Clearing up misconceptions about Islam ( the religion ) , and a request . . . . . .

[Capulet]

Now , after having posted such extensive material that the Islamic faith itself has the seeds ( or rather , roots ) of intolerance , bigotedness , and of all the evils of which I have accused it , I believe that I have finally finished my opposition ( i.e. , that whatever they throw at me , I can simple refer them to some older post of mine ) . If anyone has anything new to contribute , please do . If you want to reiterate old points , then please re-read the thread - you will find the answer to your query .

All you've proven in this thread is that you are so intolerant that it makes anything you say seem...

Worthless.

 

[aneeshm]

with all due respect, aneeshm, you have said many interesting things. ok, the muslims in india commited crimes against the hindu people. as the christians did against the pagans, but i am not saying that that is an excuse.
here, i give you that! muslims did bad things in the name of islam!

I am willing to admit that people have committed crimes against himanity in the name of Hinduism , too . But my point is that Hinduism is more of a philosophy and a way of life that a religion , whereas Islam is more of an organised religion , and because Mohammed gave practically unlimited sanction to the Ulema , they now command a position which no religious authority should . I am trying to say that it is the religion itself which is responsible , not just the whims of any one follower .

but what's your point? what do you wish to achieve by all this? do you have any suggestions on how to improve things? personally are you going to stick to the past, or are you gonna move on? do you wish for the muslims and hindus to live side by side peacefully?

It is precisely because I wish the Hindus and Muslims to live in peace that I am doing this . I want both to come to terms with and accept a past which today both try to gloss over . A history suppressed will lead to even more unnecessary animosity .

I have one suggestion - Muslims on this board , like Capulet , who are liberals , and who I respect , should , at least once , try to re-interpret the Quran in accordance with their beliefs ( that Islam is a religion of peace , of tolerance , etc. ) . Though they may have to face the criticism of the Ulema for some time , but this is the only way out . Open the doors of ijtihad again ! It is in your hands .

the impression i got from your posts was one of passive hatred, anger, and the feeling of injustice. you are entitled to that. but i really like to see something about hope, peace, something less antagonistic.

Hatred of whom ? Not of anyone living today . But of course I would hate the people who have completely destroyed every large temple of northern India . I am definitely angry , but not at Muslims today . I am angry at the people who try to gloss over a bloody past . Accept it , and move on . Today , liberals , obsessed with political correctness , are still in denial . Get over it . Admit that yes , some religions can order some rather unpleasant things ( and that most have ) . Do not try to whitewash the past . Accepting history is the only way of getting over it . The more you deny it , the more it will come back to haunt you .


And I have no wish to be antagonistic . But everyone assumes that I hate Muslims , though I have made it clear that I do not , that I would rather help them get out of the thrall of their religious leaders . The fact that I criticise a religion is taken to be an admission of bigotedness , of hatred of that religion . I have again and again repeated that I deal with texts and history , and that I feel absolutely nothing ( maybe except a little sympathy ) for the average Muslim today . But still everyone thinks that I hate Muslims , in spite of me saying about a hundred times that that is not so .


The only hope for peace for the Islamic world today is to shed the externals of religion , to concentrate on the essentials , to shed the exclusiveness ( the attitude of "I am what you are not" ) , the implicit hatred of every kafir , the idea that every kafir is actually a traitor , to get rid of the ideologues who justify terrorism , and to break the power of the Ulema . Only people who are liberal Muslims like Capulet can do this , and in there hands lies their community's future . I , not being a Muslim , will not be taken seriously even if I present an interpretation which is completely goody-goody and very enlightened and very liberal .

The question is : will they , the liberal Muslims , rise to the challenge ?

 

[aneeshm]

No. I had been very close to closing it before. You are continually walking a fine line between debating and simply trolling and bashing islam.

I confine my criticism to the texts , and I think that the texts bear me out on this . I have no wish to bash or troll or anything like that . I try my best to be objective in my criticisms , and to make no criticism unless I can bear it out with facts .

This reminds me of another story . The maximum you would do if you considered me a troll would be to lock my thread , and maybe ban me . But when Salman Rushdie authored a gigantic , magnificent troll in the form of the Satanic Verses , he was declared worthy of death , and it was declared that all Muslmis must try to kill him . Something tells me that you would not ban me and say that it was the job of every CFC member to try to kill me , would you ?

ANd your complete lack of tolerance is hypocritical.

Please tell me , then , how I am intolerant .

 

[aneeshm]

All you've proven in this thread is that you are so intolerant that it makes anything you say seem...

Worthless.

Again - how am I intolerant ?

Of course , as is the pattern , I am the one providing proof after proof , quote after quote , and you are the one throwing about one-liners . I think an outside observer can easily make out the level of each .


But I must say this - you are one of the few liberal Muslims out there , and the future of the community is in your hands . Please just try to re-interpret the Quran in your spare time ( if only for yourself ) . That is the only way of breaking the power of the regressive Ulema .

 

[shahreevar]

Aneeshm jaan, you said

It is precisely because I wish the Hindus and Muslims to live in peace that I am doing this . I want both to come to terms with and accept a past which today both try to gloss over . A history suppressed will lead to even more unnecessary animosity .

I have one suggestion - Muslims on this board , like Capulet , who are liberals , and who I respect , should , at least once , try to re-interpret the Quran in accordance with their beliefs ( that Islam is a religion of peace , of tolerance , etc. ) . Though they may have to face the criticism of the Ulema for some time , but this is the only way out . Open the doors of ijtihad again ! It is in your hands .

well , the so-called liberal muslim have been doing that for some time. and the very reasons they have been not so successfull are varied and complex. i am from iran, and i know for a fact what you mean when you suggest that we should "break the powers of the Ulema". in the iranian case the Ulema are the people in charge of the Government. i won't go into detail on how that came to be, how the so-called islamic revolution was actually hijacked by the fundamentalists, etc.
people have been paying a high price, i.e. their lives, in order to get rid of the theocracy, and implement a democratic society. some are completey secular, and some are religious, but understand that for a successful democracy, religion and state need to be seperate. they indeed interpret the Holy book, in a very "liberal" way.

liberals , obsessed with political correctness , are still in denial

i like to consider myself a liberal person,and i can tell you that i am not in denial. i understand that what evil has been done in the name of religion (any religion) is done by people, who justify their acts via their faith. e.g "God has ordered me to kill No-believers (jew, christians, muslims, hindus, balcks, whites, gays, etc.) and so i shall do just that, since i can't be wrong, since it's God's will ..."

i believe that the religous book can be interpreted by just anyone. especially those whose aim is to rule and control others. in the case of Quran, i tend to accept Molavi, Hafiz, and most other sufi poets' interpretation. the sufi's are the the oroginal musilm liberals, and the fact the they are against the dogma, and orthodox viwes, makes them the target of oppression. but i am sure you know about sufis.

The only hope for peace for the Islamic world today is to shed the externals of religion , to concentrate on the essentials , to shed the exclusiveness ( the attitude of "I am what you are not" ) , the implicit hatred of every kafir , the idea that every kafir is actually a traitor , to get rid of the ideologues who justify terrorism , and to break the power of the Ulema . Only people who are liberal Muslims like Capulet can do this , and in there hands lies their community's future

i completely agree with you on that. islam is in need of a reformation, much like the protestant movement, only in the islamic context. but you yourself say that we should concentrate on the the essential, and the essential, the fundamental of Islam is not violence, but rather respect. you can disagree with me, quoting the Quran, and show how it gives the recepie for violence towards others. but as a persian saying goes "the listener has to be wise!!"
i.e. everything is subjective, relative to ones thoughts, and inner nature. if i choose to kill non-believers, i will find a passage or two to support my ideas. but if i wanted to give alms, help the needy, respect women, be pious, generous, clean, healthy, and in search of knowledge, then i will find a passage or two to guid me towards my goal.

 

[shahreevar]

and because Mohammed gave practically unlimited sanction to the Ulema

i doubt that prophet Mohammad ever gave Ulemas such sanctions. for one thing the ulema did not exist at the time of the prophet (like the Pope did not live at the time of Jesus )

the body of religious scholars whose job were/are to intepret Islamic law, make laws, and determine whether an act is within the framework of the Sharia,.... the ulema were formed much later.

 

[aneeshm]

i doubt that prophet Mohammad ever gave Ulemas such sanctions. for one thing the ulema did not exist at the time of the prophet (like the Pope did not live at the time of Jesus )

the body of religious scholars whose job were/are to intepret Islamic law, make laws, and determine whether an act is within the framework of the Sharia,.... the ulema were formed much later.

The sanction of authority was given to the Ulema by Mohammed himself . I cannot remember the source just now , but I do remember having read , on more than one occasion , the Prophet's injunction that "my ulema can never be wrong" . At that time , he meant it as his collection of learned men ( from the Arabic alim , or learned man , the pulral of which is ulema ) . So yes , learned men did exist at the Prophet's time , and he did give them sanction .

 

[allhailIndia]

I fear this thread has long outlived its worth because it has become an endless rant where aneeshm posts something to the effect that Islam urges people to commit genocide and a different person responds saying that it is not Islam's fault but the people's fault.
The discussion has not gotten anywhere and is a complete waste of time beyond the first ten pages. It has only shown up the misconceptions of the author if anything and others' attempt to clear it up while the author refuses to see any good in the religion.

I therefore kindly request that this thread be put to sleep by a moderator.

 

[aneeshm]

I fear this thread has long outlived its worth because it has become an endless rant where aneeshm posts something to the effect that Islam urges people to commit genocide and a different person responds saying that it is not Islam's fault but the people's fault.
The discussion has not gotten anywhere and is a complete waste of time beyond the first ten pages. It has only shown up the misconceptions of the author if anything and others' attempt to clear it up while the author refuses to see any good in the religion.

I therefore kindly request that this thread be put to sleep by a moderator.

That's not a very tolerant request , is it , allHail ?

 

[blackheart]

That's not a very tolerant request , is it , allHail ?

And you haven't been making very tolerant discussion have you?

 

[Colonel]

Just to point out, but to blame all of Islam for the acts of a very small minority is a bit insane. There is a very large silent majority of Muslims who just want to live in peace.

Also to point out that Terrorists follow a strict interpertation of 7th century Islamic law as said by the prophet Muhammed(sp). Besides which, Muhammed may have the one to begin the religon but he is not the only one to shape it, view it as a whole not just what one person has said it should even he was the begining of it. Go read the Qu'ran and other holy books of the religon and get a full view of the religon.

 

[aneeshm]

And you haven't been making very tolerant discussion have you?

If that is your opinion , I defy you to substantiate it . Find me one , and just one statement , where I have applied a negative criticism to Muslims for being Muslim . I defy you to find even one .

 

[Capulet]

If that is your opinion , I defy you to substantiate it . Find me one , and just one statement , where I have applied a negative criticism to Muslims for being Muslim . I defy you to find even one .

Well, what exactly are you trying to prove aneesh? What is your endgame?

 

[aneeshm]

Just to point out, but to blame all of Islam for the acts of a very small minority is a bit insane. There is a very large silent majority of Muslims who just want to live in peace.

My point is that that small minority is representative of true Islam , as is defined by the Quran and the Hadith . The liberal Muslims out there , such as Capulet , are not 100 % true to their faith . They are following a diluted , de-Ulemafied version of Islam . That version happens to be the only one compatible with the modern age , but Islam , in its pure form , is what I have criticised all this while .

Also to point out that Terrorists follow a strict interpertation of 7th century Islamic law as said by the prophet Muhammed(sp). Besides which, Muhammed may have the one to begin the religon but he is not the only one to shape it, view it as a whole not just what one person has said it should even he was the begining of it.

I agree that Islam was shaped a lot by the actions of followers , but the root of all subsequent iconoclastic actions was laid by Mohammed's destructions of the idols of the Kaaba .

In case you do not know it - one of Hinduism's holiest shrines , the Somnath temple , was destroyed by Mahmud of Gazhni because he believed that the idol of Manat , which initially resided in the Kaaba , but could not be found when Mohammed ordered it destroyed , was kept in them temple of Somnath . He believed this because of the coincidence of names - Manat , and Somnath ( as in So-Manat ) .

I do not view Islam as a whole because it is too disparate . I view the liberal Muslim , and wish him well . I view the fanatic with contempt , and hope that he shall become extinct . I see the mass , too much in the thrall of the Ulema to reform themselves , having a sense of alienation and historical injustice , gaining vicarious pleasure from terrorist acts but too sensible to indulge in them , and the only thing I feel is pity . However , when I see history , and the texts , and the Ulema of today , I feel disgust , and I wait patiently for their annihilation ( at the hands of the liberal Muslim ) .

Go read the Qu'ran and other holy books of the religon and get a full view of the religon.

But my dear fellow , I have been quoting the Quran and the Hadis all this time ! I would not comment on something I have not read about .

I consider the Quran to be a juxtaposition of some of the best philosophical wisdom with some of the most perverse junk ever produced in human history . Mohammed's religious experiences could not be fit in any larger framework ( the previous prophets of prophetic monotheism were inadequate ) , and that is why this perversity , this corruption , crept in , and later totally engulfed him .

 

[aneeshm]

Well, what exactly are you trying to prove aneesh? What is your endgame?

My only objective here was , as I have mentioned , to clear up the fog of assumptions that hangs over any religious debate concerning Islam . My objective was to clear up the idea that Islam is good in theory but perverted in practice . I wanted ( and still want ) to show that pure Islam , as laid down by the Prophet and the life of the Prophet , is a regressive and inhuman religion . My intention is to prove that the old institutions of Islam are no longer sufficient or valid , that they are misfits in this modern world , that the reins of the community's future are in the hands of the Ulema , that they have to be wrested from them if Islam is to fit into the world of today , that a frail minority , of which you are a member , and that the minority of the liberal Muslim is tasked with this job or wresting them .

There is not much that I can do beyond that - everything beyond is in your hands .


As for why I'm doing this , I will elaborate .

It is my belief that the nature of discourse has become extremely perverted and totally out of touch with reality when it comes to religion and terrorism . I think this is because of a lack of understanding of the pure forms of religions , of the passions there pure forms can inspire , and is also because of igonrance , ignorance both of history and of religion , and also of the history of religion . I think that it is because history is not fully understood , nor is religion fully understood , nor is their connection fully understood , that this perversion of discourse is allowed to exist . I do not claim to understand or know the whole of it myself , but I hope to have grasped the fundamentals . I wish to do away with this idea that "All religions preash peace" . I believe that such an idea can only occur when history or religion both are completely misunderstood .

Why am I so concerned with discourse concerning history ? It is because I believe that an understanding of the present is impossible without an understanding of the past , and that only an understanding of the present can allow us to solve the problems afflicting us in the present . The reason why the idea of terrorism reasonates so much with the common Muslim in the Middle East , with the Pakistani or Kashmiri family , with the Bangladeshi or Iraqi youth , this reason cannot be understood without this grasp of history and religion . That is why I am concerned .


Now do you understand ?

 

[Capulet]

My only objective here was , as I have mentioned , to clear up the fog of assumptions that hangs over any religious debate concerning Islam . My objective was to clear up the idea that Islam is good in theory but perverted in practice . I wanted ( and still want ) to show that pure Islam , as laid down by the Prophet and the life of the Prophet , is a regressive and inhuman religion . My intention is to prove that the old institutions of Islam are no longer sufficient or valid , that they are misfits in this modern world , that the reins of the community's future are in the hands of the Ulema , that they have to be wrested from them if Islam is to fit into the world of today , that a frail minority , of which you are a member , and that the minority of the liberal Muslim is tasked with this job or wresting them .

There is not much that I can do beyond that - everything beyond is in your hands .


As for why I'm doing this , I will elaborate .

It is my belief that the nature of discourse has become extremely perverted and totally out of touch with reality when it comes to religion and terrorism . I think this is because of a lack of understanding of the pure forms of religions , of the passions there pure forms can inspire , and is also because of igonrance , ignorance both of history and of religion , and also of the history of religion . I think that it is because history is not fully understood , nor is religion fully understood , nor is their connection fully understood , that this perversion of discourse is allowed to exist . I do not claim to understand or know the whole of it myself , but I hope to have grasped the fundamentals . I wish to do away with this idea that "All religions preash peace" . I believe that such an idea can only occur when history or religion both are completely misunderstood .

Why am I so concerned with discourse concerning history ? It is because I believe that an understanding of the present is impossible without an understanding of the past , and that only an understanding of the present can allow us to solve the problems afflicting us in the present . The reason why the idea of terrorism reasonates so much with the common Muslim in the Middle East , with the Pakistani or Kashmiri family , with the Bangladeshi or Iraqi youth , this reason cannot be understood without this grasp of history and religion . That is why I am concerned .


Now do you understand ?

I understand what you want, yeah. But you are dead wrong. You, personally, don't know anything about Islam. All you've done to increase your knowledge is read a site written by a bunch of Hindu extremists. You haven't read any books by any Muslims, let alone the Qur'an. And I don't need you telling me that I'm not 100% Muslim. You aren't an authority on Islam at all. You are just a weird, obessive guy who has nothing better to do than pick a bone with Islam. You don't know what you're talking about.

Go read the Qur'an and the Hadith, in it's entirety. Then come back and act like you know something.

 

[aneeshm]

I understand what you want, yeah. But you are dead wrong. You, personally, don't know anything about Islam. All you've done to increase your knowledge is read a site written by a bunch of Hindu extremists. You haven't read any books by any Muslims, let alone the Qur'an. And I don't need you telling me that I'm not 100% Muslim. You aren't an authority on Islam at all. You are just a weird, obessive guy who has nothing better to do than pick a bone with Islam. You don't know what you're talking about.

Go read the Qur'an and the Hadith, in it's entirety. Then come back and act like you know something.

Firstly - I can understand your urge to defend your religion . It is natural , and I can accept the fact that you will defend it irrespective of what I say . Fair enough .

And by the way - you're not 100 % 7th century Muslim .

Secondly - I have not gained my knowledge of your religion from a site which you describe as "Hindu extremist" ( though I still cannot find any injunction in there to act against Muslims , but still , I let that pass ) . I have gained it from the texts , and from history . But your belief in my ignorance seems to be related to the first point - your natural urge to defend your religion . Again , I let that pass .

But I do consider it necessary to understand history to understand the present . And in that I will not waver .

 

[Capulet]

Firstly - I can understand your urge to defend your religion . It is natural , and I can accept the fact that you will defend it irrespective of what I say . Fair enough .

And by the way - you're not 100 % 7th century Muslim .

Secondly - I have not gained my knowledge of your religion from a site which you describe as "Hindu extremist" ( though I still cannot find any injunction in there to act against Muslims , but still , I let that pass ) . I have gained it from the texts , and from history . But your belief in my ignorance seems to be related to the first point - your natural urge to defend your religion . Again , I let that pass .

But I do consider it necessary to understand history to understand the present . And in that I will not waver .

Have you ever read the Qur'an? Have you ever read the books on Hadith written by Muslims? Have you read any other books written by Muslims? If not, how can you say you understand Islam? Who understands it more, the Hindu extremists who want to attack their Muslim foes at any chance they get, or the Muslim scholars themselves?

 

[sanabas]

Is it just me, or is Aneeshm's definition of 'true muslims' roughly similar to defining YECs as the only 'true christians'? i.e. Very over simplified, ecluding anyone who doesn't conform to one particular interpretation of things, and flat out wrong?

 

[blackheart]

If that is your opinion , I defy you to substantiate it . Find me one , and just one statement , where I have applied a negative criticism to Muslims for being Muslim . I defy you to find even one .

You've gone out of your way to point out how horrible of a religion Islam is, how most everyone are horrible people who are Muslim, etc. So basically, this entire thread is Islam bashing. Grow up Aneeshm, you are intolerant as the types of Muslims you detest.