Hall of FameHall of Fame  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp  chatChat
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
Current Events
 Whyislam.org Forums : General : Current Events
Message Icon Topic: Praying for the victims of today's attack(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 2
Author Message
Magister
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 5126
Forum Rating: 0
bullet Posted: 08 November 2017 at 8:30pm
The assassination of Caliph Ali was hardly terrorism - it was an assassination.

Funny how the word terror gets used so liberally when it comes to Muslims. Did you always consider Harvey Oswald to be a "terrorist"? Of course not - he was an assassin. That's a different category. A terrorist, based on modern definitions, is someone who partakes in acts that terrorize the public into pressuring their governments into making decisions in line with the terrorist group's wishes. Ali was assassinated because the Kharaweej saw him as an apostate to the true religion. They were fanatical cult-like people - very much like ISIS is today. In fact, you should look into the Islamic concept of the Kharaweej and see for yourself why mainstream Islam is not the threat.

The whole reason why Islam even is in the spotlight in the West is not because of "fundamentalism". Just before 9/11, we were still obsessed with Doomsday Christian cults. Muslims were just bullied minorities that got confused for Hindus, Sikhs and other people.

Even in the wake of 9/11, had so many terrorist attacks not occurred, I'm sure the world would have long moved on from those 19 hijackers and viewed Islam the same as it always did - as some exotic, foreign, quasi-Jewish religion. And I am the first to admit that the Muslims have contributed to this horrible image the world has of our religion, and we're going about fixing it the wrong way.

I'm sure one of the reasons Why Islam exists is to inform non-Muslims (such as yourself) what Islam teaches and where it stands with regards to current events, i.e. terrorism.

Fundamentalism in and of itself is not an issue. It's a problem you might have as an atheist when it comes to any religion. But it's really not that big of a problem, especially if you follow a utilitarianistic ethical approach.

The religion itself is not the problem. The religion when practiced to its full extent is not a modern, secular system - and no one said it was. However, the system is not a problem for the West, onlookers, or anyone else. The system is only a problem for those who break the law within the sphere of influence of that system. And just as the West for the most part ignored judging the Muslim world the way it does now, it would've continued to do so - I'm sure - had terrorism not been a big deal.

Now everyone's an armchair scholar on Islam. There are still adults out there who believe the Quran is violent. I'm not even talking about wild hillbillies that marry their sisters, I'm talking about seemingly intelligent, educated people, perpetuating the lies for the hillbillies (likely intentionally). I'm sure before you arrived here, you must've believed the Quran told Muslims to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately, to force Islam on others, or whatever other nonsense you hear on the Interwebs these days.

Islam is old-fashioned. Modernists don't like that. That's fine. Agree to disagree. Muslims shouldn't demand Westerners change their ways, and Westerners shouldn't demand Muslim nations to change their ways. If Muslims want to move to Western lands, then Muslims should assimilate to their host cultures. If assimilation in a particular country means sinning against God, then it's on the Muslim to migrate or to commit the sin.

If there are Muslims in America, Canada, England, Germany, Italy, anywhere in the West, they should be able to practice their own religion as they see fit and as long as it doesn't break any laws. If they're law-abiding while following their religion, then why are you so against their religion? After all, Islam commands us to follow the laws of the lands, so the only way Muslims could live in the non-Muslim world is if they are lawful citizens of that land.

If your beef is with honor killings, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, acid attacks, etc. - then grab a ticket and join the line - because Islam has a beef with these things too.


Edited by Magister - 08 November 2017 at 8:36pm
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Non Believer  
Undergraduate
Undergraduate

Religion: Atheist(Secular Humanist)
Posts: 1033
Forum Rating: 0
bullet Posted: 10 November 2017 at 11:13pm
Sure, the word "terrorist" has a vague meaning. In my view, there are many characteristics that need to add up. The target is not a big factor; I'm sure if a jihadist assassinated a Western leader it would be label "terrorism". The nature of the organisation is a factor, though this is complicated in today's world where people can associate in an ideology while never having met face-to-face.

You have basically admitted that the Kharaweej were Violent Islamic Extremists, validating my view that this form of extremism is by no means a new phenomenon. I don't know why you peg the current wave as post 9/11. At the very least, you have to admit that the West's attention was drawn to Islamism by the Iranian Revolution and the acts of terror in 1979.

As I've said many times, I'm not particularly concerned about these isolated acts of violence. What interests me are the challenges of integrating Muslim immigrants into Canadian society.

In 1985, Sikh terrorists based in Vancouver planted a bomb on an Air India Jet. At that time, I wondered if we were importing the conflict from India. When we bring immigrants out of a war situation, what do we have to do to ensure that they don't bring the war with them? To do this requires that we understand where they are coming from.

I don't know why you keep attributing a motivation to me that is simply wrong.

I did not believe that Islam was a violent religion. I had been told that Islam was "just like Christianity and Judaism" but a little bit different. I had been told that the Muslims even considered Jesus to be a prophet. I knew nothing about the life of Muhammad and assumed that he was viewed like other of the prophets of the Bible. Jews don't consider their prophets to be exemplars (right, Corinna?)

All of this turns out to be quite distorted, and, I believe, deliberately distorted to deceive the West. The Jesus in Islam is nothing like the Jesus in the Bible; it is disingenuous of Muslims to say that they believe in the same prophet when their belief in the prophet is so profoundly different. Muhammad is like no other prophet; he is exalted in a way that no Jew would ever exalt a prophet, so even the word "prophet" has a different meaning.

The life of Muhammad is nothing like the life of any other prophet. Why do you keep insisting that there is no violence in early Islam? It is full of violence. But what makes Islam different is that by venerating their prophet, they legitimise violence in ways that Judaism does not.

No, I have come to the conclusion that Islam is a religion of violence based on what I've learned since coming here. It's disturbing that Muslims are not able to discuss openly that you cannot believe simultaneously that Muhammad was an exemplar and that Islam is a religion of peace. This is the issue that I have with Islamic fundamentalism. Muhammad was not a good example, politically, for the 21st Century. Period. His ideology is appropriate in a tribal world where you need strong tribal leadership and the ability to defend yourself from outside tribes. That was the situation in the 7th Century and that is not the situation today. Dividing ourselves into tribes in opposition to each other is not the direction we should be going. That really should be the end of this conversation. Once over this hurdle, it would be possible to redirect Islamism away from the Muhammadan models which are problematic today.

I think there are many Muslims, and Christians too, who would disagree with your statements about the relationship between man-made laws and "God-given" laws. I think that these people would argue that no man-made law can override "God's laws" and I know that I couldn't argue with them.

Now, looking back at my earlier posts in this thread, have my questions been answered? No, I don't think anyone has tried. How do you expect me to change my views of Islamic violence and extremism if you won't address my issues?
Men do you harm either because they fear you or because they hate you.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Magister
Mureed
Mureed
Avatar
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 5126
Forum Rating: 0
bullet Posted: 05 December 2017 at 6:40pm
You just seem like a very closed-minded, bigoted individual. You don't even have a legitimate reason for disliking Islam because everything you seemed to have had a problem with was addressed before. You seem to only dislike Islam because it is Islam, and because you dislike certain Muslims.

Shame.
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 2
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed by members of the Whyislam Forum do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Whyislam Team, or any of its subsidiaries, or parent organizations.