Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread

[Arsalan]

The "nature of our world." Interesting rationale. Here we have a religion in which the god is supposed to have created everything, the entire universe, and is in control of it all. So, that god IS the "nature of our world" according to Islam. Therefore, that god created the oppression, tyranny and bullyism, but then orders HIS creations to go out and kill one another, "in defense" and "for the sake of God's satisfaction."

If the god of Islam is so powerful, why can't he fix the problem he himself created? Is it because he is evil and enjoys the killing, or is he just a figment of someones imagination, and the holy books of Islam were written for the people, by the people of that time?

Are you implying that Jihad onyl means fighting, as in physical struggle? Then youre wrong. This argument that God created everything so he created suffering is an old one that has been adressed time and time again iirc.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Are you implying that Jihad onyl means fighting, as in physical struggle? Then youre wrong. This argument that God created everything so he created suffering is an old one that has been adressed time and time again iirc.

But does Jihad also mean a physical struggle against the Kuffar, the Unbeliever, and Dar'al Harb;

The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf)


In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used).

 

[Arsalan]

But does Jihad also mean a physical struggle against the Kuffar, the Unbeliever, and Dar'al Harb;

The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf)


In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used).

So out of the 4 definitions you gave, only 1 is with weapons? Ah yes I dont think you understand why I asked the question

 

[(Q)]

This argument that God created everything so he created suffering is an old one that has been adressed time and time again iirc.

No, it has not. But, you are free to try.

 

[Arsalan]

No, it has not. But, you are free to try.

Seriously? THere hasnt been anything written by any religious person on that, ever?

 

[(Q)]

Seriously? THere hasnt been anything written by any religious person on that, ever?

In other words, you're blowing hot air out your ass and couldn't answer that question if your life depended on it.

 

[Arsalan]

In other words, you're blowing hot air out your ass and couldn't answer that question if your life depended on it.

I could, as I did on another forum. Im just curious as to why youve never read anything about this from a religious point of view?

 

[(Q)]

I could, as I did on another forum. Im just curious as to why youve never read anything about this from a religious point of view?

So, what is the religious point of view? We're waiting.

 

[Arsalan]

So, what is the religious point of view? We're waiting.

On pain and suffering? In short, in my opinion, it is all part of life. Without destruction, pain and suffering, there would be no life. Without any pain and or suffering, there would be no need to evolve, no need to get bettter in any kind of way and we would all be stuck where we were before, because everyone would have everything they needed and nothing else was necessary. Pain and suffering are crucial for the evolution of life. Religious people can see pain and suffering as part of the design of life and how it moves forward. Non-religious people can see pain and suffering as some random chaotic event with no design whatsoever: in the end, everyone can see it in their own way. This tendency by non-religious people to crop up when something bad happens then blame it on God is incredibly dishonest considering their denial of God in the first place, yet, you wont see them talkin about God when something good happens. The single greatest and most destructive event ever? The Big Bang. And what was the result of this destructive event? We all know. That, in a very short summary, is my opinion.

Have you seriously never read anything what a religious person has to say on this point?

 

[iceaura]

Religious people can see pain and suffering as part of the design of life and how it moves forward. Non-religious people can see pain and suffering as some random chaotic event with no design whatsoever: in the end, everyone can see it in their own way.

Design on the one hand, chaotic randomness on the other: the false dichotomy of the fundamentalist worldview.

Obviously the imagery, context and stories he used went beyond your head or you arent familiar with them. Its a skill of Rushdie, to disguise blatant attacks under a manner of writing through which it is impossible for anyone not familiar with the stories and or history or places to understand what he is exactly saying. All they see is some kind of meaningful exploration of various literary themes.

The people who threaten and murder in reaction didn't even get as far as the literary themes. There is something wrong with those people. What is it?

Wow. I dont think you got it. Fact of the matter is that if I were to stand up and try to prove a point about the University and the way it operates by acting and talking, continously, the way he has, there would be a reaction from the Uni.

If you were to write a whole series of novels as good as Rushdie's "proving a point" about the Uni in the same vein as Rushdie's "points", you would stand a good chance of being hired as a famous visiting lecturer and paid to teach master classes in the English department, if you wanted the job.

And probably no one would be murdered over your books.

Why haven't any major mosques or other Islamic scholarly institutions invited Rushdie as a guest lecturer and visiting intellectual?

 

[S.A.M.]

Like Tariq Ramadan? Norman Finkelstein?

 

[Arsalan]

Design on the one hand, chaotic randomness on the other: the false dichotomy of the fundamentalist worldview.

Hence, the little note stating it a very short summary.

The people who threaten and murder in reaction didn't even get as far as the literary themes. There is something wrong with those people. What is it?

The people that murdered? That theyre murderes and need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If you were to write a whole series of novels as good as Rushdie's "proving a point" about the Uni in the same vein as Rushdie's "points", you would stand a good chance of being hired as a famous visiting lecturer and paid to teach master classes in the English department, if you wanted the job.

Not books, but talk, without disguisng my intentions behind literary themes.

And probably no one would be murdered over your books.

Nope. For that I would need to talk about what the people are very protective of and lambast it for years. After that I would expect a violent reaction. The Uni reaction would just be passive and with the pen.

Why haven't any major mosques or other Islamic scholarly institutions invited Rushdie as a guest lecturer and visiting intellectual?

Why would they invite someone they disagree with? They have written out what they disagree with and why, it is up to Rushdie to answer them in the same manner. Rushdie doesnt invite scholars etc to his house now does he.

 

[DiamondHearts]

There is one thing I want to make it clear here and forever. Your words here just display how deeply misinformed you are of islam and its teachings. I'm not saying this to change your mind; but there may be people here who will be interested to know the other party better.
Right, Quran talks about various blessings bestowed by God to those who enter paradise due to their good acts, and Huris are among them. Virgin is an intentional msintrepretation of the term, but nowhere in Quran or islamic teachings it meantions 70 or MANY virgins as is repeatedly used by anti-muslims (or at least as a devout muslim (fundamentalist in your terms) I have never heard of such a thing). In islam thing are not done for the sake of virgins, instead people are encouraged to do good acts for the sake of God's satisfaction. Jihad is an important part of islamic teachings and rightfully so because due to the nature of our world there is always oppression, tyranny and bullyism out there, so muslims are ordered to defend themselves, help the weak and fight the oppressors.

Islam is like the various Hadiths say:"If anyone of you hears a man crying for help but you shun his request you are no muslim!", or "a muslim is not one who goes to bed full while his/her neighbour can not find anything to eat!", or "Do not harm the elderly, women and children in your wars; do not destroy the trees and waters!..." and " do not be the ones who starts a war, just defend yourself and the oppressed!", "do not transgress the limits in your wars, verily Allah does not like the transgressors!", "one who kills an innocent person has actually killed the whole world and one who saves a life has actually saved the whole world!!"..

Exactly, unforunately these people do not care about truth, only vilification of Muslims. They preach with their complete lack of knowledge of Islam that it is wrong, continuously embarrassing themselves. When they are proven wrong, they call us liars.

The only way to discuss any religion, Islam included, is to quote its scriptures and explain it in the context of other verses. People here don't think about accuracy, only vilification. Demonizing other people helps them sleep at night.

Furthermore, we are talking of this Rushdie character. Who here has read his book? No one seems to have read it.

PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT UNLESS YOU HAVE READ IT. Read it and then come back to discuss it if you think it is protected under free speech.

that is all I have to say.

 

[spidergoat]

The only way to discuss any religion, Islam included, is to quote its scriptures and explain it in the context of other verses.

Nonsense. The scriptures, especially in Islam, is not the religion. There are hadiths, fatwas, various interpretations, yadda yadda yadda. By focusing on a book, we are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Quran and hadith are both scriptures, this is what I mean. You need nothing else to explain Islam.

 

[spidergoat]

Is the Bible Christianity? Not really, because Jews use the same book, and they aren't Christians. The religion is more than just a book, it is a set of interpretations and customs as well, it is the culture.

 

[Arsalan]

Christianity is the OT + NT iirc

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Is the Bible Christianity? Not really, because Jews use the same book, and they aren't Christians. The religion is more than just a book, it is a set of interpretations and customs as well, it is the culture.

No spider we actually don't use the same Bible, yes the Old Testament is part of our Bible, but it is the New Testament, that is the Bible, that our religion is based upon.

The reason that the Old Testament is included is because of the prophecies of the Coming of Christ, and to show the fulfillment of those Prophecies.

The Torah isn't our Bible.

 

[chuuush]

So why are Muslims killing so many other Muslims? Oppression, tyranny?

We hear of suicide bombings in marketplaces all the time, with Muslim civiians, women and children, as the obvious target. What's with that if Muslims are supposed to help the weak?

Baron Max

I do not consider the acts of terrorists in killing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq as Jihad. Nor Does any other muslim I know. If you think such acts are Jihad, I suggest you change your opinion as this fatwa of yours seems to be more violent than that of the majority of islamic scholars.

 

[Zakariya04]

No spider we actually don't use the same Bible, yes the Old Testament is part of our Bible, but it is the New Testament, that is the Bible, that our religion is based upon.

The reason that the Old Testament is included is because of the prophecies of the Coming of Christ, and to show the fulfillment of those Prophecies.

The Torah isn't our Bible.

hey Buffalo

how does it go with you

so Buffalo, are you saying that everything the prophets before christ said was BS????