Finding excuses to hate Muslims?

[بِسْم الله]

Surely there are exceptions? Those who wantonly take the lives of non-combatants, who turn women and girls into slaves, who hack to death those who don't share their religious ideals, such monsters deserve no ones respect.

So would hate the sin but don't hate the person be applied here? If not, why not.

 

[بِسْم الله]

I take it that by "waging war on an idea" here you mean actual use of lethal weapons as opposed to debate and ideological clash?


That may well be the case.

Would you happen to have anything to say about Badshah Khan?

To be honest I'm not familiar with him

 

[LuisDantas]

I think we have a human obligation to treat others well regardless of how we view their beliefs. It is a common tactic of the "peace-keepers" to wage war on an idea not a people. If you can get people to view others under this paradigm it becomes easy to fight them without consideration for the people. It's kind of like we have a moral obligation to destroy your barbaric belief system and it doesn't matter who dies. The ends justify the means type of thinking. We are saying essentially the same think but have a different view of what contributed to it

I know that I already replied to this, but allow me to ask: isn't the combat to the idea of slavery an example of how fighting an idea may well be moral, even necessary, without necessarily condoning any form of violence?

 

[بِسْم الله]

I know that I already replied to this, but allow me to ask: isn't the combat to the idea of slavery an example of how fighting an idea may well be moral, even necessary, without necessarily condoning any form of violence?

I think this is the exact type of thinking that war mongers rely on. And if you review history it is the exact philosophy which allowed the Europeans to take over the world by force. It is frequently referred to as "the white mans burden" and basically means that the "morally superior" have a duty to bring their way of life to all the savages of the world.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think this is the exact type of thinking that war mongers rely on.

Is it? How so?

Do you think slavery mentality shoud not be challenged in any way?

And if you review history it is the exact philosophy which allowed the Europeans to take over the world by force.

How so? Are you perhaps referring to the idea of "White Man's Burden"? That is quite different from accepting the need to combat certain ideas, IMO.

It is frequently referred to as "the white mans burden" and basically means that the "morally superior" have a duty to bring their way of life to all the savages of the world.

... I guess you answered my question.

There is a world of difference between assigning oneself the right or even the duty of using violence against others unwilling to agree with you and challenging their ideas with ideas of your own.

 

[icehorse]

I think this is the exact type of thinking that war mongers rely on. And if you review history it is the exact philosophy which allowed the Europeans to take over the world by force. It is frequently referred to as "the white mans burden" and basically means that the "morally superior" have a duty to bring their way of life to all the savages of the world.

We ALL have ancestors who did bad things. ALL OF US. It's now 2016, and we - all 7 billion of us - have to find ways to live peacefully together. Islam teaches supremacy and conquest, these ideas have to be left behind.

 

[بِسْم الله]

Is it? How so?

Do you think slavery mentality shoud not be challenged in any way?


How so? Are you perhaps referring to the idea of "White Man's Burden"? That is quite different from accepting the need to combat certain ideas, IMO.



... I guess you answered my question.

There is a world of difference between assigning oneself the right or even the duty of using violence against others unwilling to agree with you and challenging their ideas with ideas of your own.

If your saying to combat an ideology via and ideology that is different than combating an ideology with violence. Maybe I misunderstood your post

 

[LuisDantas]

@بِسْم الله - Also, allow me a counterpoint: isn't there at least a danger of falling short of one's moral duty by failing to offer a word of disagreement with ideas that are sufficiently misguided?

 

[LuisDantas]

If your saying to combat an ideology via and ideology that is different than combating an ideology with violence. Maybe I misunderstood your post

I would think so. For what it is worth, I certainly agree that violence can't be excused on ideological grounds. FAR too much blood and dignity were lost that way. No more.

 

[بِسْم الله]

We ALL have ancestors who did bad things. ALL OF US. It's now 2016, and we - all 7 billion of us - have to find ways to live peacefully together. Islam teaches supremacy and conquest, these ideas have to be left behind.

Please if you wouldn't mind to humor me, what Muslim nations have established a military force in non Muslim countries en masse over the past 50 years? Now what Christian nations have established a military force en masse in non Christian countries over the past 50 years? Do you honestly believe that democracy does not propegate supremacy and conquest

 

[بِسْم الله]

@بِسْم الله - Also, allow me a counterpoint: isn't there at least a danger of falling short of one's moral duty by failing to offer a word of disagreement with ideas that are sufficiently misguided?

Of course. Dispute, reason, provide evidence. This is the basis of humanity

 

[icehorse]

Please if you wouldn't mind to humor me, what Muslim nations have established a military force in non Muslim countries en masse over the past 50 years? Now what Christian nations have established a military force en masse in non Christian countries over the past 50 years? Do you honestly believe that democracy does not propegate supremacy and conquest

Wait, wait. Christianity and democracy aren't the same things. And I defy you to find a post where I defend Christianity

You picked an arbitrary range of 50 years. This could get into an involved conversation, but off the top of my head, I can bring up East Timor and Kosovo as examples of democracy defending groups against Muslim conquest. And given time we could find lots more.

 

[بِسْم الله]

Wait, wait. Christianity and democracy aren't the same things. And I defy you to find a post where I defend Christianity

You picked an arbitrary range of 50 years. This could get into an involved conversation, but off the top of my head, I can bring up East Timor and Kosovo as examples of democracy defending groups against Muslim conquest. And given time we could find lots more.

We can find plenty of skirmishes amongst many various groups. I could say Joseph Kony terrorizing Africans is a Christian example of supremacy and conquest. I don't think that it is however. The reason I made a correlation between democracy and Christianity is because it just so happens that most Christian countries are democratic and most democratic countries are Christian. The two have become intertwined. Yes I would say democratically run countries have definetly sought to conquer other countries in the name of democracy. The communist are just the most recent "immediate threat" I can recall. I mentioned 50 years because you went way back by using the word ancestor so I tried to bring it into a more modern perspective and say that this conquest idea is still alive and well amongst even the most enlightened and tolerant of nations

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Who decides which Haadeeth are authentic and which are not. And why are Quranist considered heretics by other Muslims?

A good place to start is by looking at the chain of narration of the Ahaadeeth and the reliability of each of the links in the chain (with Shi'a and Sunni using somewhat different standards wrt assessing the reliability of narrators). But we are all human and make mistakes, and Allaah never promised that She would protect the Ahaadeeth from corruption - only the Qur'aan. So we - all Muslims - should also look at how the Ahaadeeth measure up against Qur'aanic standards - interpretation, of course, and lots of potential for differences of interpretation and again, of course, error. Indeed, Allaah gave us brains to think with, and we should use them, and we should talk to others and consider their interpretations. And finally, most importantly of all, if we ask Allaah to guide us, She will answer.
Wrt the Qur'aanists, as with Muslims and of course the followers of other belief/knowledge systems, they're a fairly diverse bunch. One of the more prominent groups is that associated with Rashad Khalifa, who is believed to have declared himself to be a Messenger of Allaah. Since Muslims believe that Muhammad (s) was the final Messenger of Allaah, anyone who declares themself to be a Messenger of Allaah, and by extension anyone who follows such a person, will be considered heretics by most Muslims. Furthermore, all Qur'aanists to a greater or lesser extent reject the authenticity or authority of all or most of the Ahaadeeth, and the Ahaadeeth form such a central source of information/guidance on how to practice Islaam, so many Muslims might be inclined to consider them heretics on those grounds alone. Any Qur'aanists on here, needless to say, pitch in if you disagree with anything I have said.

 

[LuisDantas]

We can find plenty of skirmishes amongst many various groups. I could say Joseph Kony terrorizing Africans is a Christian example of supremacy and conquest. I don't think that it is however. The reason I made a correlation between democracy and Christianity is because it just so happens that most Christian countries are democratic and most democratic countries are Christian. The two have become intertwined. Yes I would say democratically run countries have definetly sought to conquer other countries in the name of democracy.

That is a surprising take. Democracy in and of itself is supposed to be anathema to military conquest, but I guess the will of the people often refuses to cooperate.

The communist are just the most recent "immediate threat" I can recall. I mentioned 50 years because you went way back by using the word ancestor so I tried to bring it into a more modern perspective and say that this conquest idea is still alive and well amongst even the most enlightened and tolerant of nations

Isn't that something of a contradiction? I understand that you are not proposing that military conquest is an idea to perceive as enlightened. It must therefore follow that the best nations will let go of it, doesn't it?

 

[blue taylor]

A good place to start is by looking at the chain of narration of the Ahaadeeth and the reliability of each of the links in the chain (with Shi'a and Sunni using somewhat different standards wrt assessing the reliability of narrators). But we are all human and make mistakes, and Allaah never promised that She would protect the Ahaadeeth from corruption - only the Qur'aan. So we - all Muslims - should also look at how the Ahaadeeth measure up against Qur'aanic standards - interpretation, of course, and lots of potential for differences of interpretation and again, of course, error. Indeed, Allaah gave us brains to think with, and we should use them, and we should talk to others and consider their interpretations. And finally, most importantly of all, if we ask Allaah to guide us, She will answer.
Wrt the Qur'aanists, as with Muslims and of course the followers of other belief/knowledge systems, they're a fairly diverse bunch. One of the more prominent groups is that associated with Rashad Khalifa, who is believed to have declared himself to be a Messenger of Allaah. Since Muslims believe that Muhammad (s) was the final Messenger of Allaah, anyone who declares themself to be a Messenger of Allaah, and by extension anyone who follows such a person, will be considered heretics by most Muslims. Furthermore, all Qur'aanists to a greater or lesser extent reject the authenticity or authority of all or most of the Ahaadeeth, and the Ahaadeeth form such a central source of information/guidance on how to practice Islaam, so many Muslims might be inclined to consider them heretics on those grounds alone. Any Qur'aanists on here, needless to say, pitch in if you disagree with anything I have said.

Since the Quran is free from corruption and the others are sort of maybe not, why not just go with the real thing? Seems like the extra's should be optional.

 

[Marsh]

One can and arguably should strive to respect the plight of the misguided person who is buried inside such awful circunstances.

I would think not. I heard on the news that a Canadian tourist was beheaded, I think today, by an Islamic group in the Philippines that has previously identified with the cause of ISIS. Three others are still held: another Canadian, his girlfriend, and a Norwegian. They wouldn't hesitate to kill either one of us Luis, or our family members, if it furthered their cause -- and these people don't require much of an excuse. They are worse than the Nazis. The latter, at least, did not kill everyone who was not a member of their Party.

 

[Marsh]

So would hate the sin but don't hate the person be applied here? If not, why not.

The expression is typically reserved for those such as myself (an atheist), or a homosexual, a prostitute, or even a tax collector (as in the time of Jesus). The expression is also applied to those who, in the judgement of the speaker, practices a false religion (but who otherwise is not a physical threat to others). ISIS and their ilk are a different ball of wax. Many are mass murderers. They are trying to destroy all that does not come packaged in their theology.

If you hate the sin, but love the sinner, you would not hesitate to shake the hand of the sinner. You might even sit down and eat with them as Christ did. How likely is it that the sinner would be treated with gentle regard by members of ISIS?

No, I don't think we can offer love and forgiveness to those who want to kill us. I do not see how, in this case, we can love the sinner, but not the sin.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would think not. I heard on the news that a Canadian tourist was beheaded, I think today, by an Islamic group in the Philippines that has previously identified with the cause of ISIS. Three others are still held: another Canadian, his girlfriend, and a Norwegian. They wouldn't hesitate to kill either one of us Luis, or our family members, if it furthered their cause -- and these people don't require much of an excuse. They are worse than the Nazis. The latter, at least, did not kill everyone who was not a member of their Party.

I think you are failing to notice how little separate those people from your garden variety national military, personally.

 

[icehorse]

Since the Quran is free from corruption and the others are sort of maybe not, why not just go with the real thing? Seems like the extra's should be optional.

Sometimes it's hard to tell a person's intention on a forum. Was this a serious comment or were you being funny?