stuff. (I think you agree with this.)

Second -- I have repeatedly said that I condemn, condemn, condemn the violent, irrational followers who actually take that crap literally or choose to use it as justification for unjustifiable actions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Muslim Outrage
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 11:06:29