Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
baghda

Why Muslims are not free to interpret Koran?

Recommended Posts

قد يبدوا الحديث عن القضايا الخلافيه امرا دو اهميه ولكني اعتقد ان الظرف الحساس الدي يمر به العراق والخصوصيه التي ابتلي بها شعب العراق من كون الكثيرين من اهله يتمتعون بصفتي الاختلاف وقله الاطلاع وهما ميزتان كان الله في عون من يبتلى بهما, ارى ان توضيح المسائل بشكل علمي بعيد عن النفس الطائفي هو امر مهم

 

فكاتب المقال مثلا يخصص الشيعه بانتقادهم لبعض الصحابه على خلفيه رؤيه معينه لروايات للتاريخ وهو ربما لايعلم ان الاباضيه السنه يفعلون الامر نفسه

موضوع النضره المقدسه للشخصيات التاريخيه والدينيه موضوع يحتاج الى مراجعه وعلى كلا الطرفين السني والشيعي

 

نحن بحاجه الى دراسه نقديه لتاريخنا ولشخوص دلك التاريخ وليس قراءه مبتسره تاخد ما يحلو لنا وتترك ماليس بدلك

موضوع عمرو ابن العاص مهم ليس لانه شخصيه خلافيه ولكنه كدلك لتعلق الامر بضهور دوله الاستبداد في تاريخنا العربي

فهو ممن جاهد وساهم في تاسيس دوله الامويين بكل افقها المستبد الدي لازالت اسسها الفكريه تحكم عالمنا الاسلامي المعاصر الى هدا اليوم . من هنا فان تحليلا نقديا علميا لهجه الشخصيه هو من ما نحتاجه في دراسه واقعنا الاسلامي والعربي المريض الراهن

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed Islam is the only religion, to my understanding, that don't have a clerical position. You might get confused.. All what we call clergy in Islam, are just scholars.. It is not like Christianity, you need to go to church to pray to god and be blessed by priest in order to be a good Christian.. Mosques are just place for pray but any place would do same. In Islam there is no need for a clergy to accomplish a religiously full marriage ceremony !
Christianity has been layered with dogma and legalism - but at core is no different from this at all.

 

I only go to church to be taught by a scholar I respect. I am required by God to examine every word that scholar teaches by the word of God and the Holy Spirit (I know - the trinity makes me not monotheistic: I do not agree but who cares! we can sort that out some time over coffee). Baptism is an act of obediance - like the Hadj - not a religious "requirement" in order to be blessed.

 

Now I have online concordances, commentaries, etc to help me understand God's word. Not all christians have that or will use that. Even in all that, I am not free to interpret the Bible.

 

And Christians follow religious leaders unthinkingly all the time. People are people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I only go to church to be taught by a scholar I respect.

 

First of all I might need to confirm that Moslim are requested by their teachings to fully respect Christian church and their religious leaders..

 

What was ment is not the way a person might practise his religion , but how the religion teachings requested this person to do.. In Islam , the teachings doesn't require the position of clergy, as the relation to Alah doesn't necessiat such middel man.. That is nothing to do with how that person might behave.. However we might notice that most Muslims are going the Christian way of honoring and creating a clerical institutes..

..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salim,

 

Thank you - I understood that. Nothing in the Bible requires us to have clergy either - nothing in scripture says there needs to be any intercessor between God and the believer. It is a tradition established by the Catholic Church which continues. In a sense, it established the same control you have talked about in the Sunni relationship with the clergy.

 

My wife was a "fallen away" Catholic when we met (with me a real enemy of God). She did not attend church, or read the Bible (not really a Catholic tradition when she left). She maintained her individual relationship with God for 7 years - in prayer for me every day (she never discussed religion with me at all). Due to her devotion, God softened my heart and let me see Him. She saved my life. This is the essence of my relationship with God - and if I understand you, yours.

 

All the Abrahamic religions at core believe our relationship is directly with God. Judaism had the need of priests to intercede for the people, as does Catholicism. I have no intercessor between me and God.

 

The Qu'ran incident brought to me a difference in how our religions appear to view the actual physical scripture - and that is of some interest to me, and some confusion I think to most Americans. Our marriage traditions are different - which I am also interested in learning about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JCHFleetguy,

Thanks for the clarifications..

As for Moslims, The teachings of Quran encourage Moslim to be scholars but there is no Institutional religous structure as the case with Catholics. What all those names in Islam about , are just respected scholars , any Moslim has the right to disagree with , without violating his religous credibility. Something, to me understanding , the Protestant got from Islam in the renaissance ages.

 

However, through the Islamic history , certain school of thoughts had been developed that creat a polar idiological identities that are based on certain understandings of some scholar.. Political structures might used such polar identities to supress enemies.. So while the teachings itself assure free choice for followers, political system didn't.. Today there is a mix between both..

 

As for marriage , In Islam, it is a pure civil contract based on the two parties free agreement.. Every thing is negotiable, including the right of devorce gardianship "Esmaa".. By default it is in the hand of Hasband, but can be changed to the other party..

The clergy presence is cermonial and work as a judge to record.. Recording can be done through any other means without violating the marriage legitimacy.. Under such contract the groom is required to offer any ammount of money to the bride, the ammount need to be negotiated. Today, in most wealthy family is used as way of show off, for others it is no longer really paid..

There are some details that might violate woman rights such as the legitimacy of guardianship. A concept that might be extended by some Moslims to include some limited use of physical force on their wifes on wrong doing .. A concept that need to be seriously discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, through the Islamic history , certain school of thoughts had been developed that creat a polar idiological identities that are based on certain understandings of some scholar.. Political structures might used such polar identities to supress enemies.. So while the teachings itself assure free choice of followers, political system didn't.. Today there is a mix between both..
Sounds familiar.

 

I think in the US marriage is the same - except the variable time up front. Marriage seems to always be "for life"; but the divorce rate is high - and equal between non-christians and christians. For Christian marriage - at least philosophically (not in practice) this is my favorite explanation from CS Lewis: Christian Marriage.

 

But the marriage system in the US is not two-tiered. There are not "Christian Marriages" and "secular unions" in practice - or if the divorce rates are any indication, in any way. Obviously, that scandalizes christians internally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I misspoke some: Again the Catholics (and some other denominations/sects) do not recognize divorce; and actually require your marriage to be annulled (declared to have never been real in God's eyes) in order to marry again.

 

This is why when I married my current wife that we were not married by a Catholic priest - I refused to "annul" (even if the Catholic Church would have) my first marriage.

 

Anyway, again there are regulations that get layered on. But as the Lewis article points out - scripture is not a fan of divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Moron99

As I watch the world spiral through these gyrations of violence I keep wondering why Muslims do not take back their religion from the hands of these demons. It seems to me that the Islamic faith has been re-interpreted and redfined to suit the needs of those who hold power or wish to seize it. The minor laws are upheld fervently, but the basic principles are abandoned. One such monir law is not to question authority upon the risk of being a bad Muslim. But which is less pious?

To uphold the five pillars within your own life but stand idly by while Islam itself is corrupted.

- or -

To question those who corrupt the central message while seeking protection within the Mosque itself?

 

Sadr is one such example. No thing shall be legitimate if taken from a Muslim without his willing consent. And yet, the most important thing of all - a persons right to determine his own relationship with Allah - is forcibly taken from Muslims by the Sadrists themselves. And then there are the salafee who wish to illegitimately seize each Muslims right to determine their own future and form their own opinions. Or the despotic governments who wish to take away the act of reasoning by limiting the knowledge upon which reasoning is based. Or the supreme coucils of Iran which take from Muslims their ability to choose their own leaders by limiting the choices upon the ballot. The list goes on and on. And I wonder - why is it a greater sin to violate the little things and question a mortal man? Why is it a lesser sin to approve by silence when these men steal the gifts of Allah and corrupt Islam itself?

 

I have been reading the words of Muslims and Arabs for three years and have not once heard or seen of a Muslim asking this most basic of questions. Why is that so? A man who walks underneath an elephants ass will eventually get what he deserves. With each passing day and each new bomb in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, London, Pakistan, Phillipines, Kashmir, Chechnya, Indonesia. et al - and each new report of the jinjaweed slaughter ... I find myself thinking that moderate Muslims have been given more than enough chances to step out from under the elephant. How many more chances should they be given? Not many. Five, maybe ten years. I wonder how many others around the world are beginning to think similarly?

 

Or perhaps - there are only few moderates and the radicals pretend to be moderate in order to decieve. Either way, only muslims can define Islam and those who speak the most loudly are defining it as the religion of killing innocent people.

 

So tell me, please. Why should I continue to believe that moderate Muslims exist in sufficient numbers and that they are both willing and capable of taking back their religion from the radicals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mustefser

A defiant Islam rises among young Britons

 

By James Brandon, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor Mon Jul 11, 4:00 AM ET

 

LONDON - Thursday's coordinated terrorist attacks that killed at least 49 people have underscored competing forces within Britain's Muslim community: a minority that advocates violence against Western targets, and those who want to coexist peacefully with Britain's multifaith, multiethnic society.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Since the bombings, the media and Muslims have been at pains to explain that most of the country's 2 million Muslims are peaceful. "The Muslim community in Britain has a long history and is enormously diverse," says Anas al-Tikriti, a member of the Muslim Association of Britain.

 

But the attacks are turning attention to the increasing numbers of young British Muslims who are rejecting their parents' traditional culture in favor of a radical and expansionist Islam. This strikingly Western version of Islam combines an independence of thought with a contempt for established traditional scholarship and a theme of teenage rebellion.

 

"Getting involved in radical Islam is an emotional thing rather than a rational decision," says Abdul-Rahman al-Helbawi, a Muslim prayer leader. "And it's not a matter of intelligence or education - a lot of these radicals in Britain are very well-educated."

 

In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood.

 

"We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."

 

Two days later in a prosperous West London cafe, Mr. Helbawi pondered the attacks. "It's not a surprise but I am still shocked," he said. "How can they do this? London is a city for all the world. This is not Islam."

 

Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."

 

Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of

Iraq and

Afghanistan.

 

"Because Muslims explain the conflicts in Iraq,

Kashmir, and

Israel through Islam, every Muslim feels involved," said Helbawi. "People watch television and see Palestinian women being hit and pushed around by Israeli soldiers, and get angry and feel that they have to do something."

 

But beyond anger, a sense of alienation often drives radical Islam. Many second- and third-generation immigrants find themselves cut off not only from their parents' cultures but also from a British one that includes alcohol and looser sexual mores.

 

"If you don't drink, it really cuts you off from English society," says Ummul Choudhury, a London-based Middle East analyst for the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies. "The view of the older generation is also that you do not integrate. If you do, you are told you are betraying your culture and religion."

 

The resulting isolation makes it easier for young Muslims to develop a contempt for British society.

 

"There is also a lot of racism toward white British people," says Ms. Choudhury. "It's not really something that people want to talk about, but there are definitely some things that Muslims say between themselves that they would never say in front of white people."

 

For frustrated and isolated young Muslims, radical Islam is not difficult to find. Girls in particular are often prevented from going out at night and can be easily drawn into online Muslim communities where they come into contact with other disillusioned Muslims from across Europe.

 

One leading analyst of the Islamic diaspora even compares the lure of extremist Islam to 1950s teens listening to Elvis in an attempt to shock their parents. "The son of a Pentecostal preacher in Brixton was recruited by the radical Muslims," says Nadhim Shehadi, acting head of the Middle East program at Chatham House.

 

"This young man initially tried to upset his parents by becoming a rapper," says Shehadi. "But when his parents stopped objecting, he became a jihadi instead."

 

The antiestablishment nature of this new Islam and its apparent status as an alternative to capitalism and secularism is also winning converts among native Britons.

 

"People come to Islam from all walks of life. It's not just middle-class people but also electricians, judges, and taxi drivers," says Sara Joseph, the editor of "Emel," a lifestyle magazine for Muslim women, who converted to Islam at age 17. "The main catalyst for conversion is often going out with a Muslim, although the primary factor is usually a search for spirituality."

 

While the estimated 1,000 British Christians, atheists, and members of other faiths who convert to Islam every year are often attracted by Islam's clearly defined teachings, this minor trend is overshadowed by Muslims' highbirth and immigration rates, which tomany Muslims promises increased political and social influence in the future.

 

Indeed, taking advantage of Britain's rapidly expanding and increasingly Muslim population are new parties that aim to promote ethnic and religious agendas. One is Respect, a left-wing party founded by former Labour MP George Galloway, that aims to unite Muslims and socialists around opposition to American foreign policy and globalization.

 

Linked to the desire for increased political power are attempts by some radical Muslims to begin a process of Islamicizing British cities.

 

Last month, Muslim groups in Glasgow petitioned the City Council to ban an Italian restaurant from serving alcohol to diners seated at outside tables. Hospitals in Leicester considered banning Bibles from hospital wards to avoid offending Muslim patients. In Birmingham, a group called Muslims Against Advertising began a campaign of painting over billboards that they deemed offensive to Islam - targeting ads for Levi's jeans, perfume, and lingerie.

 

But these small campaigns are polarizing public opinion along ethnic and religious lines - and creating support for Britain's far-right groups, who present themselves as defenders of Britain's hard-won freedoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Iraq, Internet fuel growth of global jihad

Analysts suspect Thursday's attack in London was motivated by Britain's role in Iraq.

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

CAIRO – Investigators still don't know who carried out last Thursday's attacks in London. But they say those responsible were probably Islamist terrorists who viewed their assault as revenge for Britain's part in the Iraq war.

 

The attacks that killed at least 52 in London follow two years in which the Iraq war has inflamed Islamist hatred of the US and key allies like Britain.

 

According to US assessments, the turmoil in Iraq has replaced the still-simmering conflict in Afghanistan as the chief recruiter of international jihadis. Analysts say anger over the conflict is helping to spread the ideology of global jihad to young Muslims in Europe.

 

But it is the confluence of America's decision to invade Iraq and new communication technologies that has created the most powerful machine for recruiting new terrorists in history, says Evan Kohlmann, an American terrorism consultant who has tracked jihadi websites since the late 1990s.

 

America and its allies are now facing a multifront war: In Iraq, which is turning out a new generation of Arab jihadis; in Europe, where Muslim admirers of Al Qaeda are embracing the cause because of anger over the Iraq war; and on the Internet, which has become a megaphone for radical jihadi ideologies.

 

Counterterrorism officials often talk about the phenomenon of "terrorist dispersal," which is when radicalized foreigners carry jihad and their guerrilla skills back to their homelands.

 

But most analysts speculate that those responsible for Thursday's attacks in London were not veterans of the Iraqi insurgency. Instead, the best guess is that they were composed primarily of Muslims living in Europe, inspired by Al Qaeda sympathizers who promise salvation and glory in exchange for violence, much as was the case with the Madrid blasts that killed 190 last year.

 

"The world is just starting to understand the real influence of the Internet as an open university of jihad,'' says Reuven Paz, the head of the Project for the Research of Islamic Movements in Israel. "Like the attacks in Madrid, the bombings in London should be viewed as an export of the war in Iraq to Europe, based on local adherents of global jihad rather than on volunteers from the heart of the Arab world."

 

In the 1980s, the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, with its thousands of Arab fighters financed by the US and others, also served as a potent rallying point for would-be martyrs. Not only was Al Qaeda - "the base" in Arabic - created from among these fighters, but clandestine videos of brave Mujahideen attacks were spread around the world.

 

Today, videos and messages of support for Islamist fighters spread much faster. Insurgent in "martyrdom operations" appear on websites within days of attacks in Iraq, and the latest calls to carry jihad to Western capitals from the likes of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's No. 2 and Al Qaeda's chief ideologue, spread around the globe within minutes.

 

"Whatever framework we use to talk about Iraq - take Afghanistan for instance - it's whatever happened there, but on steroids,'' says Toby Craig Jones, a political scientist and analyst of events in Saudi Arabia for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank. "It seems to be proceeding much more quickly this time."

 

 

To be sure, the vast majority of Muslims are as horrified by such attacks as anyone else, and a growing number of Muslim scholars are speaking out against the methods and motives the global jihadis. But Islamist terrorism has never been a widespread phenomenon. "If we're talking about percentages, maybe the supporters of global jihad are only 1 percent of the Muslim world,'' says Paz.

 

A Saudi ideologue who goes by the handle "Lewis Attiyatullah" online and with whom Paz held an e-mail correspondence with until Lewis apparently went underground, spelled out what Al Qaeda and its ideological allies see as the benefits of the US presence in Iraq in an open letter to Tony Blair first published in April 2004.

 

In his letter, Lewis said he expects that fighting in Iraq will create "a resistance that would develop into a culture of jihad," and that attacks must be made on Western capitals like London that have supported the war in Iraq. He also expresses pleasure about how Iraq, in his view, is inducting new members into the global jihad. "I wish you could listen to what the returnees from Iraq say. Fighting the enemy became their greatest pleasure ... this notion became like a virus for them."

 

Within Iraq, a small percentage of the insurgency is composed of foreign fighters. The US military in Iraq estimates that there are around 1,000 members of an insurgency that many others say numbers at least 15,000. But foreign fighters are far more likely to be suicide bombers than Iraqi fighters, a reflection of the extreme religious convictions that underpin their involvement.

 

Paz calculated in a March 2005 paper that of around 200 documented suicide bombers in Iraq, 61 percent were Saudi. In an assessment running through June by Mr. Kohlmann, of 300 foreigners reported killed in Iraq, 165 were Saudi, 38 were Syrian, 16 Kuwaiti, and 14 Jordanian. Kohlmann says nine Muslims from Europe have also been reported killed in Iraq, one of them from Britain.

 

Both men expect that foreigners who survive the fighting in Iraq are likely to carry the fight back to homelands like Saudi Arabia, a close US ally whose monarchy is frequently attacked on Islamist websites as corrupt. The foreigners in Iraq, based on "martyrdom wills" and websites linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian militant who has been declared the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, appear to have few qualms about even killing other Muslims.

 

Paz says the frequency with which jihadis in Iraq are willing to justify the killings of civilians and Muslims is a sharp departure from the previous generation weaned on Afghanistan, which was brutal to be sure, but generally had stricter limits on what were seen as legitimate targets. "The Iraqi alumni are going to be more dangerous than the Afghan alumni. They have no limits, no red lines," he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alaa

Let us not mislead ourselves with the idea of non-radical Islam. Islam is radical religion and not compatible with freedom of speech, individuals' liberties, totalitarian governement...etc. On such bases Islam if meant to survive must be solely the individuals' affair with God. If religious leadership of Islamic thoughts do not speak the language of separating religion from politics then they are implicitly promoting the radical thoughts of Prophet Mohammand's era.

 

I hear people talking with no hint of evidence of mulsims' tolerance to others during the Islamic empires. In the last few days I have been browseing the internet for articles, published materials on how the Jews and Christians were treated during the islamic dominance of Spain and the rest of south of Europe. I can tell that there are plenty of evidence that Jews and Christians were not treated as it has been portrayed by mulims today. Maybe someone would say all what I found on the internet is a Jewish conspircies!!!

 

Unless Islam is promoted as a source of ethics and moralities only without intervening in the state politics; it still be seen as a compensation for an identity crisis of young muslims living in the west. These young men when dive into the horrifying stae of depression they take radical islamic thoughts as a comforting issue, but they soon be misled to be a suicides bombers due to the common identity crisis.

 

Some would say that on the contrary young muslims living in the west have a very strong sense of identity; I say look deeply in the souls of these young muslims and see how much conflicts they inside their souls. Young muslims can get out such crisis by lving lives of youngs in the west without losing the sense of been related to God in a very individualistic sense and not to accept any taboos set by Imams and "scholars".

 

An Iranian friend of mine told me that there is a surge of demand in Iran by some intlectuals who press on debating the most forbiden issues in islam and there are many of them which are denied their existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Muslim leaders condemn attackers 

 

Sir Iqbal Sacranie said Islam could never justify the killings

Muslim leaders in the UK have reacted with shock to the news that the London bombers may have been British-born young people from their community.

The Muslim Council of Britain's secretary general, Iqbal Sacranie, said it had received the news with "anguish, shock and horror".

 

"Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers," he said.

 

Sir Iqbal said the "criminals" who bombed London needed to be distanced from the Islamic faith.

 

'Unjust association'

 

"They happen to be Muslims and it's not that Islam is the problem, it is those individuals, it is the criminality that is there," Sir Iqbal said.

 

He was speaking after police revealed they believed four men, three of them from West Yorkshire, had carried out the bombings and probably died in doing so.

 

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "The criminality of anyone should not be associated with their nationality, ethnicity or religion.

 

"That sort of association is totally unjust and xenophobic and can create a great injustice by promoting prejudice that could fuel further violence against innocent people. A criminal is a criminal, is a criminal, full stop."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....... from an Iraqi Muslim

Iraq At A Glance

 

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Enough…stop it..you manslayers

 

Well, I don't know from where to start and what to write right now because I've just decided to write again after all those weeks of silence, so I am going to publish some of those thoughts that used to be jailed in my mind many years ago, that used to proliferate inside of me but I could not set them free due to the usual cause...fear.

 

I’m sorry if this post looks confused and not well organized, but I just want to start writing again.

 

I want to talk about something that is killing people everyday not only in Iraq but the whole world as well, that thing that does not differentiate between man and woman, elderly and children....that is Jihad and the nuts that support it.

 

Let me start with it and see where I'm going to stop! Let’s regard it the beginning.

This is the most devastating concept, harvesting tens and hundreds of innocents every wave of jihadi operations.

 

I just want to discuss why the suicide attacks always done by Muslims? Have you ever heard a Christian or someone from any other religion bombed him/herself? NO...

 

So there is a big wrong in this religion itself. Wrong in its ‘holy book’ and in the Hadiths (sayings of Mohammed) which are the base of terror nowadays because some of Islamic sects follow what the hadiths say literally and apply it to ‘raise the banner of Islam’.

 

We should not blame the happy Mujahid who has ‘a heart full of love and belief in God and the prophet’ who runs towards the ‘infidels’ with a smile of victory and green card to the paradise, this Mujahid is brainwashed and deceived by the ones who control him using the Quran and the hadiths..*you can get many different explanations of the Quran and Hadiths to the same verse because they are not clear enough to be explained directly, this is the problem in dealing with those two*. And if they really exist, so there might be many verses been added during those hundreds of years..yes?

 

I think if many verses had been cancelled and never been said, the Islamic mind would be much better.

 

Or if all those clerics from different sects have brains even as small as the beans, meet together and represent the majority of Islamic society and try to put an end to such verses or explain them in another way like regarding them as old ones and they must not be applied nowadays. I think, the world will be much more peaceful and quiet.

 

I know it is difficult, and saying it is so easy, but this is the only way to stop this illness which will destroy this religion first then 'its enemies'..

 

One might say that those fundamentalists do not represent Islam and they are only a small group..blah..blah..blah..

 

So why there are a lot of their silent supporters in many Islamic and Arabic countries and others who feel proud of OBL and Zarqawi..I watched religious men and political analysts on the TV who stand side by side with those terrorists and give them the right to do whatever they do.

 

Hey..Muslims: Sunnis…Salafis..Wahhabis…etc..from those who keep a beard full of ……… just wake up..you are destroying us and destroying yourselves, stop inspiring morale among your brainwashed guys to kill.. we are human beings..do you know what is the meaning of human beings? I doubt it.

 

 

Wait for the next post..I will write more… till then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alaa

I hear Muslims trying very hard to justify the backward verses of Quran. When someone ask the question about the explicit verse in Quran of beating women; all deaf and well-lectured Muslims jump and suggest that one mustn't take one verse out ot context. What context is it that allows men to beat women if they disobey them? Who gave the power to men to take corrective action to align women back to Islamic values? And why there isn't a verse in Quran which allow women to beat men for disobeying? Islam is a backward religion if compared to current social and political models. Islam was not a backward religion during the backward era of Christianity. The trouble with Muslims is that if they criticise Islam then what is left of their identity? So in a way, they can't criticise Islam because it is an act the strip their identity while living in the west.

 

If, as claimed, that Quran is so complex and abstract then there must be more than one interpretations of it, and if there are so many interpretations then it is better to keep it as private as possible and not to claim it has a complete political, social infrastructure of thoughts.

 

Islam's radicalisms stems from its explicit meaning of its verses tackling social issues. Here is an example from the Quran "if you see an evil try to correct it by persuading and if that proved not effective finally you have to correct by force". First of all what is the evil? Evil is an act that contradict Islamic values and principles and it may not be an evil for a humanist. Also what gives the right for Muslims to correct an act that may not seem to be evil to the person who is acting? here of course I am not refering to crimes by social definitions.Adultry, al chohol, skimpy women's dress mustn't be punished by severse punishment if society is tolerant to it as it is the case in the western societies.

 

Now..here is something on Jews and Christians under an Islamic state. Jews and Christians will not be killed like any other unbeliever in Islam, but to pay jizya and Kharaj. But then why should they pay the extra tax (Jizya and Kharaj) if they are a citizens of a country. This is a blunt discrimination and a violation of human rights.

 

Islam will go dead unless it goes through adjustments that allows it to survive. As for Islam as the most widely spread religion in US...well they breed a lot of kids, don't they? We don't have any evidence that tells us about the proportion of converted Christians and Jews, do we?

 

The point I am making is that Islam will be severely criticised, by quoting so many backward verses in Quran, unless it doesn't take away its stand as complete state's system. Fortunately we have the good example of Christianity which died away, and I hope Islam will face the same destiny so we can live in a more humane societies....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...