Muslims

[Rían]

IMO, Napier dealt with that very well. Great story!

[Spock]

The news tonight reported that the clerics in Afgan. are screaming that he should be killed; meanwhile he's vanished from view.


Also on the news tonight was the following:

Jordan (our ally ?) had tried a man for converting to Christianity. He was found guilty and his marriage nullified, his job forfeited, and he is not permitted to work in Jordan ever again.


And then this "enlightened" verdict:

Man Accidentally Divorces Wife in Sleep
From Associated Press
March 28, 2006 9:40 AM EST
NEW DELHI - Village elders ordered a Muslim man in eastern India to leave his wife after he accidentally divorced her in his sleep, a news report said Tuesday.

Aftab Ansari uttered the Urdu word for divorce, "talaq," three times in his sleep, prompting his worried wife to discuss the matter with her friends, according to the Press Trust of India news agency.

Under Islamic law, a husband need only say "I divorce you" three times to secure a permanent end to his marriage.

Muslim leaders in the couple's village in West Bengal state found out and decreed that Ansari's unconscious utterances constituted a divorce, PTI reported.

But 30-year-old Ansari said he had no intention of leaving his wife of 11 years.

"I have not given talaq. When I uttered talaq three times I had taken medicines to help me sleep," he was quoted as saying in the report.

The religious leaders said that before remarrying, the couple would have to be apart for at least 100 days and that the wife, Sohela, would also have to spend a night with another man and then be divorced by him.

PTI reported that the couple has been ostracized because of their refusal to abide by the decision of the village leaders.

[Lief Erikson]

Persecution of Christians and other religious minorities has been occurring in many of these Middle Eastern countries for years. I'm frankly surprised the news services bothered to comment on this.

Perhaps they decided to mention these events because all the recent increases in tension between the East and the West make it a more "interesting" topic to more people?

[Spock]

Yep, me too. But then they aren't reporting all the stuff happening in our WTO partner/Olympic Country either. (China).

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

By the way, on a much more positive note, Rahman has been freed! It's supposed to be because of mental health issues, so that doesn't resolve the legal ethics issues. At least he's free, though.

I suspect that it's more "mental health" *cough* *shifty eyes* because that's the best way to not have a trial which he would surely lose.

But whatever, at least he's free. Good for Hamid Karzai for supporting this. He is going to take flak for the decision, but I think this is a positive step for religion.

I don't pretend for a second to understand Sharia law, but I definitely don't understand the death penalty for someone leaving Islam. Is this because then Sharia law would no longer apply to them?

If I was Islam I wouldn't want people to feel obliged to be Muslim. Then the only Muslims in the world would be people who really love Allah and want to be Muslim. Sounds like a win-win to me! Obviously it's not that simple, otherwise it would already be so. One can dream.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I suspect that it's more "mental health" *cough* *shifty eyes* because that's the best way to not have a trial which he would surely lose.

Oh yes, definitely. I totally agree.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't pretend for a second to understand Sharia law, but I definitely don't understand the death penalty for someone leaving Islam. Is this because then Sharia law would no longer apply to them?

I wish I could find the direct passages of the Sharia law that say this . I'm looking for apologetics for the Muslim cause, explaining why Rahman must die, but I'm having a complete failure so far. I have found lots of Internet websites and news sources that say that according to Sharia law, leaving Islam is a death penalty offense. That's something I've also heard from papers I've been getting for years about "The Persecuted Church."

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If I was Islam I wouldn't want people to feel obliged to be Muslim. Then the only Muslims in the world would be people who really love Allah and want to be Muslim. Sounds like a win-win to me! Obviously it's not that simple, otherwise it would already be so. One can dream.

Yeah, that would be the best, in my view. But it's not what Islam is about. Throughout their country's existence, all the time from the religion's very beginning, it has been about violent conquest. The goal of Islam is to conquer the world. I know not all Muslims agree with this goal, but a lot do. I think according to the Koran (maybe it was a different Muslim religious document I read it, but I think it was the Koran) the world is divided into sections, parts that are conquered, parts that are at war, and parts that are at truce. There is no mention in there of parts that are at peace, because Islam is not a religion of peace.

I took notes a long while ago about a Shia messiah figure who is supposed to appear on the world, a "Hidden Imam". I found several sites about him, and he was supposed to conquer the world for the glory of Allah.

Originally Posted by World Civilizations

The Hidden Imam, however, will eventually leave his Greater Occultation and appear (zuhur ) to the world of humanity. This return is the most significant event in the future for the Shi'ite faithful and has thunderous eschatological consequences. This return will occur shortly before the Final Judgement and the end of history. Imam Mahdi will return at the head of the forces of righteousness and do battle with the forces of evil in one, final, apocalyptic battle. When evil has been defeated once and for all, the Imam Mahdi will rule the world for several years under a perfect government and bring about a perfect spirituality among the peoples of the world.

Originally Posted by Iran Focus

A representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran University declared on Friday that Islam must “conquer the world” by defeating the West.

Hojjatol-Islam Alireza Panahyan, who was delivering the pre-sermon speech at this week’s Friday prayers in the Iranian capital, said that the West was trying to put fear into the hearts of Muslims through “torture and nuclear weapons”.

“We intend to conquer the world without [nuclear] weapons. Such weapons are not needed to set the stage for the return of the [Shiite messiah] Mahdi”, Panahyan said.

I know Iran is a nut-case and shouldn't be taken as representative of all Muslims. However, this is a major doctrine in Shiite religious beliefs. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah isn't making a mistake in his interpretation of his doctrine, either. He's taking a literal interpretation, and Muhammad and his followers also took the literal interpretation of Koran jihad. People today interpret jihad as a spiritual struggle. There was nothing spiritual about Muhammad's jihad in which he conquered Saudi Arabia. Nor was there anything spiritual about how his immediate followers invaded much of the rest of the world and conquered it in violence. And the beginning of Islam was only the beginning of its violence . . . that violence goes on and on. It's visible all over the history of their people, much more than with Christianity, though we certainly have our very large black spots as well.

There is a lot of good in Islam. Some of the Muslim teachings are very profound, very, very worth following. There are some great teachings of peace and ethics there. However, there also are calls for violent warfare against nonbelievers, and that is where we are today.

[Lief Erikson]

On a much brighter note , Rahman has been flown to Italy and granted asylum there. A number of Afghanistan politicians are angery about this, but I'm very relieved they were able to move him out so rapidly to a place where he'll be in much less danger.

[Spock]

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then Kill Him" ** It's also based upon a statement: "but whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever, his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever" Qur'an 2:2.17


**Bukhari, vol. 9 book 88, no 6922

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for finding the reference, Spock. I was very curious where that was from.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yeah, that would be the best, in my view. But it's not what Islam is about. Throughout their country's existence, all the time from the religion's very beginning, it has been about violent conquest. The goal of Islam is to conquer the world.

This is a pretty twisted and unjust view of reality if I may say so. Islam does have a bloody history, just like Christianity. However to think Islam's history is practically nothing but blood and violence, that's just wrong. About this "violent conquest" you mention - muslim warlords did conquer large areas (just like the Christian Europeans did). Interestingly, the people living in these areas were allowed to keep their beliefs. Their religions were tolerated. In fact the majority of the populace in the new muslim lands were non-muslim. This contradicts your statement that “the goal of Islam is to conquer the world” – if that was the case, other religions wouldn’t have been tolerated.

Of course, Muslims surely wanted to spread their religion and likely hoped that one day, the whole world would submit to Islam. May I remind you that Christians shared a similar dream – they tried to enlighten mankind about Christianity by sending missionaries to every corner of the world (to "conquer" it in a peaceful way, if you like). When it comes to Islam, it seems that after a land had been turned into a caliphate, the religion was spread peacefully among the populace and not through force. People chose to become muslims.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I know not all Muslims agree with this goal, but a lot do. I think according to the Koran (maybe it was a different Muslim religious document I read it, but I think it was the Koran) the world is divided into sections, parts that are conquered, parts that are at war, and parts that are at truce. There is no mention in there of parts that are at peace, because Islam is not a religion of peace.

If you can find the documents or verses that deal with the world being divided into parts, do post them here

Funny how you say Islam is not a religion of peace. The very word “Islam” means peace
If we decide to label Islam as a non-peaceful religion, the same label must be applied to Christianity.

[Spock]

NO. Christianity has not waged war in quite a number of years. Islam still does.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This is a pretty twisted and unjust view of reality if I may say so. Islam does have a bloody history, just like Christianity.

"Just like Christianity" is rather an exaggeration of Christianity's crimes. We launched the Crusades and we fought horrible religious wars between ourselves. Muslims fought two savage religious wars amongst themselves also, called the ridda wars. Our Crusades cannot be set against the Ottoman invasions. According to historian Will Durant, the Muslim invasion of India (a different conflict) was "probably the bloodiest story in history." K.S. Lal estimated in his book The Growth of Muslim Population in India that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million.

Then there also are the many Muslim invasions of Israel. And the Muslim invasions of Europe which occurred after the Crusades. Those invasions failed, but they still were attempted.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

However to think Islam's history is practically nothing but blood and violence, that's just wrong.

I agree. And if you look at the last paragraph of my last post, you'll see that I acknowledged Islam wasn't only blood and violence too. Indeed, many of Muhammad's teachings were moral light years ahead of the tribes of Saudi Arabia that he lived among.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

About this "violent conquest" you mention - muslim warlords did conquer large areas (just like the Christian Europeans did).

They conquered the territories the Islamic Ottoman Empire had conquered before them.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Interestingly, the people living in these areas were allowed to keep their beliefs.

Right. As decidedly second class citizens, they were allowed to keep their beliefs. If they returned a blow struck by a Muslim with a blow of their own, they were liable for the death penalty. They had far heavier taxes than the Muslims. And then, as now in Muslim lands, there was often persecution for non-Muslim minorities.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Islamic nation of Pakistan gives Muslims special rights that non-Muslims do not have. Non-Muslims are persecuted if they say things which offend Muslim sensibilities.

If you think that current mistreating of religious minorities in Middle East Muslim countries is a purely modern phenomenon, you're crazy. Cases like Rahman's in Afghanistan still occur in Islamic countries because it's part of Islamic religious teachings.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

In fact the majority of the populace in the new muslim lands were non-muslim.

Right after they were conquered, yes.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This contradicts your statement that “the goal of Islam is to conquer the world” – if that was the case, other religions wouldn’t have been tolerated.

The Muslims were smart. They knew that trying to force conversions would be very difficult, so they didn't as often do that. Rather, they set up laws so that no one could leave Islam once they were in it, and then applied a lot of legal and economic pressure (as well as some persecution) to religious minorities so that they'd gradually disintegrate. That's not toleration of other religious beliefs. It's the slow destruction of other religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Of course, Muslims surely wanted to spread their religion and likely hoped that one day, the whole world would submit to Islam. May I remind you that Christians shared a similar dream – they tried to enlighten mankind about Christianity by sending missionaries to every corner of the world (to "conquer" it in a peaceful way, if you like).

I don't see how you can compare conquering in a peaceful, publicly accepted way and conquering through violence. Often the Christian missionaries who went out into the countries the European nations conquered tried to convert people and strongly objected to the European imperialism. They were often overruled and overrun. They were voices, but they hadn't the power of the Spanish and other European countries' armies. The fact that they spoke up on behalf of the natives of those lands is significant.

Though I know there are exceptions. There are times where missionaries have been very cruel as well.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

When it comes to Islam, it seems that after a land had been turned into a caliphate, the religion was spread peacefully among the populace and not through force. People chose to become muslims.

"Peacefully." People chose to become Muslims because the alternatives were very ugly, much of the time.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

If you can find the documents or verses that deal with the world being divided into parts, do post them here

Here we go:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Dar al-Islam (Arabic: œ«— «‰?”‰«Â literally house of submission) is a term used to refer to those lands under Muslim government(s). In the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of submission and dar al-Harb, the house of war.

According to Wikipedia, dar al-Harab is not found in the Hadith or Qur'an, however.

Originally Posted by Media Guide to Islam

Islamic religious tradition has symbolically divided the world between those places where Islam is dominant, and where aspects of Islamic religious law are supposed to be in effect, and where it is not. These terms held particular significance during the times of the Prophet Muhammad and the rise of the Islamic empire.

Dar al-Islam (“house of Islam”) signifies a geographic location controlled by Muslims where Islamic law is in effect.

Dar al-Harb (“house of war”) is a location where Muslims are not in control and Muslim law is not in effect. Dar al-Harb can also refer to a human’s inner struggle to accept the will of God.

Dar al-Sulh (“house of treaty”) is a place that is not under Muslim control, but that has friendly relations with Islamic territories. In Islamic tradition, the precedent for Dar al-Sulh is a treaty that the Prophet Muhammad entered into with the Christian city state of Najran.

The idea that Dar al-Harab might be referring to inner struggle to accept the will of God is a much more modern notion, however. It is plain from history that this is not how Muslims initially interpreted it.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Funny how you say Islam is not a religion of peace. The very word “Islam” means peace

The word Islam means "submission." According to the book The Joy of the Sects: "And a Muslim ... is 'one who submits' or surrenders to the will of God, thereby attaining peace of mind and soul." First comes submission, and then peace will follow for the one who submits.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

If we decide to label Islam as a non-peaceful religion, the same label must be applied to Christianity.

Not so. To look at the real meaning of the religions, it is often best to examine the way the religions' founders interpreted them. Jesus and his immediate followers adhered to extreme ethical teachings and were willing to peacefully lay down their lives for their beliefs. They spread their teachings through word of mouth. They accepted persecution by Jewish and Roman authorities without fighting back.

Muhammad was persecuted also, and in response he led a savage campaign that conquered not only his persecutors but all the tribes in Saudi Arabia.

When Peter tried to defend Jesus from attack, Jesus said, "put your sword away, for he who lives by the sword dies by the sword!"

Contrast that with Islam:
"Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush." (Surah 9:5)

It is apparent that when Christians act in violence, often they are not following the tenents of their religion. When Muslims do though, many times they are adhering accurately to their religion.


Once again, like I said in the last paragraph of my previous post, I'd like to point out that I'm not trying to argue that Islam is all bad. Muhammad's teachings included some very good messages and there are beautiful verses in the Qur'an. However, it still is obvious from history and from the texts that Muhammad and those who followed him as he wanted them to both then and now were set on violently conquering the world.

If you look at the early invasions outside of Saudi Arabia, and at Muhammad's actions in Saudi Arabia, I think you'll find that claim hard to refute. Especially when one also takes into account the jihad verses of the Qur'an and the consequential military behavior of Islamic powers throughout history.

[Butterbeer]

Lief:

Persecution of Christians and other religious minorities has been occurring in many of these Middle Eastern countries for years. I'm frankly surprised the news services bothered to comment on this.

that's rather a nihilist view is it not?


so- is religious and cultural intolerance the way of the lord here Lief?

can you defend such a position before the lord?
(i'm serious)

best BB

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

so- is religious and cultural intolerance the way of the lord here Lief?

can you defend such a position before the lord?
(i'm serious)

I tell you, I am seriously intolerant of evil. I'm intolerant of slavery, sexism and racism. I'm intolerant of people harming one another and trying to tear one another down. I'm intolerant against Muslims' supposed right to persecute or grant mere second class citizenship to their religious minorities. These are aspects of Middle East culture and religion I am indeed intolerant of, and I am very glad I am not tolerant of them. No one should be tolerant of the abusing of the helpless and innocent.

[Butterbeer]

including good christians?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I tell you, I am seriously intolerant of evil. I'm intolerant of slavery, sexism and racism. I'm intolerant of people harming one another and trying to tear one another down.

Except that you role play every single one of those.

Sorry, just couldn't resist. Do carry on.

[Butterbeer]

Stand before the Lord Lief- do not follow the propaganda of hate pedalled on this earth - do not be fooled by the dogma of man, politics, hatred, intolerance or greed ...

the Lord tells you to be true to him and to him alone - not man -

look at what the Lord says- not man.

maybe it'll be hard in this life to do so - but isn't that not the word of christ?

seriously- very best, BB


reason for edit- punctuation

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

including good christians?

Yep.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Except that you role play every single one of those.

Lol!

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Stand before the Lord Lief- do not follow the propaganda of hate pedalled on this earth - do not be fooled by the dogma of man, politics, hatred, intolerance or greed ...

I'll do my best!

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

the Lord tells you to be true to him and to him alone - not man -

look at what the Lord says- not man.

maybe it'll be hard in this life to do so - but isn't that not the word of christ?

It's good advice. I'm doing my best to follow it .

~Lief

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

This is a pretty twisted and unjust view of reality if I may say so. Islam does have a bloody history, just like Christianity. However to think Islam's history is practically nothing but blood and violence, that's just wrong. About this "violent conquest" you mention - muslim warlords did conquer large areas (just like the Christian Europeans did). Interestingly, the people living in these areas were allowed to keep their beliefs. Their religions were tolerated. In fact the majority of the populace in the new muslim lands were non-muslim. This contradicts your statement that “the goal of Islam is to conquer the world” – if that was the case, other religions wouldn’t have been tolerated.

May I remind you, Jonathan, that the Ecumenical Patriarch, the supreme prelate of the Orthodox Church, is unable to so much as celebrate the Liturgy without the approval of the Turkish government, and is required by law to be a Turkish citizen?

[Spock]

///oh goodie, over 45 minutes without launching a new Crusade. ////breathe!