Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But really your posts should be directed towards the current events and political forums. This is a discussion forum about the religion of Islam, not the politically motivated groups within the Muslim world.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,798,262 times
Reputation: 1932
I want everyone to observe. This is a comment from a Malay Muslim who doesn't want to help rescue Rohingya Muslims.
And yes, how dare you of talking about citizenship and wanting to be part of the country when some (not all) of you are robbing our elders, sexually staring our girls in buses and trains, opening illegal stores and shops, establishing gangs and groups to harass each other, prompting fear among our residents. How dare you!
As a Muslim I have been consistently told to question all things and not believe any living leader without verifying what he says. We are to verify the truth of what every living person says on our own and through independent sources.
All of us Muslims and non-Muslims have the obligation to verify the truth of all things and not be blind followers of any living person.
That is something I can respect about Islam, as opposed to say Catholicism. The acceptance of the need to rationally question and then verify the tenants of the religion I find less...insulting for lack of a better term than the command to accept an individual man's directive or interpenetration of the "word of God". In Catholicism questioning the religious hierarchy is at the least strongly discouraged, if not outright labeled as a sin if not blasphemous. The demand is to accept on faith, not to require explanations.
Like anything else, that is both a positive and a negative. Having a top level "manager" in the form of the Pope means every nutjob that comes along can't claim the religion as his own, and pervert it to his own selfish purposes. The pope has that authority to say, no, you're wrong. And as the guy on the switch boards to God, his word is considered the word of God. But..again, pluses and minuses. The beliefs of 1.25 billion people are in the hands of ONE man. If this man becomes corrupted or perhaps insane, there is no one to pull the plug on him. That leaves the world far too close to the return of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.
From what I understand, the interpenetration of Islam is in the hands of every person that practices it, and subject to the teachings of anyone that claims religious power and authority. And everyone's interpenetration is equally valid (or invalid depending on your point of view). Which means "radical Islam" has as much claim to be following Islam as does moderate Islam. There is no authority to tell them that they are wrong. If I am incorrect, please tell me, who does have the authority to tell them they are wrong.
My fear of ANY religion is that it largely subjugates rational, independent thought, observation and simple "common sense", with an acceptance of the unknowable, unproven and...illogical (sorry, no insult intended, I don't have a better way to put it without more time). And that it does so via a call for faith, for unquestioning belief in the tenants of the religion. Most of the time that is harmless, and actually can be a positive force. However, once you have set the hook on "faith", you largely have the power to have practitioners commit any act, no matter how vile, in it's name. That can be the Inquisition, mass suicides (Jonestown), celebrity murder (Manson), or beheading innocent people and flying airplanes into buildings. It seems like the lack of a central authority leaves Islam more susceptible to abuse than many other religions. I say that not as an attack on the religion.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 06-04-2015 at 10:03 PM..
That is something I can respect about Islam, as opposed to say Catholicism. The acceptance of the need to rationally question and then verify the tenants of the religion I find less...insulting for lack of a better term than the command to accept an individual man's directive or interpenetration of the "word of God". In Catholicism questioning the religious hierarchy is at the least strongly discouraged, if not outright labeled as a sin if not blasphemous. The demand is to accept on faith, not to require explanations.
Like anything else, that is both a positive and a negative. Having a top level "manager" in the form of the Pole means every nutjob that comes along can't claim the religion as his own, and pervert it to his own selfish purposes. The pope has that authority to say, no, you're wrong. And as the guy on the switch boards to God, his word is considered the word of God. But..again, pluses and minuses. The beliefs of 1.25 billion people are in the hands of ONE man. If this man becomes corrupted or perhaps insane, there is no one to pull the plug on him. That leaves the world far too close to the return of the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.
From what I understand, the interpenetration of Islam is in the hands of every person that practices it, and subject to the teachings of anyone that claims religious power and authority. And everyone's interpenetration is equally valid (or invalid depending on your point of view). Which means "radical Islam" has as much claim to be following Islam as does moderate Islam. There is no authority to tell them that they are wrong. If I am incorrect, please tell me, who does have the authority to tell them they are wrong.
My fear of ANY religion is that it largely subjugates rational, independent thought, observation and simple "common sense", with an acceptance of the unknowable, unproven and...illogical (sorry, no insult intended, I don't have a better way to put it without more time). And that it does so via a call for faith, for unquestioning belief in the tenants of the religion. Most of the time that is harmless, and actually can be a positive force. However, once you have set the hook on "faith", you largely have the power to have practitioners commit any act, no matter how vile, in it's name. That can be the Inquisition, mass suicides (Jonestown), celebrity murder (Manson), or beheading innocent people and flying airplanes into buildings. It seems like the lack of a central authority leaves Islam more susceptible to abuse than many other religions. I say that not as an attack on the religion.
Very good points.
To prevent chaos every Muslim is obligated to abide by the laws of the Nation they live in. If they feel they can not do so they are obligated to leave that nation as soon as they can.
Also a Muslim should follow one of the 4 madhabs (School of Islamic Jurisprudence--Shariah) We should study all 4 madhabs and select to live by the one most compatible with the community we live in.
While we have no central authority, none of us can speak as being the absolute correct interpretation of Islam. However, unless we find proof to show different we do have to go by the assumption some sources are better than others such as
Consensus of the Ulemah (What the majority of recognized scholars agree upon.)
The fatwah of a Mufti-- An interpretation or religious opinion made by a person with the equivalent of a Ph.d in Islamic studies and appointed by the state as the final legal authority for Shariah.. While there is no obligation to consider a Fatwa a command. We are to look at the reasons the Mufti arrived at His/Her opinion. ( A command to kill somebody, is not a fatwah--Misuse of the word by the media)
If by "radical Islam" you mean the actions of groups like Boko Haram, ISIS and such...then it is easy to prove its not "Islam" (The Guidance of a Compassionate, Merciful God) by using the Quran itself to counter any distortions used by such groups. But that is not the point---the point is that "Islam" by its nature is against exclusivist truth claims---freedom of conscience is a "God-given" right and to take that away is to oppress...which is why other religions and their laws were respected in Islamic territories. The Quran discourages the exclusivist claims of Judaism and Christianity (Chosen people).
The lack of authority actually empowers the individuals because one has to use one's intellect and reason to accept particular orientations/directions. To blindly follow is to fall into superstition. But it does not take religion to make one commit "vile acts". For example---Secular America has done plenty of vile acts in the name of "democracy", "security of Americans", "exceptionalism" and such.....and most Americans have accepted such justifications on "faith". ---"faith" in their nation and their Government.....justifications as to the necessity of "collateral damage", drone warfare, the use of depleted uranium ammunition, napalm, white phosphorus, and other chemical and incendiary weapons, land mines, atom bombs, renditions, torture, assassinations, entrapments...etc....etc....
We are all human beings and all of us have the potential capacity for extreme goodness and extreme evil....that is why we must strive for all that is good and discourage that which is bad---Quran 3:104 "And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong, and these it is that shall be successful."
....This is good advice to all humanity religious or not......
I just re-read my post..."interpenetration"? I think autocorrect is a bit confused. How about interpretation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamsiam
@Toyman
Interesting points.
If by "radical Islam" you mean the actions of groups like Boko Haram, ISIS and such...then it is easy to prove its not "Islam" (The Guidance of a Compassionate, Merciful God) by using the Quran itself to counter any distortions used by such groups.
I understand what you're saying and accept that. The question is, who tells Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Queda, Hezbola, Hamas, the Taliban, etc, etc, that they are wrong? The Quran (and the Bible and any other religious books) are read and acted upon by men. You (and I and most peaceful people) might read the same document and agree that those people are wrong. But, really, who are we to say that we are right and they are wrong? Both are reading the word of God (or Allah, no desire to offend) and coming away with different messages. That happens, by degree anyway, in any religion. Christians have the KKK, the Aryan Nations and the Kony army that do much the same. Who really says that their reading of the holy book is wrong and someone else's is right? I don't feel the need to read and accept a holy book to find the actions that some (yes, a small percentage in all these cases) do in it's name, to be wrong and evil. As I need no such book to tell me that when an atheist commits a vile act that it is wrong. The difference such that it it is that the atheist can't claim his acts are done to honor God. The atheist doesn't expect to be rewarded with a spot in heaven, or with 72 virgins, or whatever positive afterlife his religion claims, for his evil acts by claiming they are done to honor God/Allah.
It isn't just religions that are capable of these things. Communism in the Soviet Union and China killed just as many with no more justification. It can be argued that unbridled nationalism or patriotism is no different as well, as a twisted moral justification for any evil.
Last edited by Toyman at Jewel Lake; 06-05-2015 at 08:10 AM..
I just re-read my post..."interpenetration"? I think autocorrect is a bit confused. How about interpretation?
I understand what you're saying and accept that. The question is, who tells Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Queda, Hezbola, Hamas, the Taliban, etc, etc, that they are wrong? The Quran (and the Bible and any other religious books) are read and acted upon by men. You (and I and most peaceful people) might read the same document and agree that those people are wrong. But, really, who are we to say that we are right and they are wrong? Both are reading the word of God (or Allah, no desire to offend) and coming away with different messages. That happens, by degree anyway, in any religion. Christians have the KKK, the Aryan Nations and the Kony army that do much the same. Who really says that their reading of the holy book is wrong and someone else's is right? I don't feel the need to read and accept a holy book to find the actions that some (yes, a small percentage in all these cases) do in it's name, to be wrong and evil. As I need no such book to tell me that when an atheist commits a vile act that it is wrong. The difference such that it it is that the atheist can't claim his acts are done to honor God. The atheist doesn't expect to be rewarded with a spot in heaven, or with 72 virgins, or whatever positive afterlife his religion claims, for his evil acts by claiming they are done to honor God/Allah.
It isn't just religions that are capable of these things. Communism in the Soviet Union and China killed just as many with no more justification. It can be argued that unbridled nationalism or patriotism is no different as well, as a twisted moral justification for any evil.
Take the oil away from Iraq and middle east, take nuclear weapons away from Pakistan - and perhaps you will see "bad guys" have got their shops closed.
I just re-read my post..."interpenetration"? I think autocorrect is a bit confused. How about interpretation?
I understand what you're saying and accept that. The question is, who tells Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Queda, Hezbola, Hamas, the Taliban, etc, etc, that they are wrong? The Quran (and the Bible and any other religious books) are read and acted upon by men. You (and I and most peaceful people) might read the same document and agree that those people are wrong. But, really, who are we to say that we are right and they are wrong? Both are reading the word of God (or Allah, no desire to offend) and coming away with different messages. That happens, by degree anyway, in any religion. Christians have the KKK, the Aryan Nations and the Kony army that do much the same. Who really says that their reading of the holy book is wrong and someone else's is right? I don't feel the need to read and accept a holy book to find the actions that some (yes, a small percentage in all these cases) do in it's name, to be wrong and evil. As I need no such book to tell me that when an atheist commits a vile act that it is wrong. The difference such that it it is that the atheist can't claim his acts are done to honor God. The atheist doesn't expect to be rewarded with a spot in heaven, or with 72 virgins, or whatever positive afterlife his religion claims, for his evil acts by claiming they are done to honor God/Allah.
It isn't just religions that are capable of these things. Communism in the Soviet Union and China killed just as many with no more justification. It can be argued that unbridled nationalism or patriotism is no different as well, as a twisted moral justification for any evil.
This is quite difficult to explain. A very complex situation involving many different reasons not necessarily related to religion.
Hizboullah is actually the easiest to explain. It is the military branch of Iran. Real or perceived Israel sees Iran as a threat and Iran sees Israel as a threat. The goal of hizboullah is to protect Iran. Religion has very little to do with this, it is all about defense against a pereived enemy. as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender depends upon one's National view.
Hamas is a political party and the current government of Gaza. The people in Gaza do not want to be there. they want their family homes and farms back. for all practical purposes Gaza is a prison camp and the populace want to return to their homes. Basically the same thing the US did to the Lakotah Nation when they claimed North and South Dakota as US states. Again a political issue and a battle of Homeland.
ISIS is an attempt to destroy Islam and replace it with a central religion under a central leader. They have very little resemblance to what I believe Islam is.
Boko Haram is a political movement that is misusing Islam. While not an actual unified movement they are very similar to ISIS. In some ways probably more dangerous as they are not a single unified group.
It is hard to tell what is meant by al-Qaeda and Taliban the words seem to be media terms for any sting operation that targets wannabee terrorists.
Originally Taliban (Arabic for Students) were students trained in Madrassas financed by Bin Laden and the USA for the purpose of stopping the Russian take over of Afghanistan.
There does not seem to have ever been an actual organization called al-Qaeda. It is Arabic for "The Headquarters" and was used to designate where ever Bin Laden was located. but seems to come to been any anti-government insurgency group trying to overthrow a government.
Bottom line, only ISIS has any religious connection and ISIS is essential a new religion that is against all current religions including Islam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
