Apostate of Islam? It comes back to that whole “do I really give a flying fuck if these intolerant pricks don’t consider me to be Muslim” thing. Anyone who believes in Allah can call themselves Muslim. You identify yourself as (I’m assuming) a Christian, therefore that is what you must be.
I identify myself as a Hindu, therefore I must be… wait for it… Hindu.
Re: Al-Ghazali, I don’t know where you sourced that, but this is what I found about Sufism.
The Sufic view classifies “Jihad” into two; the “Greater Jihad” and the “Lesser Jihad”. It is Muhammad who put the emphasis on the “greater Jihad” by saying that “Holy is the warrior who wrestles (“struggles”) with himself”. In this sense external wars and strife are seen but a satanic counterfeit of the true “jihad” which can only be fought and won within; no other Salvation existing can save man without the efforts of the man himself being added to the work involved of self-refinement. In this sense it is the western view of the Holy Grail which comes closest to the Sufic ideal; for to the Sufis Perfection is the Grail; and the Holy Grail is for those who after they become perfect by giving all they have to the poor then go on to become “Abdal” or “changed ones” like Enoch who was “taken” by God because he “walked with God”. (Genesis:5:24) here the “Holy Ones” gain the surname “Hadrat” or “The Presence”.
The word jihad s so strongly associated with violence that it is astounding.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
This is a bizarre statement coming from you. Are you saying that you believe the “moderates” are, in fact, the minority?
No it’s me stating that I can see a difference between nut-job terrorists and normal people.
You know how I always tell you to stop openly bashing Islam? That still stands. But if you want to bash the extremists, then by all means go for it. Just make sure you make it clear who you are talking about.[/quote]
why not bash islam? Have you read the quran or the ahadith. Pretty violent and oppressive stuff. Somewhat similar to the old testament. Infact, the quran and ahadith match the “tone” of the old testament more than the new testament. The problem (as I see it) is that Islam has no new testament. I have not found writings that masses of muslims study that are not violent and oppressive.
It is also very hard to view muhammed as anything but an opportunist. God says one thing to him. Circumstances change for Muhammed, God says another thing to fit Muhammed’s fancy.
In his defense, we know far more about Muhammed than any other prophet. Nobody’s life or actual prophecies were as well documented in real time. Say what you will about the lack of organization of the quran, it is a real time snap shot of what this guy was actually saying and doing once you are able to sort it. He was living in a very violent time and many of the things he was doing were not as shocking as they are now. The readings we have on other religions were written well after the fact and often by people that had loose associations if any with subject of the writings. My guess is that if other saints, prophets, whatever were as well documented, we would see many things about them we did not like or agree with.
Again, the problem is that there seems to be no frank admissions by the muslim community. Only denial and opoligists. They have not addressed the violent nature of the text internally or externally. Islam may very well be a religion of peace to some, but the overwhelming evidence says otherwise.
Apostate of Islam? It comes back to that whole “do I really give a flying fuck if these intolerant pricks don’t consider me to be Muslim” thing. Anyone who believes in Allah can call themselves Muslim. You identify yourself as (I’m assuming) a Christian, therefore that is what you must be.
I identify myself as a Hindu, therefore I must be… wait for it… Hindu.
Re: Al-Ghazali, I don’t know where you sourced that, but this is what I found about Sufism.
The Sufic view classifies “Jihad” into two; the “Greater Jihad” and the “Lesser Jihad”. It is Muhammad who put the emphasis on the “greater Jihad” by saying that “Holy is the warrior who wrestles (“struggles”) with himself”. In this sense external wars and strife are seen but a satanic counterfeit of the true “jihad” which can only be fought and won within; no other Salvation existing can save man without the efforts of the man himself being added to the work involved of self-refinement. In this sense it is the western view of the Holy Grail which comes closest to the Sufic ideal; for to the Sufis Perfection is the Grail; and the Holy Grail is for those who after they become perfect by giving all they have to the poor then go on to become “Abdal” or “changed ones” like Enoch who was “taken” by God because he “walked with God”. (Genesis:5:24) here the “Holy Ones” gain the surname “Hadrat” or “The Presence”.
The word jihad s so strongly associated with violence that it is astounding.[/quote]
If you want the most current definition of jihad by muhammed, read surah 9. You can find it here if you don’t have a quran : http://www.oneummah.net/
It not astounding that jihad is associated with violence if you take the time to read the text.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Read about General Kasim, Mahmud of Ghazni, Mahmud of Ghor, Mohammad of Khurarezm, the Khilji Dynasty, the Tuglak Dynasty, Timur, Babar, and Humuyum.
They ravaged and devistated India. It was a reign of terror which lasted for centuries.
The destruction of the Bamayan Buddhas by the Taliban pales in comparison with the destruction of Hindu religious sites by the Muslims when they ruled India. The number of Hindus they killed is estimated in the 10s of millions. There are a number of Hindu authors who’ve written about this. I’ll see if I can dig up some. [/quote]
Many religions were wiped out completely during Muhammed’s hay day. I can’t recall specific ones. One that I do recall that may have survived in small number where the astozorians (sp). Don’t ask me why i recall that one.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
It is also very hard to view muhammed as anything but an opportunist. God says one thing to him. Circumstances change for Muhammed, God says another thing to fit Muhammed’s fancy.
[/quote]
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The problem with your analysis is all of them are perpetuating the religion. The religion has a tradition of enforcing orthodoxy through murdering innocent people.
All the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence endorse murdering innocent people for no other religion than having different religious beliefs.
Thirty six percent of UK muslims say that apostates should be murdered. That is over one third of the muslims who have chosen to live in a liberal western country. I doubt it would get any better in their own countries where it is the law.
Even in Afghanistan apostacy is punishable by death. You would think that they would have had enough of that type of violence under the Taliban. It really puts the claim about a hardcore minority into question
This is called takfir - declaring someone an apostate of Islam so that they can be subject to the death penalty. Al Qaeda wants to do this to the house of Saud. Iran is re-instating the death penalty for apostates. [/quote]
I do not think the true word of God needs a threat of death to make it the word of God. In fact I believe the threat of death disproves islam as the true word of god.
Jesus never advocated killing as a way to do gods will. So the question I have then is why would mohammad even mention Jesus or use some of his teachings? The answer I come up with is Jesus was very popular so mohammad wanted to use him for his own selfish ends. Mohammad associates himself with Jesus because he wants to pick up some of that shine for himself, but Jesus never would have associated himself with someone like mohammad.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
This is a bizarre statement coming from you. Are you saying that you believe the “moderates” are, in fact, the minority?
No it’s me stating that I can see a difference between nut-job terrorists and normal people.
You know how I always tell you to stop openly bashing Islam? That still stands. But if you want to bash the extremists, then by all means go for it. Just make sure you make it clear who you are talking about.[/quote]
You are missing one very important point. The life of mohammad. How can any decent person hold such a person up as a role model of the perfect man. Your so called normal people are perpetuating something evil, surely you must see that. They may not be bad people themselves but they are worshipping someone who was. Which means they are living a life of contradiction.
The guy you talked about formed another religion. That’s what apostasy is. Apparently, he was unhappy enough with Islam that he felt the need to do so.
So do all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, comprising 85% of Muslims worldwide. The 'Umdat al-Salik, after spending a paragraph defining Greater Jihad in the same way the Sufis do goes on to spend pages upon pages describing Lesser Jihad.
Precisely. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
dhickey wrote:
It is also very hard to view muhammed as anything but an opportunist. God says one thing to him. Circumstances change for Muhammed, God says another thing to fit Muhammed’s fancy.
Great insight.[/quote]
Agreed. It’s astounding how many times Allah came to the rescue of Mohammed to bail him out of tight situations with further revelations.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Perhaps you should stop carrying water for the religion that was responsible for millions of Hindu deaths.
The blame lies on both sides.
And unlike you I don’t blindly defend my own “religion” but that’s because Hinduism accepts all religions.
Oh well.[/quote]
This is something about you Hindus that I am cool with. You are honest about your religion. I remember years ago when India and Pakistan were about go to war, I was talking to an Indian friend about it. I said to him this is worrying because I know the muslims are some hotheads but the Hindus have some hotheads too. He nodded his head and said OOOH YEAHHH.
If muslims would be more honest about their religions content I would have a different attitude to all the criticism of it.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
pat wrote:
The man has a point…If they weren’t so fucking violent…
And who do you mean by “they”? People like the jackasses who flew into the World Trade Center, or people who make the effort to integrate into a foreign culture?
All I ask is that you make that distinction. They AREN’T the same, no matter how much PRCal obviously wishes they were.[/quote]
They may not be the same in action, but they are all reading from the same script.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
This is something about you Hindus that I am cool with. You are honest about your religion. I remember years ago when India and Pakistan were about go to war, I was talking to an Indian friend about it. I said to him this is worrying because I know the muslims are some hotheads but the Hindus have some hotheads too. He nodded his head and said OOOH YEAHHH.
If muslims would be more honest about their religions content I would have a different attitude to all the criticism of it. [/quote]
Why thank you!
But if I may, I’ll point out that some Muslims do admit the shortcomings of Islam. It’s just a pity that there aren’t more of them.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
They may not be the same in action, but they are all reading from the same script.[/quote]
I think it’s a matter of interpretation, some take it literally, others take it metaphorically. Don’t some Christians do the same thing? Unfortunately, the wording is such that such violent acts can be perpetrated and associated with Islam.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu wrote:
This is something about you Hindus that I am cool with. You are honest about your religion. I remember years ago when India and Pakistan were about go to war, I was talking to an Indian friend about it. I said to him this is worrying because I know the muslims are some hotheads but the Hindus have some hotheads too. He nodded his head and said OOOH YEAHHH.
If muslims would be more honest about their religions content I would have a different attitude to all the criticism of it.
Why thank you!
But if I may, I’ll point out that some Muslims do admit the shortcomings of Islam. It’s just a pity that there aren’t more of them.[/quote]
Whatever the shortcomings of hinduism are, they pale in comparison to Islam. Did Hindus march out of India and wipe out 60-70 million Muslims over a 1000 year period? If not, then we should stop putting them on anywhere near the same level as the Religion of Peace ™.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Given how widespread Islam is, I guess I’ll make that distinction. You don’t have any Muslim friends?[/quote]
I didn’t say there isn’t one. I said I don’t have time for distinguishing them…Besides, did not the hijackers of 9/11 come in the the U.S. assimilate and appear moderate? We cannot know someones heart just because they act politely. Unfortunately for those who are “moderate”, i.e. normal people, hopefully, there terroristic counter parts act the same way as a tactic. So who is to know?
The real problem here is that muslims aren’t standing up and being “outraged” at the behaviour of those who pervert their religion and smear its name in dog shit across the world. They are to fucking worry about being “outraged” at effigies of their profit and dog who walk any where near them to trouble themselves with murderous blood thirsty tyrants. So how are we to distinguish, really?
That being said, I will do no evil to them nor will I turn down friendships if offered.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
He also hints at some grand conspiracy whereby Muslims of all races and colors are conspiring to take over the world.
You mean they’re not? Aw man, I had crackers and dip all ready for the world takeover. Granted, they’ll be a bit stale now, but still.[/quote]
Muslims of all races are conspiring this way. How could this be denied?
Not all Muslims are. Most Muslims are just trying to live their lives but there certainly is a global Islamic movement doing this shit and using the Koran as justification. Do you deny this?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
The answer I come up with is Jesus was very popular so mohammad wanted to use him for his own selfish ends. Mohammad associates himself with Jesus because he wants to pick up some of that shine for himself, but Jesus never would have associated himself with someone like mohammad. [/quote]
Mohammad thought he was the last prophet. So somewhere along the line of prophets were Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, ect. He thought he was continuing Jesus’ teaching and the reason they say it does not resemble Mohammad’s teaching is because some unknown person, in an unknown time for unknown motives changed Jesus’ teachings.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
He also hints at some grand conspiracy whereby Muslims of all races and colors are conspiring to take over the world.
You mean they’re not? Aw man, I had crackers and dip all ready for the world takeover. Granted, they’ll be a bit stale now, but still.
Muslims of all races are conspiring this way. How could this be denied?
Not all Muslims are. Most Muslims are just trying to live their lives but there certainly is a global Islamic movement doing this shit and using the Koran as justification. Do you deny this?[/quote]
“Furthermore, because we in the West are reluctant to depart from our carpe diem ethos, we are unwilling to think in terms of the very long run that comes quite naturally to those people who are fanatically committed to holding on tho their traditions, and who are intent on spreading them to the rest of mankind. While we think little further than our retirement, they think in terms of centuries…while we raise our children to have contempt for the very traditions that created the Western cultures of reason, they are raising their children to be willing to die to keep their traditions alive. In the long run, whose traditions will triumph? In the long run, whose children will inherit the earth?”
–Lee Harris, The Suicide of Reason
The religion is irrelevant; it is the fanatic who is the enemy of reason. Islam is not the issue; Islamofascism is the threat.
We are committing suicide in the West by supposing that the fanatic has a “reasonable” posiiton, and can be negotiated with, or that the fanatic must be converted to our way of life. The West, everywhere, is committing suicide in its own form fanatical devotion to its rational ideals.