This thread is aimed at non-Muslims on sciforums.

What according to you, is a Muslim?

This thread is aimed at non-Muslims on sciforums.

What according to you, is a Muslim?

* jihad, kill the nonbelievers
* oppressed freedom on yourself and others
* technologically not so adaptible
* business person...money greedy
* covered in one color clothes all over.
* and covers up all actions by Allah.

Someone who claims "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet".

In essence: A worshipper of Allah who places Muhammad as chief amongst prophets.

Someone who claims "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet".

In essence: A worshipper of Allah who places Muhammad as chief amongst prophets.

Accepting Mohammed as a Prophet does not make him chief among prophets

The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." 2:285

Moslems then do not believe in any hierarchy of revelation?

Why then does Muhammad's revelation supercede that of Moses?

Moslems then do not believe in any hierarchy of revelation?

Why then does Muhammad's revelation supercede that of Moses?
How is Moses' revelation different from Mohammeds'?

Mohammed's revelation is called a reminder for it is said to reiterate Moses'.

brainwashed cultists

SamCDKey:

There arem any laws of purities and customs practiced by the Jews from the Mosaic laws which are not held by Islam. Also, note the Judeo-centric focus of Moses' message, where clearly the revelation of Islam is for the Arabic-speaking peoples first, the world second.

SamCDKey:

There arem any laws of purities and customs practiced by the Jews from the Mosaic laws which are not held by Islam. Also, note the Judeo-centric focus of Moses' message, where clearly the revelation of Islam is for the Arabic-speaking peoples first, the world second.

So if Muslims accept Moses as a Prophet, and they accept Jesus, and they accept Mohammed, how do you define a Muslim?

Samcdkey...what about my view of muslims?

Samcdkey...what about my view of muslims?

Well its always nice to know what people really think about you.:)

Sam, Jesus said that He is God, did Muhammed say that Jesus is God?

Well its always nice to know what people really think about you.:)

you are not muslim...you dont act like one. You are different. Much pleasant.

This thread is aimed at non-Muslims on sciforums.

What according to you, is a Muslim?

Yet another practicioner of delusion.

you are not muslim...you dont act like one. You are different. Much pleasant.

Ah of course, if I am pleasant, I can't be a Muslim. That clears things immensely.:D

Deluded cultists.

What according to you, is a Muslim?

Someone who has a hard time eating spaghetti!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gruMl91HMg&mode=related&search=

Someone who follows a religious/cultural ideology, the ideology of which being based in half-truths, coersion, and extreme injustice.

Pious, respectful of their traditions and religion, loving of their families and friends, resentful of western ideals and habits.

Someone who has a hard time eating spaghetti!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gruMl91HMg&mode=related&search=
Half of me found that funny and the other half found that pernicious and disrespectful. I assume its a spoof.

Do niqab-wearers eat spaghetti, sam?
What according to you, is a Muslim?
A person trying to get by. *shrug*

Well how do those women eat in public, or are they not allowed to eat in public? I've never seen one eat in public.

Half of me found that funny and the other half found that pernicious and disrespectful. I assume its a spoof.

Needn't be, thats probably how they'd eat in public, I guess. *shrugs*
Only place I knew niqab wearers was in KSA and they have separate family booths for women


Do niqab-wearers eat spaghetti, sam?

Sure why not?

Hey Sam, are there any noteworthy feminist leaders in the Islamic world?

Half of me found that funny and the other half found that pernicious and disrespectful. I assume its a spoof.


It's a fact of life, one can't be sugar to everyone. ;)

Islam:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbCbVziuryg&mode=related&search=

Might I quote the last YouTube comment for that clip? It sums up my own view pretty well (except I spell better):

Yeah, try to burn a flag in downtown Birmingham and see the other side of the coin. The whole controversy over the cartoons was spun like ALL of the Islamic world was furious. There needs to be a differentation between "extremests" and Muslims. We realily see differing views of Christianity, and understand that there are "Jesus freak" lunatics, but we see all of Islam as the same. It is just not valid. See the film "Jesus Camp" and put it a bit into perspective.

There is no concept like jihad in the teachings of Jesus Christ, now Muhammed, that's obviously another story.

IAC: There is no concept like jihad in the teachings of Jesus Christ, now Muhammed, that's obviously another story.

*************
M*W: Do you know what the word "jihad" means? It means "struggles." One can have their own "jihad," and that means "coping with one's own hardships." (My own definition). Any Muslims out there, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, I don't believe Jesus ever existed, but let's assume his storybook character exists (I'll at least give it that). Jesus did, in fact, have his own "jihad." Other storybook characters had their own "jihads." Noah had his flood. Moses had his Exodus. Adam and Even had their eviction. Even Pharaoh's Army had it's own "jihad."

Just because a word is foreign to you, doesn't mean it has an evil connotation. I just had my own "jihad" this morning with my dogs. I kinda like the word "jihad." I can relate my personal tribulations to others without having to go into all the gory boring details.

Jihad does have an evil connotation, and I wonder why that is?

Misunderstanding and a very un-Christian intolerance.

Tell that to the Christians in Sudan who are getting jihaded.

All the muslims who I know are rich, so a muslim is someone who has money.

Tell that to the Christians in Sudan who are getting jihaded.
Here's that quote again, relevant parts emphasised (such a pity about that poor spelling...):

Yeah, try to burn a flag in downtown Birmingham and see the other side of the coin. The whole controversy over the cartoons was spun like ALL of the Islamic world was furious. There needs to be a differentation between "extremests" and Muslims. We realily see differing views of Christianity, and understand that there are "Jesus freak" lunatics, but we see all of Islam as the same. It is just not valid. See the film "Jesus Camp" and put it a bit into perspective.

IAC: Tell that to the Christians in Sudan who are getting jihaded.

*************
M*W: The Sudan is predominantly Muslim. Regardless, this is a political abomination.

IAC: Jihad does have an evil connotation, and I wonder why that is?

*************
M*W: The evil connotation is YOUR'S. The evil is in the EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!

I'm still waiting to read your bibliographies.

Oniw17: All the muslims who I know are rich, so a muslim is someone who has money.

*************
M*W: They're rich, because they are well-educated.

IAC: Tell that to the Christians in Sudan who are getting jihaded.

*************
M*W: You are using the word incorrectly. You cannot "jihad" someone else. The word means "struggle(s)." This is what you ultimately said: "Tell that to the christians in the Sudan who are getting "struggled." It doesn't make any sense, but why am I not surprised?

Someone who claims "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet".

In essence: A worshipper of Allah who places Muhammad as chief amongst prophets.

Seconded.

evil fundamentalistic religious cult that subjugates women, and kills the innocent, for totally irrational reasons. but trys to justify it by saying there oppressed, there seems to be a lot of very oppressed rich muslims on this planet, life must be real hard for them.

SamCDKey:

A follower of Allah as expressed in the Qu'ran.

SamCDKey:

A follower of Allah as expressed in the Qu'ran.

Actually this is the right definition:

Someone who claims "there is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet".

So basically my first post without the added on "and Muhammad is to be considered chief prophet"?

So basically my first post without the added on "and Muhammad is to be considered chief prophet"?

Yes and the difference between ilah and Allah, which is not God and Allah but a god and the God.

So basically: There is no deity but God and Muhammad is his prophet?

So basically: There is no deity but God and Muhammad is his prophet?

that would do it.:p

So if one professed nothing but that, one would be a Moslem?

Would this entail anything special? Such as a first-class ticket to paradise? Or would one be able to go to Islamic Hell if one did not pray towards Mecca, abstain from impure foods, et cetera?

Allah cannot be the God of the Bible because Allah was the Moon god, one of 360 pre Islamic Arab gods.

Jesus said He is the Son of God, but Allah, through Muhammed, denies this, so Allah calls Jesus a liar, therefore obviously, Allah and the God of the Bible are not the same.

So if one professed nothing but that, one would be a Moslem?

Its really Muslim you know, Moslem gives it the wrong connotation.:p

And yes, that is sufficient to qualify as a Muslim, you need no ceremony, just the shahada or declaration of faith.


Would this entail anything special? Such as a first-class ticket to paradise? Or would one be able to go to Islamic Hell if one did not pray towards Mecca, abstain from impure foods, et cetera?

There is Muslim, who accepts the above, and there is Momin, one who has faith or is a believer (e.g. is a believer and faithful). Usually being a Muslim means acceptance of Mohammed as a Prophet, being a Momin means devoting your life to your faith through jihad (struggle for faith, or iman).

Someone who is a Muslim and a Momin would follow all the tenets of Islamic faith ideally to the best of his ability.

SamCDKey:

I had thought Moslem and Muslim are held to be alternative spellings if one another?

There is Muslim, who accepts the above, and there is Momin, one who has faith or is a believer (e.g. is a believer and faithful). Usually being a Muslim means acceptance of Mohammed as a Prophet, being a Momin means devoting your life to your faith through jihad (struggle for faith, or iman).

Someone who is a Muslim and a Momin would follow all the tenets of Islamic faith ideally to the best of his ability.

Yet one can be a Moslem/Muslim without being a Momin? And the result is, afterlife speaking?

So basically: There is no deity but God and Muhammad is his prophet?
Hey, PJ, you're a Muslim now! Or does an internet posting not count?

SamCDKey:

I had thought Moslem and Muslim are held to be alternative spellings if one another?

Yet one can be a Moslem/Muslim without being a Momin? And the result is, afterlife speaking?

Alternate spellings? Actually I've never seen anyone using your spelling so I wouldn't know.

Sure, most Muslims even the bearded robed ones are not Momins.

In terms of the afterlife, well no one really knows, but accountability is based on what rules you break and your underlying motivation in doing so.

More:

Most Muslims accept as a Muslim anyone who has publicly pronounced the Shahada, which states, "There is none worthy of worship except Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger." This is often translated as, "There is no god except Allah," however "Allah" is the Arabic word for "the God".


One of the verses in the Qur'an makes a distinction between a mu'min, a believer, and a Muslim:

The Arabs of the desert say, "We believe." (tu/minu) Say thou: Ye believe not; but rather say, "We profess Islam;" (aslamna) for the faith (al-imanu) hath not yet found its way into your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Apostle, he will not allow you to lose any of your actions: for Allah is Indulgent, Merciful ('The Koran 49:14, Rodwell).

According to the Western academician Carl Ernst, contemporary usage of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim" for the faith and its adherents is a modern innovation. As shown in the Quranic passage cited above, early Muslims distinguished between the Muslim, who has "submitted" and does the bare minimum required to be considered a part of the community, and the mu'min, the believer, who has given himself or herself to the faith heart and soul. Ernst writes:

"The Arabic term Islam itself was of relatively minor importance in classical theologies based on the Qur'an. If one looks at the works of theologians such as the famous al-Ghazali (d. 1111), the key term of religious identity is not Islam but iman(faith), and the one who possesses it is the mu'min (believer). Faith is one of the major topics of the Qur'an; it is mentioned hundreds of times in the sacred text. In comparison, Islam is a relatively less common term of secondary importance; it only occurs eight times in the Qur'an. Since, however, the term Islam had a derivative meaning relating to the community of those who have submitted to Allah, it has taken on a new political significance, especially in recent history." [1]

And:
Muslims believe that Islam existed long before Muhammad. The Koran [Ar. qu'ran (قران), recitation] describes as Muslims many Biblical prophets and messengers: Adam, Noah (Arabic: Nuh), Moses (Arabic: Musa) and Jesus (Arabic: Isa) and his apostles. The Koran states that these men were Muslims because they submitted to God, preached His message and upheld His values. Thus, in Surah 3 v52 of the Koran, Jesus’ disciples tell Jesus: “do thou bear witness that we are Muslims”.

IAC: Jihad does have an evil connotation, and I wonder why that is?

*************
M*W: The evil connotation is YOUR'S. The evil is in the EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!

Actually, the most valued jihad is that of he who takes up arms. Can't recall the scriptural passage ATM.

Actually, the most valued jihad is that of he who takes up arms. Can't recall the scriptural passage ATM.

Is that why its called jihad asghar (the minor jihad) as compared to jihad akbar (major struggle) which is the descriptor for spiritual struggle?


Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), the struggle against one's soul (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting.

Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[9]

* Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.

* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al. It is one weapon in the jihadi arsenal.

* Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).

* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, providing funding for jihad, political activity for furthering the cause of Islam, stopping evil by force, espionage, and the penetration of Western universities by salafi Islamic ideology, in numerous Middle East Studies departments funded by Saudi Arabia.

* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sam, I have to admit: it is a little disingenuous now to avoid the issue of translations. We do not speak Arabic: neither do the majority of muslims worldwide. How then is one to discuss islam without being muslim? It would be best to be frank about the translations and ascribe a different meaning to them.

Your brother in Islam,

Geoff

Sam, I have to admit: it is a little disingenuous now to avoid the issue of translations. We do not speak Arabic: neither do the majority of muslims worldwide. How then is one to discuss islam without being muslim? It would be best to be frank about the translations and ascribe a different meaning to them.

Your brother in Islam,

Geoff

Well one would say that if one is interested enough in a subject to criticise it, one must first study the subject. How much credence would you ascribe to an Indian writer who wrote a critique on Shakespeare without ever studying English?:)

And yes, the reason why so many people are led around by "experts" is because they don't bother to read for themselves.

Is that any different from other conspiracy theorists?

Madanthonywayne:

Oh no!

SamCDKey:

Alternate spellings? Actually I've never seen anyone using your spelling so I wouldn't know.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Moslem

In terms of the afterlife, well no one really knows, but accountability is based on what rules you break and your underlying motivation in doing so.

What sort of ratio of good v. bad deeds are you supposed to be aiming for?

Madanthonywayne:

Oh no!

SamCDKey:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Moslem

Hmm must be an American innovation?

the word is from islam so it should ideally be mu-slim, that is the correct way.
the word "mu" basically says "one who"

as in
mujrim (one who is a criminal, jurm=crime)
muntazir (one who waits, intezar=wait)



What sort of ratio of good v. bad deeds are you supposed to be aiming for?

The best you can of course. The ideal is to improve by knowledge and practice, and learn from previous errors so as not to repeat them.

So basically: There is no deity but God and Muhammad is his prophet?

One point often missed is that the lesser gods apply not only to deities, the translation of "La ilaha illallah" can also be "There is none worthy of worship but God" and also excludes the worship of money, power and materialism over spiritualism.

Is that why its called jihad asghar (the minor jihad) as compared to jihad akbar (major struggle) which is the descriptor for spiritual struggle?

Well, I find "fight in the way of Allah" about seven times in the Quran. There's this, which explains quite clearly Allah's own preferences regarding jihad:

Q 9: 20 Those who believe, and who have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant.

Q 9: 21 Their Lord giveth them good tidings of mercy from Him, and Gardens where enduring pleasure will be theirs.

Q 9: 22 There they will abide forever. Lo! with Allah there is immense reward.

Q 9: 23 onward deals in much the same vein, actually. Q 9: 111 is another notable passage in this respect, as is Q 9: 29.

In ode to my artistic spirit, I couch my rebuttal in part of the form of the "Lazy Sunday Chronick-les of Narnia" SNL video.

"Lazy Translation"

Now we got no way of knowin
what jihad means to-day
Well let's hit up da Quran to find the dopest way

- I prefer al-Buhkari!

Das a good one too

- "War is deceit"!

Tru dat! [together] Double tru!

Well, I find "fight in the way of Allah" about seven times in the Quran. There's this, which explains quite clearly Allah's own preferences regarding jihad:



Q 9: 23 onward deals in much the same vein, actually. Q 9: 111 is another notable passage in this respect, as is Q 9: 29.

In ode to my artistic spirit, I couch my rebuttal in part of the form of the "Lazy Sunday Chronick-les of Narnia" SNL video.

"Lazy Translation"

So is fight in the way of Allah a direct translation of jihad?:p


Q 9: 20 Those who believe, and who have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant.

That appears to cover a multitude.

i.e those who
-believe
-left their home
-striven with wealth
-striven with lives

sort of covers everyone whos a Muslim?

As a comparison, how many times does knowledge occur in the Quran?

And peace? And forgiveness?

SamCDKey:

Hmm must be an American innovation?

the word is from islam so it should ideally be mu-slim, that is the correct way.
the word "mu" basically says "one who"

as in
mujrim (one who is a criminal, jurm=crime)
muntazir (one who waits, intezar=wait)

I think it is a Anglicization. We used to call Islamic people "Muhammadans". That is how the US Congress contacted the people of Tunisia over the pirate war Jefferson fought with them.

The best you can of course. The ideal is to improve by knowledge and practice, and learn from previous errors so as not to repeat them.

So a normal person can expect what in the afterlife, according to Islam?

SamCDKey:



I think it is a Anglicization. We used to call Islamic people "Muhammadans". That is how the US Congress contacted the people of Tunisia over the pirate war Jefferson fought with them.


Ok


So a normal person can expect what in the afterlife, according to Islam?

If they follow the right path, they can expect an absence of fear and grief.

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the clarification.

So is fight in the way of Allah a direct translation of jihad?:p

Weeeell the word "jihad" doesn't occur per se in the Quran, so I would say that indeed translates to the concept of violent jihad, yes. Why not?

That appears to cover a multitude.

i.e those who
-believe
-left their home
-striven with wealth
-striven with lives

sort of covers everyone whos a Muslim?

Does it? "Striven with their lives" sounds a bt more specific to me, especially considering all of Sura 9 is about war on the unbeliever. Are we concentrating on specific trees again, the better to ignore the forest?

As a comparison, how many times does knowledge occur in the Quran?

And peace? And forgiveness?

And hell? And fire? And unbeliever?

If his translations were viable, a great deal of credence.

Yet this is not the issue. There are several translations of the Quran, both by Arabic speakers and not, by muslims and non-muslims, and they agree in very large part. So how can it be argued that the Quran is only understandable in Arabic? And if we find the definitions slide around there, too, can criticisms of islamic belief finally be accepted? What about Arabic speakers who have left islam? Is their understanding of the Quran in Arabic then, at last, canonical? Or do they too misunderstand? Maybe they don't speak the right "kind" of Arabic.

It would be best to come out and admit the faults and failings of islamic theology, accept that the Quran is not more or less "directly revealed" than anything else, and simply tout up what needs to be changed to bring it in line with a humanist perspective. Islam must embrace rationalism; we are a species with no more time for narrow thinking, theological or otherwise. To paraphrase the Quran: it may be that this is a thing some do not like, but it is best for them.

Brother Geoff

Weeeell the word "jihad" doesn't occur per se in the Quran, so I would say that indeed translates to the concept of violent jihad, yes. Why not?

Gasp, no jihad in he Quran? are you sure?:p

So whats the word for fight?



Does it? "Striven with their lives" sounds a bt more specific to me, especially considering all of Sura 9 is about war on the unbeliever. Are we concentrating on specific trees again, the better to ignore the forest?


How about if I say dedicate their lives. Does that still sound like war?

And hell? And fire? And unbeliever?


Is unbeliever one who is not a momin? can that include one who is a Muslim?;)

If his translations were viable, a great deal of credence.

Yet this is not the issue. There are several translations of the Quran, both by Arabic speakers and not, by muslims and non-muslims, and they agree in very large part. So how can it be argued that the Quran is only understandable in Arabic? And if we find the definitions slide around there, too, can criticisms of islamic belief finally be accepted? What about Arabic speakers who have left islam? Is their understanding of the Quran in Arabic then, at last, canonical? Or do they too misunderstand? Maybe they don't speak the right "kind" of Arabic.

It would be best to come out and admit the faults and failings of islamic theology, accept that the Quran is not more or less "directly revealed" than anything else, and simply tout up what needs to be changed to bring it in line with a humanist perspective. Islam must embrace rationalism; we are a species with no more time for narrow thinking, theological or otherwise. To paraphrase the Quran: it may be that this is a thing some do not like, but it is best for them.

Brother Geoff

Whose translations? I asked about critique.

The thing is, anyone can translate the Quran and while there are "acceptable" translations available, the rule remains that it is the original Arabic that is the correct version, which is why it always accompanies every translation, because translations are interpretations of words from the original.

Take any verse and write down the first ten translations you get of it online and you'll see what I mean.

Plus I've seen people translate and publish parts of verses which make no sense when the whole verse is read, so its not like translators are without bias, even Muslim ones. Another problem is bilinguality, the ones who are fluent in Arabic (written and spoken) may not be fluent in English and vice versa.

The "failings" of Islamic ideology are those caused by half-baked scholars that count some words but not others, selectively read verses and pretend to know the whole ideology and read the Quran in a foreign language and pretend to have understood its ideology. Does not matter if its a Western educated Muslim who is convinced he is fighting jihad or a pineapple under the sea who is promoting the very beliefs he thinks he is fighting against. :p

The internet is a powerful medium and a lot more people can access the translations than could in previous times. Ultimately, though a translation is just someone else's idea of what the original means. And if its just translations you want to bicker over, well, what makes yours more valid than mine?

As for Arabic speakers who have left Islam, how do you know who they are? Have you met them or is their sob story online so close to what you believe in that you accept unquestioningly it must be true? See, you are still going by someone else's idea of what it must be like.

Islam must embrace rationalism, true, but so must its critics. Painting all Muslims with a broad brush, giving the clergy and clerics the same importance as Christians give theirs, assuming that all Muslims open a Quran before every decision is pure fantasy, not reality. It really amazes me how Western people have demonised all Muslims for fighting back when the crux of the issue is that they never would have got involved if they had not been targeted in the first place. There has never been the same attempt to export culture and values in the Muslim world as there has been in the self-aggrandising Western world, and yet comments by muftis and clerics are given air time in order to chastize and comments by politicians and religious leaders in the West (much more powerful and capable of preemptive wars) are cheered.

Most people don't even take into consideration the fact that the language problem works both ways and Islamofascist does not translate all that well into Arabic.

do any of you recognise the satire in that article?

Whose translations? I asked about critique.

You just asked about Shakespeare! Are you on crack? On a Saturday?

The thing is, anyone can translate the Quran and while there are "acceptable" translations available, the rule remains that it is the original Arabic that is the correct version, which is why it always accompanies every translation, because translations are interpretations of words from the original.

Well, all the translations I've ever seen seem to keep exactly the same meaning as the others.

Take any verse and write down the first ten translations you get of it online and you'll see what I mean.

I have. They're usually the same.

Plus I've seen people translate and publish parts of verses which make no sense when the whole verse is read

I've seen a couple of these which seem strange out of context, but I disagree that there's sections in there that don't follow some philosophical pattern.

The "failings" of Islamic ideology are those caused by half-baked scholars that count some words but not others, selectively read verses and pretend to know the whole ideology and read the Quran in a foreign language and pretend to have understood its ideology. Does not matter if its a Western educated Muslim who is convinced he is fighting jihad or a pineapple under the sea who is promoting the very beliefs he thinks he is fighting against. :p

All right; assuming you're correct, how do we stop such people?

The internet is a powerful medium and a lot more people can access the translations than could in previous times. Ultimately, though a translation is just someone else's idea of what the original means. And if its just translations you want to bicker over, well, what makes yours more valid than mine?

What if all the translations come out the same, as they generally do?

As for Arabic speakers who have left Islam, how do you know who they are? Have you met them or is their sob story online so close to what you believe in that you accept unquestioningly it must be true? See, you are still going by someone else's idea of what it must be like.

Well, I have to take some things prima facie. I accept, prima facie that these scholars indeed have these opinions, that some individuals have left islam (some being, of course, well documented ones rather than a mere voice on the internet - Warraq, Darwish, Weah, Hirsi Ali, Menem, Rushdie, Shoebat, and others), that you are a moderate. I do not know for certain, but this is a leap of 'faith' I make. Criticize it if you will; if I can accept no one else's "idea of what it must be like, then I can accept nothing, finally. But if the Arabic translation is so critical to comprehension, then I do wonder at the fervent belief of so many non-Arabic muslims (85% of the total, including yourself, Sam) in a religion that grounds its literature in a language spoken by a people with a noted tendency for the distain of non-Arabs. The Christians gave up Latin and have done well accordingly. Why not the muslims Arabic?

Islam must embrace rationalism, true, but so must its critics. Painting all Muslims with a broad brush, giving the clergy and clerics the same importance as Christians give theirs, assuming that all Muslims open a Quran before every decision is pure fantasy, not reality.

? I do not do this. I am discussing islam itself, and the values it - or its very common impression - impresses on muslims. Many muslims do indeed accept what we call an extremist philosophy; my point is that that philosophy is more common than we expect, or else there would simply be no ummah, no dhimmitude, no sharia. It must be more common, or there could not be a political islam.

It really amazes me how Western people have demonised all Muslims for fighting back when the crux of the issue is that they never would have got involved if they had not been targeted in the first place.

Yes and no, Sam. You could argue that Muslims have been "targetted" by Westernism, but the fact of the matter is that the inherent inequities of islamic society (that being wherever a nation is "islamic") were there long, long before 9/11 and religious profiling and before Qutb and before the Crusades and before Saladin.

There has never been the same attempt to export culture and values in the Muslim world as there has been in the self-aggrandising Western world, and yet comments by muftis and clerics are given air time in order to chastize and comments by politicians and religious leaders in the West (much more powerful and capable of preemptive wars) are cheered.

'More capable'? Hamas and Hezbollah have been warring on Israel for years. Radicals have every capacity for violence.

And there have been efforts to export islamic culture: the Saudis and all their petrodollar da'wa.

Most people don't even take into consideration the fact that the language problem works both ways and Islamofascist does not translate all that well into Arabic.

Well, I'm sorry it doesn't, but we tend to be unappreciative of jihad, shaheed, dhimmitude, sharia, fatwa, murtad and a few others besides essentially all of Sura 9. Maybe we don't appreciate these things because we don't see islam through rose-coloured glasses; nor need we, and that is something that the 'other party' should try to understand. But we expect equality, and if that equality fails of theory as well as practice, then we begin to wonder, and we look more deeply. Sometimes, we do not like what we find. Sometimes it concerns us.

But that, too, is our right, and it is an unassailable one.

Best to you and your faith,

Geoff

Actually this is the right definition:

Someone who claims "there is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet".

Since gods have never been shown to exist, by Muhammad or anyone else, then a Muslim is one who FOLLOWS the cult of Muhammadism.

Gasp, no jihad in he Quran? are you sure?:p

So whats the word for fight?

Rule #1: Never talk about Fight Club.

How about if I say dedicate their lives. Does that still sound like war?

That would be a more acceptable interpretation; it doesn't quite fit with the life of Mohammed, but I for one would accept that version. The trick is getting it accepted in dar al-islam. ;)

Apart from other things in qur'an (which has a lot more verses than jihad related ones), the followings are most likely all verses regarding jihad :

Jihad Essentials:
Jihad instruction : 2:218, 3:145, 3:157, 3:200, 4:74, 4:76, 4:77, 4:84, 4:95, 4:104, 5:35, 8:60, 8:65, 9:111, 9:120, 49:15, 61:4, 61:11, 66:9
Value of jihad : 2:258, 40:28, 40:29, 40:30, 40:31, 40:32, 40:33, 40:34, 40:35, 40:38, 40:39, 40:40, 40:41, 40:42, 40:43, 40:44

Mujahidin (Jihad’ers)
Mujahidin value : 2:154, 3:142, 3:195, 9:20, 9:88, 9:111, 9:120
Jihad is better then sitting : 3:142, 4:95
Jihad and dealing with risks: 9:120
Working in the way of Allah: 2:218, 2:261, 2:262, 4:74, 4:94, 4:95, 4:100, 5:54, 8:60, 8:72, 8:74, 9:20, 9:41, 9:60, 22:58, 49:15, 57:10
Mujahidin quality / position: 4:95, 4:96, 57:10
Charity in the name of Allah: 2:195, 2:261, 4:95, 8:60, 9:111, 9:121, 61:11

Jihad Bases:

Instruction to be patient in the beginning of preaching : 2:109, 4:77, 6:106, 15:85, 45:14, 50:39, 73:10, 76:24
Permission of war: 2:190, 4:77, 22:39
Obligation of jihad : 2:190, 2:216, 2:244, 5:54, 8:6, 8:8, 8:39, 8:57, 9:5, 9:12, 9:14, 9:29, 9:36, 9:73, 9:123, 47:4, 47:22
Jihad values : 2:193, 2:251, 8:39, 9:13, 9:14, 9:15, 9:16, 47:4
Prohibition of leaving jihad: 8:15, 8:16, 9:24, 9:81
Jihad continues : 2:193, 8:39, 9:5, 9:12, 9:29, 9:36, 9:123
Reluctancy of jihad : 2:216, 4:77, 8:5, 8:6
Those who don’t go fight: 4:72, 9:38, 9:39, 9:120
When jihad become obligation: 47:20, 47:21

War and tactics: 30:3

Exceptions:
Not fight because of obstacles : 9:91, 9:92, 48:17
Ill and weak not go war: 4:95, 9:91
Poor not go war: 9:91, 9:92

Intentions :
To praise Allah’s ayats: 2:190, 2:193, 2:218, 2:244, 3:13, 4:75, 4:76, 4:95, 8:72, 8:74, 9:20, 9:38, 9:41, 47:4, 61:4, 61:11
Sincerity of jihad : 2:190, 47:4
Obedience to leader: 4:59, 24:48
Determination: 2:249, 2:250, 8:45, 33:22
Brave, not cowardice: 4:77, 4:104, 8:15, 8:45, 9:38
Leaders:
Leader obligation: 27:21
Encouraging to jihad: 2:249, 4:76, 4:84, 8:60, 8:65
Consult the experience: 27:32, 27:33

Battleship
Vehicles : 100:1, 100:2, 100:3, 100:4, 100:5
Preparation, physical and mental: 2:249, 4:84, 8:60, 8:65
Using arms: 8:60
Be prepared in any situation: 4:102
War funds: 9:92
Preparing troops: 2:195, 4:95
Charity in Allah’s way: 4:95, 5:12, 8:60, 8:72, 9:20, 9:41, 9:88, 9:111 , 9:121, 49:15, 61:11, 64:17
Asking help from musyrikin : 9:83, 60:1
Totality in battle: 4:71, 9:122
Be careful with betrayer: 4:71, 4:101, 4:102, 8:58, 63:4, 64:14
Digressing while dealing with war: 8:16
Intimidating enemy : 8:57, 8:60
Managing troops: 61:4

Negotiations and Agreements
Cease of agreements: 8:58, 9:2, 9:3

Ethics in war
Prayer for weak and pious : 2:249
Sanction Law of killing women, child, and elders: 2:190
Don’t ruin dead bodies: 2:190
Eye for an eye (retaliate not more than attacked): 16:126, 22:60, 42:40
Don’t burn enemies: 2:190
Attacking: 8:57, 47:4, 66:9

Syuhada (dead as mujahid)
Reward for mujahid: 2:154, 3:157, 3:169, 3:170, 3:171, 3:195, 4:69, 4:74, 9:111, 47:4, 47:5 : 22:58, 47:6

Ceasing War:
Not fight enemies becoming muslim: 2:193

War Result
Cause and requirement to win: 2:249, 2:250, 3:122, 3:125, 3:147, 3:200, 5:23, 8:45, 8:46, 8:65, 8:66, 22:40, 47:7

Jizyah (payment)
Source of jizyah: 9:29

War Captives
Slaving captives : 2:85, 47:4
Freeing captives: 47:4
Treatment to captives: 8:67

Goods from war
The rule of goods treatment: 8:1, 48:19, 48:20
Goos for Those who go war : 8:41 ; 8:69, 48:19, 48:20
Goods portion for those not go war: 48:15

Fai' (goods taken without war)
Stealing goods: 3:161
Distributing fai': 59:7

Agreement :
Peace agreement with musyrikin: 9:8
Meeting agreement with unbeliever: 9:4

Breaking agreement
Broken by muslim: 8:58
Betraying of musyrikin: 9:8, 9:10, 9:12, 9:13

Cease fire : 8:61, 9:4

Since gods have never been shown to exist, by Muhammad or anyone else, then a Muslim is one who FOLLOWS the cult of Muhammadism.

This earth shattering discovery must be shared with the entire world.

Have you informed the newspapers?:eek:

Apart from other things in qur'an (which has a lot more verses than jihad related ones), the followings are most likely all verses regarding jihad :

sez who?

Well, I have to take some things prima facie. I accept, prima facie that these scholars indeed have these opinions, that some individuals have left islam (some being, of course, well documented ones rather than a mere voice on the internet - Warraq, Darwish, Weah, Hirsi Ali, Menem, Rushdie, Shoebat, and others), that you are a moderate. I do not know for certain, but this is a leap of 'faith' I make. Criticize it if you will; if I can accept no one else's "idea of what it must be like, then I can accept nothing, finally. But if the Arabic translation is so critical to comprehension, then I do wonder at the fervent belief of so many non-Arabic muslims (85% of the total, including yourself, Sam) in a religion that grounds its literature in a language spoken by a people with a noted tendency for the distain of non-Arabs. The Christians gave up Latin and have done well accordingly. Why not the muslims Arabic?

So whose version should we cannonise, the Salafis or the Sufis?


? I do not do this. I am discussing islam itself, and the values it - or its very common impression - impresses on muslims. Many muslims do indeed accept what we call an extremist philosophy; my point is that that philosophy is more common than we expect, or else there would simply be no ummah, no dhimmitude, no sharia. It must be more common, or there could not be a political islam.


Most Muslims do not accept an extremist philosophy, however they do not make as good media.


Yes and no, Sam. You could argue that Muslims have been "targetted" by Westernism, but the fact of the matter is that the inherent inequities of islamic society (that being wherever a nation is "islamic") were there long, long before 9/11 and religious profiling and before Qutb and before the Crusades and before Saladin.

Inherent inequities of Islamic society? Vs the equities of Western society?

Do we see those equities in Western society? Or just changes in labeling that sweep those differences under the carpet?

'More capable'? Hamas and Hezbollah have been warring on Israel for years. Radicals have every capacity for violence.

How did Hamas and Hezbollah come to be?
Can you give me an example of an occupied country that has not fought back?

And there have been efforts to export islamic culture: the Saudis and all their petrodollar da'wa.


Which is a recent phenomenon and totally secondary to smooching with the US, with their so-called war on terror


Well, I'm sorry it doesn't, but we tend to be unappreciative of jihad, shaheed, dhimmitude, sharia, fatwa, murtad and a few others besides essentially all of Sura 9. Maybe we don't appreciate these things because we don't see islam through rose-coloured glasses; nor need we, and that is something that the 'other party' should try to understand. But we expect equality, and if that equality fails of theory as well as practice, then we begin to wonder, and we look more deeply. Sometimes, we do not like what we find. Sometimes it concerns us.


Of course it concerns you. All these are so convenient labels for what are normal sociological paradigms in any society. Status of immigrants, minorities, fighting for the land you live in, international legislation, religious rulings have never been absent in Western society either, but using Arabic words makes them oh-so Islamic and its sounds so much better to call it jihad than to call it protest against occupation or demonisation, it puts people in a unique and separate category and makes "them" vs "us" out of normal reactions. It sounds so much better to say dhimmitude when the Muslims do it and secularisation when the EU wants to ban the hijab. It makes preemptive strikes legit, occupation a just cause, it makes Israel in the middle east a reality, a "small" place in the middle of nomadic peoples with tribal laws who are judged for not being in step with the modern world that drove away (and was incapable of housing or tolerating) the very same people that these nomads/tribals were expected to give up their lands and houses too.

Yes, I can see how it would concern you.

Get with the Program LiveinFaith islam is Sams' way or the highway! :D

*Tooot toooot*

ALLLL ABOARD!

Get with the Program LiveinFaith islam is Sams' way or the highway! :D

*Tooot toooot*

ALLLL ABOARD!

He has a chance to defend his stance.

I would really like to know the basis for his declaration

the verse 2:218 for example,

"Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah's mercy..." (Quran, 2:218).

What is the connection to jihad?

My guess would be "strive in the way of allah".

My guess would be "strive in the way of allah".

Striving in the way of Allah is what all Muslims do. And one who leaves home must strive (exert effort, endeavor). If the meaning of jihad is taken as struggle, that makes sense, but to consider that it means "to fight" is ridiculous.

Sounds like alotta work.

This thread is aimed at non-Muslims on sciforums.

What according to you, is a Muslim?

A bamboozled fella! or
A Jewish/Christian with Arab twist.
...

This earth shattering discovery must be shared with the entire world.

Have you informed the newspapers?

So, you started this thread to insult people who respond to you?

sam, what is the problem here? I don't see any reason why one language cannot be successfully translated into another. Why do you?

"Things to consider when translating Arabic to English
Which way should Arabic be written?

The first thing to remember is that Arabic is written and reads from right to left, letters are always joined to each other and can't be split across lines. On standard translated Arabic documents, like word, this is no problem. But if your document has a detailed design there are a lot of considerations:

* Images will need to be repositioned.
* The page numbering will also need amending as translated Arabic documents don’t open the conventional European way. For example:
o Standard European page order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
o Arabic page order: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Does the text get longer or shorter?

When translating one language to another, text will typically expand or contract. English to Arabic translation typically expands by about 25%. And Arabic to English translation, as you would expect, contracts by about 25%. This obviously depends on the subject matter.

Getting something as seemingly insignificant right, can make a huge difference to the success of your Arabic Translation; as you can see if you have a 12 page document written in English, not only will it read the opposite way but you may need to add more pages.
Quality assured Arabic translators

Language is a living thing it develops and changes constantly. To ensure our translators keep abreast of the language, all our Arabic translators live in-county and translate into their mother tongue. Our database of translators ensures that we can guarantee you a fast turnaround, even on large documents with short deadlines.

* Only 20% of the translators who apply to work for us pass our quality checks.

That's how committed we are to ensuring that our standards are kept extremely high."

http://www.appliedlanguage.com/languages/arabic_translation.shtml

From your link:

To ensure that the Arabic translations we deliver to you are as accurate as possible, we follow very stringent guidelines

And the Quranic tafsir (interpretation) itself is not simple in Arabic; so with many words having a limited meaning in English or no counterpart, translations are frequently inadequate.

This about sums it up in my opinion:

http://www.nowscape.com/islam/Islam_Peace_Demonstration.htm

I wonder if any of these pics ever made the media?

http://www.tribalmessenger.org/slideshow-najaf/najaf2/template/images/Karachi%20September%2011,%202004.jpg

http://www.users.bigpond.com/Takver/soapbox/peace/peace_coburg15mar03_007.jpg

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/Bangladeshpeacemarch.jpg



Or any of these?
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

I wonder if any of these pics ever made the media?

http://www.tribalmessenger.org/slideshow-najaf/najaf2/template/images/Karachi%20September%2011,%202004.jpg

http://www.users.bigpond.com/Takver/soapbox/peace/peace_coburg15mar03_007.jpg

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/Bangladeshpeacemarch.jpg



Or any of these?
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm


another question comes to mind...what do you define media? and since colgate.edu is media as well...or is it not?

another question comes to mind...what do you define media? and since colgate.edu is media as well...or is it not?

So you have seen these images before?

So you have seen these images before?

not this in particular...but something like this, yes. anyways internet is the media...and thats what I wanted to say.

not this in particular...but something like this, yes. anyways internet is the media...and thats what I wanted to say.

Of course, but internet is selective media. You select what you want to see.

Of course, but internet is selective media. You select what you want to see.

I also select if I want to live...so far Im still alive.

So, you started this thread to insult people who respond to you?



Surely you understand mockery, insults and ridicule. They are the hallmark of contemporary democracy in the West.:)

Muslims in America & the world.

The good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRNciryImqg&mode=related&search=

The Bad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YUUB_VSROc

The Innocent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0G_DhNNqY

The injutice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_3VvZkwujI

Teaching the Hate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ6LLvbz95E&mode=related&search=

The devotion in song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dltai2RC6IM

All religions have their bad apples, all religions have commited crimes against humanity, let us not judge all muslims the same, as the radicals, for all religions have them, let us just judge the individual not their beliefs.

Godless

All religions have their bad apples...

why is it that apples get to be blamed for everything? first for religions...than for Adam's actions...

Why not grapes? or peaches?

Cracking up!! LMAO!! Well it's the old cliche you know!.

The apple wasn't bad, the act of eating it caused the problem.

The saying, I think, derives from "one bad apple will spoil the whole bushel."

So whose version should we cannonise, the Salafis or the Sufis?

The Sufi, of course, provided they meet the appropriate social requirements: religious freedom (including the acceptance of apostacy), equality of the sexes, tolerance of homosexuals (to the point they aren't condemned to death anyway). I imagine this is likely since they don't subscribe to a specific madhab? What islamic nations are presently guided by Sufi philosophy?

Most Muslims do not accept an extremist philosophy, however they do not make as good media.

Regrettably, their nations do, and it would appear from the attitudes of islamic immigrants to the West that many of the inhabitants of those nations do in fact accept the tenets of islamic supremacism that make up "extremism".

Inherent inequities of Islamic society? Vs the equities of Western society?

The inequities of Western society are not legally prescribed as such; they are failures of the system, rather than examples of its correct application.

How did Hamas and Hezbollah come to be?
Can you give me an example of an occupied country that has not fought back?

Can you give me an example of a nation other than Israel which, on being attacked by foreign powers bent on genocide, returned land won in a defensive war? Can you give me an example of another nation in the ME which is not islamic? Is one such nation too many? Why do some Moroccans agitate for "their" lands in Spain to be returned? What does their hanging a key over their hearths symbolize?

Which is a recent phenomenon and totally secondary to smooching with the US, with their so-called war on terror

Well, American interest in the ME is a recent phenomenon too. Which came first, gasoline and evil commercialism or Wahhabism? Qutb (if you want to blame him alone) hated the US and Western society on merit alone. Why are you seemingly defending the Saudis?

Of course it concerns you. All these are so convenient labels for what are normal sociological paradigms in any society. Status of immigrants, minorities, fighting for the land you live in, international legislation, religious rulings have never been absent in Western society either, but using Arabic words makes them oh-so Islamic and its sounds so much better to call it jihad than to call it protest against occupation or demonisation, it puts people in a unique and separate category and makes "them" vs "us" out of normal reactions. It sounds so much better to say dhimmitude when the Muslims do it and secularisation when the EU wants to ban the hijab.

"Them" and "us"...as the distinction is so clearly made in the islamic world? You seem to imply that I want to arrange such a mentality here: nothing could be further from the truth, unless perhaps you were to accuse me of the intent of genocide. Rather, I wish to avoid islam's ascendance in the Western world, when clearly every example of islamic majority in the eastern one necessarily incorporates sharia and actual segregation in the form of dhimmitude. That is the real, and best example of, "them" and "us" thinking.

And, of course, restrictions on the expression of non-islamic religions in the ummah as a whole do not amount to the same thing as banning all religious adornment in France, which in any event falls much, much later than the damnation of non-muslim religions in the Middle East. Who is acting, and who reacting? And in which European nation is it illegal to build mosques higher than nearby churches, or to build them at all? Where are apostates from Judaism, Christianity, secularism or any religion at all put to death for their conversions of conscience?

It makes preemptive strikes legit, occupation a just cause, it makes Israel in the middle east a reality, a "small" place in the middle of nomadic peoples with tribal laws who are judged for not being in step with the modern world that drove away (and was incapable of housing or tolerating) the very same people that these nomads/tribals were expected to give up their lands and houses too.

Does it do all those things indeed? And here I was merely arguing against the phenomenon of creeping islamicization outside dar-al-islam. But, pray thee tell, Samwise: why should Israel in the Middle East not then be a reality? "Judged for not being in step with the modern world"? If by that you mean how immigrating Jews were not going to accept dhimmitude, then my sympathy fails me, as I can see yours does not. Can you really extend such support in principle even under the very circumstances you state - this "failure of lockstep with modernity" - which is dhimmitude? Would it be wrong of me to say that you seem to be opining that dhimmitude was all right, on basis of your shared religion with the majority of Palestinians? This seems to me what you're implying. I also point out that Israel is, indeed, small: why such pains over such a small thorn? 'Palestine' was no nation at the time of Israel's creation. I do indeed sympathize with their plight, and I would vastly prefer a resolution - which, given the history of dealings between Palestinians and Jews from the beginning of last century onward, and the concept of 'dhimmitude', would thus have to be a two-state one.

"Expected to give up"? My understanding was that lands were sold and lands were bought: perhaps complaints should be directed to the Turks, since they did the dealings after all.

Yes, I can see how it would concern you.

Good. If you understand my actual concern - and not the purported perspective you give me - then we are getting somewhere.

Best,

Geoff

And the Quranic tafsir (interpretation) itself is not simple in Arabic; so with many words having a limited meaning in English or no counterpart, translations are frequently inadequate.

And then how is it, Sam, that so many islamic nations get those very same translations so wrong in the construction of sharia? Surely you don't mean to imply they can't understand Arabic? Yet they seem to obtain those harder versions of islam so easily.

Sam, I repeat: I think islam can be reformed, and I applaud reformers such as yourself for their efforts. But it is the height of folly to pretend that 1400 years of dhimmitude and sharia is based on mere misunderstanding and dozy grammaticists.

Striving in the way of Allah is what all Muslims do. And one who leaves home must strive (exert effort, endeavor). If the meaning of jihad is taken as struggle, that makes sense, but to consider that it means "to fight" is ridiculous.

How else does one "strive with their life"? The meaning is very obvious: and the same impression is also taken by many muslims themselves. Are they, too, misunderstanding the English translation? Can no one ever get islam right?

Best,

Geoff

Surely you understand mockery, insults and ridicule. They are the hallmark of contemporary democracy in the West.:)

Indeed. And they are preferable to: extortion, murder and arson.

Then again, some skins are thin enough that debate seems to be the same as mockery. This is regrettable, but still a fact.

The Sufi, of course, provided they meet the appropriate social requirements: religious freedom (including the acceptance of apostacy), equality of the sexes, tolerance of homosexuals (to the point they aren't condemned to death anyway). I imagine this is likely since they don't subscribe to a specific madhab? What islamic nations are presently guided by Sufi philosophy?


Good now all that remains is for you to convince the various sects that Islam no longer practices religious heterodoxy.:)

Especially the Salafis who probably don't even consider Sufis as Muslims.

Regrettably, their nations do, and it would appear from the attitudes of islamic immigrants to the West that many of the inhabitants of those nations do in fact accept the tenets of islamic supremacism that make up "extremism".

From all Islamic nations? Where are most of these immigrants coming from?


The inequities of Western society are not legally prescribed as such; they are failures of the system, rather than examples of its correct application.

Which are in themselves rather recent (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/16/abu_ghraib/)wouldn't you say? Do you hold all nations to a standard which 60 years ago were not met even by educated Westerners?



Can you give me an example of a nation other than Israel which, on being attacked by foreign powers bent on genocide, returned land won in a defensive war? Can you give me an example of another nation in the ME which is not islamic? Is one such nation too many? Why do some Moroccans agitate for "their" lands in Spain to be returned? What does their hanging a key over their hearths symbolize?

The Holocaust did not happen in Morocco or Palestine Geoff, yet it is the Palestinians who have paid most for it, after the Jews of course.


Well, American interest in the ME is a recent phenomenon too. Which came first, gasoline and evil commercialism or Wahhabism? Qutb (if you want to blame him alone) hated the US and Western society on merit alone. Why are you seemingly defending the Saudis?

American interest in the ME followed British interest which followed the dilineation of the ME countries by the British for economic interests. The ME is a creation of Western economic chess with the countries as pawns. The promised independence by the British was promptly set aside for oil interests, its been an ongoing drama (http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml) since 1927, not an overnight phenomenon.

Qutb too used to be a little known social reformer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb#Evolution_of_thought) before being tortured by one of many dictators supported by the regime.

Defending the Saudis? Come now, don't tell me you too resort to the "terrorist supporter" cry to circumvent Western responsibility. I'm not the one who's kissing (http://www.giveupblog.com/images/kiss-saudi.jpg)the Sauds or forming pacts (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/830/1/83) with them to ensure the hegemony of the dollar.

In 1971, notes Dr. Petrov, the Nixon administration severed the last remaining link between the dollar and gold. From that point, "the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil." The link between the dollar and oil, Petrov asserts, resulted from "an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only US Dollars for its oil."

F. William Engdahl, author of A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New World Order, describes the U.S.-Saudi pact in detail:

By their firm agreement with Saudi Arabia, as the largest OPEC oil producer,... Washington guaranteed that the world's largest commodity, oil, essential for every nation's economy, the basis of all transport and much of the industrial economy,... could only be purchased in world markets in dollars. The deal [was] fixed in June 1974 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, establishing the US-Saudi Arabian Joint Commission on Economic Cooperation. The US Treasury and the New York Federal Reserve would "allow" the Saudi central bank, SAMA, to buy US Treasury bonds with Saudi petrodollars. In 1975, OPEC officially agreed to sell its oil only for dollars. A secret US military agreement to arm Saudi Arabia was the quid pro quo.

Lets not lose sight of who's really supporting the Sauds here.

"Them" and "us"...as the distinction is so clearly made in the islamic world? You seem to imply that I want to arrange such a mentality here: nothing could be further from the truth, unless perhaps you were to accuse me of the intent of genocide. Rather, I wish to avoid islam's ascendance in the Western world, when clearly every example of islamic majority in the eastern one necessarily incorporates sharia and actual segregation in the form of dhimmitude. That is the real, and best example of, "them" and "us" thinking.


Islam's ascendence in the Western world? What a laugh! What paranoia is this that gives reality to something that has so little chance of ever occuring while completely ignoring the very real problems of Western ascendency in the ME? What think you of the realities of 80 years of war in Palestine? The twice-occupied Lebanon? The Iran-Iraq war? The support for genocidal regimes and dictatorships? The present war in Iraq? Do all these portend Islamic ascendency to you? Or a backlash from extremist groups?

Them vs Us:

Ziauddin Sardar writes in The New Statesman that Islamophobia is a widespread European phenomenon, so widespread that he asks whether Muslims will be the victims of the next pogroms.[6] He writes that each country has its extremes, citing Jean-Marie Le Pen in France; Pim Fortuyn, who was assassinated in Holland; and Philippe Van der Sande of Vlaams Blok, a Flemish nationalist party founded in Belgium. Filip Dewinter, the leader of the nationalist Flemish "Vlaams Belang" has said his party is "Islamophobic." He said: "Yes, we are afraid of Islam. The Islamisation of Europe is a frightening thing."[7]

The clash between European liberal culture and that culture's perception of Islam gives rise to allegations of Islamophobia in a number of areas. Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi's statement that Western civilization is "superior" to Islam was regarded as an example of Islamophobic.[8] In Germany, the state of Baden-Württemberg requires citizenship applicants from the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to answer questions about their attitudes on homosexuality and domestic violence. [10] [11]. Clothing has become a flashpoint. France, which has a strong secular tradition separating church and state, [12] was accused of Islamophobia when girls who wear muslim headscarfs were expelled from school under a new law. [13][9] In January 2006, the Dutch parliament voted in favour of a proposal to ban the burqa in public, which led to similar accusations.[10]

Sardar argues that Europe is "post-colonial, but ambivalent." Minorities are regarded as acceptable as an underclass of menial workers, but if they want to be upwardly mobile, as Sardar says young Muslims do, the prejudice rises to the surface. Wolfram Richter, professor of economics at Dortmund University, told Sardar: "I am afraid we have not learned from our history. My main fear is that what we did to Jews we may now do to Muslims. The next holocaust would be against Muslims."


The largest monitoring project to be commissioned into Islamophobia was undertaken following 9/11 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). Their May 2002 report "Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001", written Dr. Chris Allen and Jorgen S. Nielsen of the University of Birmingham, was based on 75 reports – 15 from each EU member nation.[11]

The report highlighted the regularity with which ordinary Muslims became targets for abusive and sometimes violent retaliatory attacks after 9/11. Despite localized differences within each member nation, the recurrence of attacks on recognizable and visible traits of Islam and Muslims was the report's most significant finding. The attacks took the form of verbal abuse; blaming all Muslims for terrorist attacks; women having their hijab torn from their heads; male and female Muslims being spat at; children being called "Usama"; and random assaults, which left victims hospitalized, and on one occasion, left a victim paralysed.[11]

The report also discussed the representation of Muslims in the media. Inherent negativity, stereotypical images, fantastical representations, and exaggerated caricatures were all identified. The report concluded that "a greater receptivity towards anti-Muslim and other xenophobic ideas and sentiments has, and may well continue, to become more tolerated."[11]

Recent immigration from Middle Eastern/North African countries has seen a rise in the Muslim population of Europe, particularly United Kingdom and France.There have been reports of discrimination against Muslims and Muslim communities in many European countries.



And, of course, restrictions on the expression of non-islamic religions in the ummah as a whole do not amount to the same thing as banning all religious adornment in France, which in any event falls much, much later than the damnation of non-muslim religions in the Middle East. Who is acting, and who reacting? And in which European nation is it illegal to build mosques higher than nearby churches, or to build them at all? Where are apostates from Judaism, Christianity, secularism or any religion at all put to death for their conversions of conscience?

Regardless, you hold a closed community to standards only recently achieved (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6283423.stm)by the West. The Holocaust, I repeat, did not happen in the Middle East.

Education can and does change things but to expect a culture to fast forward while simultaneously exploiting and demonising them, supporting or causing fundamentalist groups to be formed is incredulous beyond description.



Does it do all those things indeed? And here I was merely arguing against the phenomenon of creeping islamicization outside dar-al-islam. But, pray thee tell, Samwise: why should Israel in the Middle East not then be a reality? "Judged for not being in step with the modern world"? If by that you mean how immigrating Jews were not going to accept dhimmitude, then my sympathy fails me, as I can see yours does not. Can you really extend such support in principle even under the very circumstances you state - this "failure of lockstep with modernity" - which is dhimmitude? Would it be wrong of me to say that you seem to be opining that dhimmitude was all right, on basis of your shared religion with the majority of Palestinians? This seems to me what you're implying. I also point out that Israel is, indeed, small: why such pains over such a small thorn? 'Palestine' was no nation at the time of Israel's creation. I do indeed sympathize with their plight, and I would vastly prefer a resolution - which, given the history of dealings between Palestinians and Jews from the beginning of last century onward, and the concept of 'dhimmitude', would thus have to be a two-state one.


Very eloquent and completely ignoring the fact that the Jews were forced to leave due to the very real terror of anti-Semitism in the very advanced West.

As for the pains over a small thorn: that is exactly what Israelis are fighting for isn't it? A small thorn?



"Expected to give up"? My understanding was that lands were sold and lands were bought: perhaps complaints should be directed to the Turks, since they did the dealings after all.

I'm not even going there, but if you're interested:
http://www.cactus48.com/mandate.html
http://www.cactus48.com/partition.html
http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html
And the whole document:
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html



Good. If you understand my actual concern - and not the purported perspective you give me - then we are getting somewhere.


Hopefully, but I think your hypothetical concerns seem less certain than the very real circumstances under which people in the ME find themselves, and your desire to decrease fundamentalism should also consider how it is being supported and nourished by those who claim to want democracy in this region.

And then how is it, Sam, that so many islamic nations get those very same translations so wrong in the construction of sharia? Surely you don't mean to imply they can't understand Arabic? Yet they seem to obtain those harder versions of islam so easily.

Sam, I repeat: I think islam can be reformed, and I applaud reformers such as yourself for their efforts. But it is the height of folly to pretend that 1400 years of dhimmitude and sharia is based on mere misunderstanding and dozy grammaticists.

You seem to ignore the fact that the sharia is imposed by the government, consisting mainly of dictatorships and that the rules are as flexible as the government wants them to be. Which ME/Islamic government has been democratically elected? Which secular regime supported by the West?

How else does one "strive with their life"? The meaning is very obvious: and the same impression is also taken by many muslims themselves. Are they, too, misunderstanding the English translation? Can no one ever get islam right?

Best,

Geoff

Not all Muslims (http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/). And most (http://atwork.settlement.org/sys/atwork_library_detail.asp?passed_lang=EN&doc_id=1003110) do not consider striving with their lives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4325225.stm) to equal picking up weapons.

And the Quranic tafsir (interpretation) itself is not simple in Arabic; so with many words having a limited meaning in English or no counterpart, translations are frequently inadequate.

Sam, you're moving down a very slippery slope here, in that you're claiming Arabic cannot be accurately translated into English. Are you prepared to argue and back this line of thinking?

Sam, you're moving down a very slippery slope here, in that you're claiming Arabic cannot be accurately translated into English. Are you prepared to argue and back this line of thinking?

Don't take my word for it.

http://www.meforum.org/article/717

Even for native Arabic speakers, the Qur'an is a difficult document. Its archaic language and verse structure are difficult hurdles to cross. Translation only accentuates the complexity. The fact that translators and theologians have, over time, lost much of the Judeo-Christian cultural references rife in the Qur'an is just one more impediment.

Don't take my word for it.

http://www.meforum.org/article/717

So, are you now claiming that all Muslims completely understand archaic Arabic and the Judeo-Christian cultural references?

Again, sam, a very slippery slope.

From your link, sam:

"fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most Muslims study the text only in translation."

So, are you now claiming that all Muslims completely understand archaic Arabic and the Judeo-Christian cultural references?

Again, sam, a very slippery slope.

From your link, sam:

"fewer than 20 percent of Muslims speak Arabic, this means that most Muslims study the text only in translation."

Actually what I have always claimed is that most Muslims do NOT pick up the Quran as an adjunct to decision making. They merely follow the philosophy of the religion as learned from teachers and scholars. Its only the non-Muslims who pore over every word and try to connect dots that don't exist.

Actually what I have always claimed is that most Muslims do NOT pick up the Quran as an adjunct to decision making. They merely follow the philosophy of the religion as learned from teachers and scholars. Its only the non-Muslims who pore over every word and try to connect dots that don't exist.

But, less than 20 percent read the Quran in Arabic. How many of them actually understand it based on their knowledge of archaic Arabic and the Judeo-Christian cultural references? A much less percentage, no less.

So, a huge body of people learn the Quran from translations, as do non-Muslims. And yes, sam, they do use the Quran for decision making.

Slippin' and a sliddin' there, sam. Be careful.

But, less than 20 percent read the Quran in Arabic. How many of them actually understand it based on their knowledge of archaic Arabic and the Judeo-Christian cultural references? A much less percentage, no less.

So, a huge body of people learn the Quran from translations, as do non-Muslims. And yes, sam, they do use the Quran for decision making.

Slippin' and a sliddin' there, sam. Be careful.

Oh stop with the slippery slope already!

How many Muslims do you know? Ask them how many of them refer to translations while reading the Quran. You ascribe people with a religiosity they rarely possess, let alone the time and inclination for indepth religious study. The practice of the religion along with the general rules of behaviour suffices most.

The only people who can be said to be aware of what they are reading are those who speak Arabic and even for them, interpretations are based on what they have been taught by scholars and are regulated by access to information by the government. Its not as cut and dried as you perceive it to be.

In general most people follow rules based on their society and community, which is why any Islamic country can have divergent rules from the Saud's hijab to Saddam's freedom for women, without exciting comment. Basically education will improve the way people think without much difficulty. The biggest source of information about the Quran and its verses today, ironically, is the violent interpretations propagated by so-called Western media, from jihad (which was never associated with violence) to Islamofascism, which has been lapped up by fundamentalist groups to recruit young men. Those who really study the religion, like me or Ghost, would never fall for crap like that.

Muslim:
I would have thought a Muslim is someone who believes in the Middle Eastern version of a single all powerful and all knowing God-Head with a special emphasis on the character named Mohammed and the book called the Qur’an.

I know some Muslims who think the following:

- That the words of the Qur’an are pure Arabic.
- That the Qur’an is perfect.
- That Mohammed never committed a sin nor an evil deed.
- That the Bible and Torah are in some manner in error.
- That under the appropriate conditions Muslim men can take up to 4 wives.
- That it was fine for Mohammed to take many more than 4 wives because he was “special”.
- That many Jews are a “race” and that many are nefarious.
- That the Square rock in Saudi Arabia is special to the God-head.
- That homosexuality is wicked in the eyes of God.
- That their ego will survive death.
- That the God-head uses the carrot&stick approach giving some men Virgin Women in heaven.
- That the belief in polytheism is in error.
- That God punishes people in the “afterlife”.
- The reason why all Muslim societies are in shambles has nothing to do with Islam but that the “true” will of God isn’t being carried out properly and that if people would only do XXX then everything would be fine.
- That a “true” Islamic society would be superior to a Secular one.
- Last weekend a poll showed that 98% of Indonesian Muslims think it should be a crime for a Muslims to switch religions.


Pretty much an Arabic twist on the question “What is a Xian?” or so I suppose.

Michael


I know a few Atheist people that are “Islamic”. Which is nice :)
I wonder: What is “Islam”?

The Innocent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc0G_DhNNqY:bugeye:

Are they not innocent?

Are they not innocent?Can you imagine? Shocking really. Reminds me of that Jesus boot-camp Video. :p

They too were innocent! The quilty party here are the adults who indoctrinate children, when they don't understand the implication of religious devotion. They are told these "truths" and they don't question them, such as an older teen perhaps would. Children are the innocent, who suffer their parents delusional mental state of being zealots, or mildly get indoctrinated "by force" cause sure as hell they don't go willingly to a church mosk or sunday school. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-nj2tePvM

They too were innocent! The quilty party here are the adults who indoctrinate children, when they don't understand the implication of religious devotion. They are told these "truths" and they don't question them, such as an older teen perhaps would. Children are the innocent, who suffer their parents delusional mental state of being zealots, or mildly get indoctrinated "by force" cause sure as hell they don't go willingly to a church mosk or sunday school. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-nj2tePvM

Just curious, do atheists teach their children about all religions then?

Do they not "indoctrinate" them against religion?

Do they not "indoctrinate" them against religion?

I'd imagine some do.

I woulnd't know Sam, I'm not a parent! ;)

And BTW one can't "indoctrinate" against religion, this is a fallacy as there is no tradition in atheism as there is any religious sect. I suppose the parents of an atheist child would let the kid decide when he/she's old enough to understand religious doctrine. I didn't grow up in an atheistic family. And yet I "grew" out of my indoctrination of childhood.

I woulnd't know Sam, I'm not a parent! ;)

And BTW one can't "indoctrinate" against religion, this is a fallacy as there is no tradition in atheism as there is any religious sect. I suppose the parents of an atheist child would let the kid decide when he/she's old enough to understand religious doctrine. I didn't grow up in an atheistic family. And yet I "grew" out of my indoctrination of childhood.

Well then there wouldn't appear to be any indoctrination towards religion either, after all my family cannot be called religious by any stretch (degenerates is what we are known as, I believe:D )

Not all Muslims (http://www.muslimsforamerica.us/). And most (http://atwork.settlement.org/sys/atwork_library_detail.asp?passed_lang=EN&doc_id=1003110) do not consider striving with their lives (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4325225.stm) to equal picking up weapons.

Indeed; not all. But see Michael's post below - especially regarding the attitudes of Indonesian muslims to conversion.

Islam is all very well, individually or in abstract. Yet, majorities seem to choose political islam, always. Look at the posts of "Muslim" himself. There is that basic sympathy for a worldview where everything is always explained and good. I myself have been susceptible to such a view, in the past. And, inevitably, it calls for suppression of "the other", whether such other represents a threat or not. Do apostates really represent a threat to the state of Indonesia? Do they bomb things, blow things up, murder? No. So - while I have hopes for islam, I have no real expectation of their fruition. And there is little doubt that while some consider "striving with their lives" reinterpretable as something non-violent, it is very, very easy to get a message of war from it: which the history of islam will attest to.

Best of luck and all the best,

Geoff

Actually, what was the hijab reference in aid of?

Actually, what was the hijab reference in aid of?

An example of striving of course.

Here this (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/arabamericansandramadan/praying_in_public) may be more appropriate.:)


Though its not restricted to a particular (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/09/05/qc-hasidicprayeronplane.html) group.

Well, who is threatening their lives? Are they likely to be run over by a baggage truck?

Well, who is threatening their lives? Are they likely to be run over by a baggage truck?

Who said anyone was threatening their lives? Striving with their lives can be a daily experience that does not necessarily involve death.:rolleyes:

Anyway I don't see how promoting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4102389.stm) prejudice and discrimination towards a section of society is supposed to solve any problems. Never worked with the Jews, so why would it be any different with the Muslims? Puts my back up and I consider myself to be pretty open minded about stuff like that.

Well, Sam, the diction seems quite clear to me: as usual, I applaud your impression, but I am not the one needs to be convinced of its veracity.

I agree with not promoting prejudice, but what has it to do with this argument? Do all muslim women wear hijabs? What religious edict states they must? Doesn't it become rather optional?

Well, Sam, the diction seems quite clear to me: as usual, I applaud your impression, but I am not the one needs to be convinced of its veracity.

I agree with not promoting prejudice, but what has it to do with this argument? Do all muslim women wear hijabs? What religious edict states they must? Doesn't it become rather optional?

So there should be no problem with anyone dressing as they please then?

In which instance, and to what degree?

In which instance, and to what degree?

To the extent that people prefer, of course, short of streaking nude (except where that is considered normal), its not uncommon to cover yourself for various reasons, be it modesty or comfort or habit or profession or safety.

http://www.classicgoggles.com/goggles/graphics/00000001/polar%20face%20mask.jpg

http://perso.orange.fr/mike.werner/BlogPics/BMW-Enduro-Helmet.jpg

Or an unsteady nose job

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38785000/jpg/_38785399_jackson_mask_150ap.jpg

Just curious, do atheists teach their children about all religions then?

Do they not "indoctrinate" them against religion?We're all born Atheist :) I suppose it depends on the country and perhaps where in the country. I don't have children, but if it were the case and my child came running home crying that she/he/we were going to Hell because we didn't believe xxx ... yeah, I'd tell her that is not true and not to worry about it and that some people believe that but it's simply not something to worry about at all.

Other than that, perhaps the only other contact may be just visiting various churches and temples for the architecture and period romance - hopefully it wouldn't come up?


Michael

We're all born Atheist :)
Michael

Not according to Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitrah) ;)

I'll go with safety.

The rest...well, it invites misuse, as recently.

Oh: I was born atheist. Islam seems a bit confused on that point. ;)

Only one way to find out....Do feral children believe in god?

They only believe in Myuu.

They only believe in Myuu.

Then we now know the one true religion.

Of course, idolater. Fall before Myuu or perish.

Or not; whichever Myuu is into.

Not according to Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitrah) ;)I'd agree with the initial assumption - but it seems, in antiquity, that people actually tended towards polytheism. Most people around the World were polytheists - up until the spread of monotheism via missionaries.


Michael

Fitrah kind of seems like a dumb concept.

No, I take that back.

Not "kind of".

Fitrah kind of seems like a dumb concept.

No, I take that back.

Not "kind of".

Ha! Thats your Catholic strain speaking. :p


In Islamic context, Fitrah (فطرة) is humanity's innate disposition towards virtue and the ability to differentiate between right and wrong

Ha! Thats your Catholic strain speaking. :p

Bah! Go analyse some poo.

I'd agree with the initial assumption - but it seems, in antiquity, that people actually tended towards polytheism. Most people around the World were polytheists - up until the spread of monotheism via missionaries.


Michael

Still haven't realised the full potential of our innate abilities then?:p

Still haven't realised the full potential of our innate abilities then?:p:confused:
I don't get it?

But I haven't eaten in 14 hours - it's been a long day.

:confused:
I don't get it?

But I haven't eaten in 14 hours - it's been a long day.

Fitrah deals with innate disposition. As you can see the disposition towards virtue and differentiation between right and wrong is a work in progress too.


In Islamic context, Fitrah (فطرة) is humanity's innate disposition towards virtue and the ability to differentiate between right and wrong

You better eat something quick!

But ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are only concepts - they exist for the individual and usually are formed from the society.

Some people will say homosexuality is inherently ‘wrong’.
Some people will say if a men has 4 wives that he is wicked.

These definitions change with time. Homosexuality was illegal, now it is not, polygamy was and is illegal. This says that the definition of what was wrong has changed in the case of homosexuality – for the society.

Another good example of why a ‘set’ of stagnant rules is bad for society. It is much better to let social mores evolve thereby allowing the society to progress. If one were to say this document here has all there is to know and need to know about life and it says XXXXX therefore XXXX is the best – that society will stagnate and rot. Or so History has shown us again and again.

Do you agree?
Michael

But ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are only concepts - they exist for the individual and usually are formed from the society.

Some people will say homosexuality is inherently ‘wrong’.
Some people will say if a men has 4 wives that he is wicked.

These definitions change with time. Homosexuality was illegal, now it is not, polygamy was and is illegal. This says that the definition of what was wrong has changed in the case of homosexuality – for the society.

Another good example of why a ‘set’ of stagnant rules is bad for society. It is much better to let social mores evolve thereby allowing the society to progress. If one were to say this document here has all there is to know and need to know about life and it says XXXXX therefore XXXX is the best – that society will stagnate and rot. Or so History has shown us again and again.

Do you agree?
Michael

Right and wrong are concepts which require differentiation. The ability to differentiate is innate since man's innate nature (as that of a child) is towards virtue.

So are we now better able to differentiate than before?

Hey Sam, are right and wrong delineated in the Koran?

Is evangelism by the sword right, according to the Koran?

IceAgeCivilizations,

Could you go over my post here and see what you think?
Fundamental versus Moderate Christianity (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1274955#post1274955)

Thanks
Michael

Right and wrong are concepts which require differentiation. The ability to differentiate is innate since man's innate nature (as that of a child) is towards virtue.

So are we now better able to differentiate than before?Is right and wrong always black and right? Can there not be something that is right for me and wrong for you (say eating crackling pork? :) or denying the existence of God(s) or visa versa, say ....???

Once someone comes along and says – for now and forever, eating port = SIN and denying god = SIN then there maybe a short period (couple hundred years) of prosperity as all ducks are put in a line - then there will be stagnation. Sure, some basic right should be held to, no matter what, I think the Declaration of Independence put them nicely. However, there must be allowances made for society to change, prosper and thus progress.

Take a look at what happened to Xian Europe as they delineated what was wrong and what was right. For a time, perhaps, it was OK - as everyone came to agree to certain social morals and these were good for society: No, one should not steal from one’s neighbor, no, one should not kill out of spite, etc… however, the more these rules intrude into ones personal lives the more stagnate a society becomes: Do not engages in homosexual behavior (even the thoughts are wicked), do not eat pork, do not drink alcohol, do not blaspheme God, do not even think it….

Another interesting example, perhaps, is the stagnation that occurred towards the end of the Tokugawa Shogunate or the People Republic in China. Sure, maybe for awhile it works – but then it stops working.


Or so it would seem to me?

Michael

I also think there is a tie in with land ownership but that another story ...
:)

Sam:
There are people who believe that all Muslims are inherently evil. Doesn't this, in itself disprove Fitrah? Or is there some exception to the rule?

Sam:
There are people who believe that all Muslims are inherently evil. Doesn't this, in itself disprove Fitrah? Or is there some exception to the rule?

Fitrah means that all people are born innocent and have the capacity for good. Ignorance and fear is what leads men towards wrongdoing. The only way to improve the human state is to acquire knowledge, about people and about the world.

"Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Him."

"Anyone who ads to or deletes from this Book shall be anathema."

Porkers eat anything, so not smart to eat them.

Is that a good start?

Eh?