Muslims Polish The "peaceful" Credentials Of Their Faith

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1299443' date='Jun 21 2007, 08:30 AM']Whether or not Rushdie made "outrageous claims against the religion of Muslims" is rather beside the point. Let's assume for argument's sake that Rushdie did in fact make "outrageous claims." So what? Will we threaten with death - or, worse, actually kill - anyone who makes "outrageous claims" about something. When the "Last Temptation of Christ" was released, Catholic groups protested and boycotted the film, but I don't recall a [i]fatwa[/i] being issued calling for the murder of Martin Scorsese.[/quote] Rushdie needs to be held accountable for his actions. Now how to deal with him morally, is different in every religion but it doesn't make Muslims "terrorists" or none of that, just because they call for Rushdie's death.

[quote]And while you may not have ever used the word "misunderstood," I respectfully submit that that has been the tenor of your statements in these discussions. As for "human rights," I suggest that the ultimate human right is not being threatened with death because someone disagrees with you.
[/quote]No, I don't nessessarily believe that individuals have "misunderstood" Muslims, but deliberately posted propaganda of hate. In regards to human rights, it isn't just someone who, "disagrees with you", it's a man deliberately spreading false truths for publicity and money making.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1299642' date='Jun 21 2007, 07:10 PM']
And it's the Muslims who are "promoting an age old beef" here by currently renewing their calls to kill Rushdie, and also calling to kill the Queen. Hardly signs of a "religion of peace" at work here.

And if you want to call this some modern deviation from "true Muslim" behavior, it should be noted that Mohammed himself ordered the assasinations of three poets who ridiculed him.[/quote]

Propaganda.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299739' date='Jun 22 2007, 01:05 AM']Rushdie needs to be held accountable for his actions. Now how to deal with him morally, is different in every religion but it doesn't make Muslims "terrorists" or none of that, just because they call for Rushdie's death.[/quote]

What passage in the Qu'ran would justify this call for death for his "actions"?

[KnightofChrist]

I pray I dont lose my head for posting this...

[quote]In 1989 the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie after Rushdie published a book entitled, "The Satanic Verses" [1]. The title of the book came from an event in Muhammad's life. This event is well recorded and accepted as authentic by the earliest Islamic scholars, Ibn Ishaq [2], Wakidi, Ibn Sa'd [3], and Tabari. In this article I will consider mainly what Ibn Ishaq records. Ibn Ishaq is the oldest account of Muhammad's life and his complete account is provided as an appendix.

Muhammad and the Idols of Mecca

While Muhammad was in Mecca he tried to persuade the people of Mecca, the Quraysh, to accept him as a prophet and the religion he was teaching. They were not receptive to him and made life difficult for him and his followers, and many of his followers fled to Christian Abyssinia for protection. This was until Muhammad recited Surah 53 (Surat-an-Najm) and the following verses:

Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq [4] (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166)

Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in Mecca. Previously Muhammad had spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now he recited that their "intercession is approved".

When Quraysh heard that, they were delighted and greatly pleased at the way in which he spoke of their gods and they listened to him ... Then the people dispersed and Quraysh went out, delighted at what had been said about their gods, saying, "Muhammad has spoken of our gods in splendid fashion". (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166)

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, repeated them (the verses), and he went on reciting the whole of surah (53) and then fell in prostration, and the people (the Quraysh) fell in prostration with him. (Ibn Sa'ad, vol. 1, p. 237)

Imam Bukhari too confirms that after Muhammad recited Sura 53 the Quraysh accepted Muhammad and prayed with him:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet ... prostrated while reciting An-Najm (Sura 53) and with him prostrated the Muslims, the pagans (Quraysh), the jinns, and all human beings. (Bukhari: volume 2, book 19, number 177, Khan)

Muhammad's desire had been realised; the Quraysh accepted him. The Muslims who had fled to Abyssinia heard about this and many of them began to return to Mecca. The Quraysh accepted Muhammad because he had, "spoken of (their) gods in splendid fashion" (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166). The Islamic explanation as to why Muhammad accepted the idols is that Satan put these words on Muhammad's lips:

Satan ... put upon his (Muhammad's) tongue "these are the exalted Gharaniq [4] whose intercession is approved". (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166)

This is what is meant by the phrase, the Satanic Verses. The Islamic accounts then say that the angel Gabriel rebuked Muhammad and held him accountable for what he had said:

Then Gabriel came to the apostle and said , "What have you done, Muhammad? You have read to these people something I did not bring you from God and you have said what He did not say to you." (Ibn Ishaq, p. 166)

Muhammad announced that Gabriel had now told him to speak against the idols and so what he recited changed. Previously it had been:

Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq [4] whose intercession is approved. (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 165-166)

Now the verse became:

Have you considered El-Lat and El-'Uzza and Manat the third, the other? What, have you males, and He females? That were indeed an unjust division. They are naught but names yourselves have named, and your fathers; God has sent down no authority touching them. (Qur'an 53:19-23, Arberry)

This final form of the verse is what is now in the modern Qur'an.[/quote]
[url="http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Green/satanic.htm"]Continued...[/url]

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299739' date='Jun 22 2007, 01:05 AM']Rushdie needs to be held accountable for his actions. Now how to deal with him morally, is different in every religion but it doesn't make Muslims "terrorists" or none of that, just because they call for Rushdie's death.

No, I don't nessessarily believe that individuals have "misunderstood" Muslims, but deliberately posted propaganda of hate. In regards to human rights, it isn't just someone who, "disagrees with you", it's a man deliberately spreading false truths for publicity and money making.[/quote]

This is quite unbelievable. [i]Rushdie[/i] needs to be held accountable? For what? Expressing an opinion? Exercising freedom of thought and speech? Silly me. Here was I thinking that people who, you know, kill other people for disagreeing with them are the ones who need to be held accountable. "Terrorists" are people who advocate the use of and actually use terror as a tactic against those with whom they are at odds. As for Muslims, if the shoe fits, wear it.

As for deliberately posting "propaganda of hate," my original post was a Yahoo! news story that quoted Muslims calling for Rushdie's death, Queen Elizabeth's death, and the destruction of Britain. The "propaganda of hate" was therefore constituted of direct quotes from those individuals. Again, if the shoe fits, wear it. If you have a problem with the "propaganda of hate," take it up with the source. If you disagree with Rushdie because he's "spreading false truths for publicity and money making," there is a remedy: don't buy his books.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299739' date='Jun 22 2007, 03:05 AM']Rushdie needs to be held accountable for his actions. Now how to deal with him morally, is different in every religion but it doesn't make Muslims "terrorists" or none of that, just because they call for Rushdie's death.

No, I don't nessessarily believe that individuals have "misunderstood" Muslims, but deliberately posted propaganda of hate. In regards to human rights, it isn't just someone who, "disagrees with you", it's a man deliberately spreading false truths for publicity and money making.
Propaganda.[/quote]

Rushdie has a right to his opinions whether one agrees with them or not. If one don't llike them don't buy his books. Any other action against him is uncivilized. If one call for his death, one are a terrorist, plain and simple, because noe are using terror and mayhem to further one's private opinion.

If he is spreading a false opinion, don't buy his books, and his opinion [ right or wrong] will go the way of other obscure ideas.
Acting like a terrorist and threatening to kill him because one simply disagree with him,, simply increases the sale of his books and legitimizes his beliefs.

Threatening someone with violence because you disagree with them is the act of a two -year -old.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1299876' date='Jun 22 2007, 11:23 AM']Rushdie has a right to his opinions whether one agrees with them or not. If one don't llike them don't buy his books. Any other action against him is uncivilized. If one call for his death, one are a terrorist, plain and simple, because noe are using terror and mayhem to further one's private opinion.[/quote] Then the Roman Catholics that called for the death of Luther based solely upon his writings were also terrorists [thou I wouldn't take your opinion].

Reza

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299955' date='Jun 22 2007, 07:20 PM']Then the Roman Catholics that called for the death of Luther based solely upon his writings were also terrorists [thou I wouldn't take your opinion].

Reza[/quote]
I agree with you [ whether you like my opinion or not.]
The civilized world has gotten beyond death threats over differences of opinion.
I hope those who pretend to love peace but promote terrorism grow up as well.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1300077' date='Jun 22 2007, 09:59 PM']I agree with you [ whether you like my opinion or not.]
The civilized world has gotten beyond death threats over differences of opinion.
I hope those who pretend to love peace but promote terrorism grow up as well.[/quote]

Wow I didn't expect you to agree with me... holy moly... but I def agree that those that promote terrorism and violence, should learn to be adults and infact Ayatollah Khomeni's own grand daughter has said that her grandfather wasn't pratical.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299739' date='Jun 22 2007, 01:05 AM']Rushdie needs to be held accountable for his actions. Now how to deal with him morally, is different in every religion but it doesn't make Muslims "terrorists" or none of that, just because they call for Rushdie's death.

No, I don't nessessarily believe that individuals have "misunderstood" Muslims, but deliberately posted propaganda of hate. In regards to human rights, it isn't just someone who, "disagrees with you", it's a man deliberately spreading false truths for publicity and money making.
Propaganda.[/quote]
These events are accepted as historical fact by most historians, using as sources early choniclers of Islam Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, was well as hadith collecters Muslim and Bukhari. I first read of this in Carroll's History of Christendom, citing John Bagot Glubb's [i]The Great Arab Conquests[/i]. (a detailed article with footnotes [url="http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm"]here[/url].)

Of course, if you wish to simply dismiss as false propaganda anything which disagrees with your own glowing "peaceful" opinion of Mohammed and Islam, that is your prerogative, though the rest of us hardly find this convincing argumentation.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1300765' date='Jun 24 2007, 05:05 PM']These events are accepted as historical fact by most historians, using as sources early choniclers of Islam Ibn Ishaq and Tabari, was well as hadith collecters Muslim and Bukhari. I first read of this in Carroll's History of Christendom, citing John Bagot Glubb's [i]The Great Arab Conquests[/i]. (a detailed article with footnotes [url="http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm"]here[/url].)

Of course, if you wish to simply dismiss as false propaganda anything which disagrees with your own glowing "peaceful" opinion of Mohammed and Islam, that is your prerogative, though the rest of us hardly find this convincing argumentation.[/quote]

Just because you can find an individual that claims a hadeeth says something, doesn't make it fact. There are lots of Hadeeth interpreters throughout the Islamic World, one of my favorite being Al-Halabi, so to say, "such and such says, it must be true" doesn't have much common sense. Hadeeths are "sayings of Muhammed", and most Hadeeth scholars didn't live during the time of Muhammed, so you've gotta factor that in there.

Reza

[123]

I greatly respect the Muslim perspective and their quest for God, I actually have muslim prayer beads and the booklet that goes along with the beads, it sets on my shelf. I also have a copy of the Nobel Qur'an. These are great people.

-GloriaIesusChristi

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1300942' date='Jun 24 2007, 09:13 PM']Just because you can find an individual that claims a hadeeth says something, doesn't make it fact. There are lots of Hadeeth interpreters throughout the Islamic World, one of my favorite being Al-Halabi, so to say, "such and such says, it must be true" doesn't have much common sense. Hadeeths are "sayings of Muhammed", and most Hadeeth scholars didn't live during the time of Muhammed, so you've gotta factor that in there.

Reza[/quote]

So we shouldn't believe our own eyes when we see killing in the name of Islam, or when Muslims call for someone's death because he has the temerity to exercise freedom of thought and speech? Instead, we should believe you because you insist that Islam is a religion of peace that has been mischaracterized?

This is what I see:
[list=1]
[*]Suicide / homicide killings
[*]"Honor" killings, and subjugation of women in general
[*]Advocacy of murder
[*]Religious intolerance
[*]You insisting that Islam is a religion of peace
[/list]The preponderance of evidence seems to be on one side.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1301344' date='Jun 25 2007, 01:48 PM']So we shouldn't believe our own eyes when we see killing in the name of Islam, or when Muslims call for someone's death because he has the temerity to exercise freedom of thought and speech? Instead, we should believe you because you insist that Islam is a religion of peace that has been mischaracterized?

This is what I see:[list=1]
[*]Suicide / homicide killings
[*]"Honor" killings, and subjugation of women in general
[*]Advocacy of murder
[*]Religious intolerance
[*]You insisting that Islam is a religion of peace
[/list]The preponderance of evidence seems to be on one side.[/quote]

Let's not forget beheadings, mass executions, and kidnappings.

[Seven77]

Let's not make generalizations without making necessary distinctions, lest we break Phatmass guidelines.

#2 Negative Criticism of Other Religions (see post at top of all phorums).

[KnightofChrist]

[b][url="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6165"]Media Ignore Abuses of Women in Islam[/url][/b]
[i]by Robert Spencer[/i]

The Christian Science Monitor this week introduces us to an American Latina, Jasmine Pinet, who "has found greater respect as a woman by converting to Islam." Ms. Pinet praises Muslim men for their respect for women: "They're not gonna say, 'Hey mami, how are you?' Usually they say, 'Hello, sister.' And they don't look at you like a sex object." The Monitor reports that there are 40,000 Latin American Muslims in the United States today, and that "many of the Latina converts say that their belief that women are treated better in Islam was a significant factor in converting." For readers who might find this surprising -- given the burqa, polygamy, the prohibition of women drivers in Saudi Arabia, and other elements of the Islamic record on women that are well known in the West -- the Monitor quotes Leila Ahmed, professor of women's studies and religion at Harvard: "It astounds me, the extent to which people think Afghanistan and the Taliban represent women and Islam." Ahmed says that "we're in the early stages of a major rethinking of Islam that will open Islam for women. [Muslim scholars] are rereading the core texts of Islam -- from the Koran to legal texts -- in every possible way." But did the Taliban really originate the features of Islam that discriminate against women? Will a "rereading" of the Qur'an and other core texts of Islam really help "open Islam for women"? These are some of the texts that will have to be "reread": 1. The Qur'an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will" (2:223); 2. It declares that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man: "Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (2:282); 3. It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice" (4:3); 4. It rules that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females" (4:11); 5. It tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them" (4:34). It will take some creative rereading to blunt the force of these and other Qur'anic passages that mandate second-class status for women and consign all too many women in the Islamic world to the status of mere possessions of their husbands. That last verse has particularly troubling implications. The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over nine out of ten Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually -- for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child. It's unlikely that the Latina women interviewed by the Monitor are unaware of such elements of Islam. The Monitor tells us that before her conversion, Pinet "began studying the Koran with a group of Muslim women." Why, then, didn't the Monitor ask her and the others what they thought of the above verses of the Qur'an? The longer such verses go unquestioned, the longer they will continue to be instruments of oppression for women. The Monitor could have done Muslim women a service by bringing these matters to light, thereby initiating a dialogue about women's rights in Islam -- with the potential to affect salutary change for women who suffer under the constraints of Qur'anic literalism. But instead, not unexpectedly, the Monitor chose the easy -- and PC -- way out.