islam and barbarity

[Looncall]

Except that we have laws that are supposed to protect women, and they're quite well-enforced.

Many thanks. The institutional difference is what I have been trying to address.

 

[Looncall]

Ayatollah Sistani may or may not agree with the range of power by the jurist. But he still believes in Wilayat al faqih. Most scholars do.

.

Of course they do. It hands the whole society to them on a golden plate.

I gather that the oppression and corruption one would expect of such an arrangement is in full swing.

 

[Looncall]

You've never heard of the mathematical religions of ancient Greece, have you? Legend has it that people were beheaded for claiming that there were irrational numbers.

I had heard of numerological mysticism, but not that it led to violence. It's sad that as soon as something looks like a religion, people wind up being killed. Much the same could be said of various varieties of communism.

Perhaps it is the "ism" part that is the problem.

 

[sandandfoam]

Except that we have laws that are supposed to protect women, and they're quite well-enforced.

Who are 'we'?

 

[Riverwolf]

Who are 'we'?

Specifically the US, in this case.

I understand many other European nations have them, as well, though.

 

[Riverwolf]

I had heard of numerological mysticism, but not that it led to violence. It's sad that as soon as something looks like a religion, people wind up being killed. Much the same could be said of various varieties of communism.

Perhaps it is the "ism" part that is the problem.

What power does "ism" have over a few people that it causes irrational violence? Is it the nature of "ism"? Well, there's plenty of "isms" that are completely nonviolent. What, then, is it?

Whatever it is, it's not connected to any one "ism", but is part of human nature. Most of us still have tribal instincts that we've evolved over hundreds of thousands of years; it's the precious few who've managed to get over them.

For me, it's a matter of tribal honor. I have a knee-jerk reaction of hatred towards ancient Rome for basically destroying my ancestral cultures (that doesn't extend to modern Rome, Italy, or the Catholic Church, mind you). I have to actively remember the "aquaduct" skit from Life of Brian in order to stem that hatred, yet it can only do so much.

I understand that humans are emotional first and rational second. Emotions are so powerful that they can completely cloud rationality for long periods of time if not checked. Learning how to check such emotions is extremely difficult, and for some people (specifically those like myself with some form of ASD), it's almost impossible.

 

[sandandfoam]

Specifically the US, in this case.

I understand many other European nations have them, as well, though.

Ok. As a blanket statement I do not believe that this is true of Europe.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok. As a blanket statement I do not believe that this is true of Europe.

Then again, can any blanket statement be made about Europe?

 

[sandandfoam]

Then again, can any blanket statement be made about Europe?

If not Europe why Islam?

 

[MeLtiZBleaCh]

I think this can be easily categorized under bigotry.

Freedom of speech? verbally attacking islam or muhammad is fine as per shariah law?

Could you elaborate verbally attacking. As far as Islam goes Insulting Muhammad is a Punishable by death, I have'nt found any supporting data which says that action should be taken against verbal attacks towards general Islam.

and I doubt Muhammad Insulted any of the idols.
as for the bigotry part Muhammad never worshipped idols throughout his life. I dont seem to understand how you would call him a bigot.

 

[Pastek]

Could you elaborate verbally attacking. As far as Islam goes Insulting Muhammad is a Punishable by death, I have'nt found any supporting data which says that action should be taken against verbal attacks towards general Islam.

and I doubt Muhammad Insulted any of the idols.

:yes: Qu'ran doesn't support that, on the contrary we must ignore those who insult us and we also can't insult others religions.
There's a difference between criticizing and insulting.

6.108 And do not insult those they invoke other than Allah , lest they insult Allah in enmity without knowledge.

7.180 And to Allah belong the best names, so invoke Him by them. And leave [the company of] those who practice deviation concerning His names. They will be recompensed for what they have been doing.

 

[Banner]

We are discussing the present, though. Anyway, other societies being barbarous doesn't excuse the barbarity of any particular one.

Just now, muslim societies do have better examples in view, especially in the area of human rights.

I should have elaborated. I wasn't excusing it at all I'm trying to illustrate the way men can always justify what they think is right. Has little to do with Islam itself.

 

[Assad91]

Sorry. I can't help you.
"Wilayat al faqih" is a form of government invented by Khomeini.
You claim that the Grand Ayatollah believes in this form of government.
You are wrong.

I qouted him. If you have any reading comprehension, you would realize the answer (from his official website) states he endorses wilayat al faqih. It is possible he disagrees with the range of power. I hear it is less then Khomeini, but more then Kho'i. He still, nevertheless, believes the leading authority amongst the people has a role to play.

You do not understand how the invented religious theocracy of Iran that murders secular and religious opponents, both in Iran and outside of Iran; and that believes that they have a mandate from G-d to kill anyone who disagrees with their particular religious philosophy - is similar to the Wahhabis.
Sorry. Can't help you there either.

I'm sorry you are unable to explain the exacts and show how the religious philosophy is even close to wahabism.

And I'm sorry you like to make up accusations without proofs. Like supposed killing anyone who disagrees with them.

Then again, what can I expect from a hypocritical zionist.

 

[Riverwolf]

If not Europe why Islam?

Islam isn't a geographical location, for one thing.

Islam is centralized via the Qur'an, but Islamic countries are not. They're just as varied as any other.

 

[beenie]

Islam is barbaric. Muhammad had a 9 year old wife, those guys in yemen marry children, and they believe that blowing innocent people up will make positive political and social change in their country and the world.

Thank you so very much for your completely useless input.

Even if one were to accept a correlation between Islamic countries and barbarism, attempts to equate Islam with barbarism run into immediate problems. How, for example, is one to explain the Golden Age of Islam against the backdrop of an often barbaric Christianity?

And this, too, is Islam.


The OP reflects nothing so much as bigoted sophistry and an invitation to hate speech.

Holy B-Jeeezus! Someone actually making some good ol' fashion common sense! Interesting how this post was only quoted once... and buried in pages of more stereotypical garbage. Damn it Jay, will you PLEASE stop making people look so daft?

I agree.
However, there was, indeed, "normative" Islam - both Shia and Sunni.
The Saud/Wahhabi corruption of Sunni Islam and the Khomeini corruption of Shia Islam, are hell bent on destroying the world.
The unrecognized facts are that this is a war of Muslims and Arabs against Muslims and Arabs.
Again, this is not so unusual - all the religions and peoples have warred against each other over time.
However - when the Jews did it 2,000 years ago, they wiped themselves out of the Kingdom of Israel and their Holy Temple.
When the Christians did it 500 years ago they wiped out tens of millions of Christians and decimated Europe.
Mecca has already been sacked and looted three times by the current Wahhabist cult in this current cycle of death and destruction.
Following those paradigms, the current fratricidal wars of Muslims and Arabs could wipe out large sections of planet Earth.

Can't say this is entirely inaccurate...

 

[dynavert2012]

However, the truth of the matter is this: people disagree, and will always disagree. Mohammad might have been able to do it, but as soon as he died, Islam split, which tells me that he had a great amount of charisma. After all, other charismatic leaders were able to do the same thing, and in fact, getting the people to do just that is urged at the beginning of Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Furthermore, the population of a single country these days outnumbers the entire world's population nowadays, making universal approval impossible. There will always be that one snarky kid who disagrees simply for the sake of disagreeing.

So, we're left with two choices: either the tiny minority beats upon the vast majority, or the small majority inconveniences the rest.

i think i disagree with you, Islam didn't split after the prophet's death, Islam split after ottoman's death, and it was the rose up of what called shia islam sect, Yes after the prophet's death there was some strong revolutions but it was ok to be handled

and i think it's not related to Charisma more than a revelation and support of the god to his prophet, do you read about the treaty of Hudaybya? if you don't find out it The Treaty Of Hudaybiya | Islam Story - Supervised by Dr. Ragheb Elsergany, I don’t think that there’s a leader could accept that conditions these days, how he would face his followers by such unjust conditions although he’s the upper hand? And I want to observe Umar’s reaction and how he got mad, also observe this situation with a Jewish man http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/152804-some-morals-we-actually-need-forbearance.html and observe also Umar’s reaction
then after abu bakr's death,Umar take the role and he got more experience from the prophet and so when Muslims conquered Jerusalem, the pope of it refused to give Muslims the keys of the town and he refused to sign a treaty and constitution with anybody but Umar “the commander of the believers” and Umar didn’t get mad when he heard that request and he didn’t say how this pope who we liberate him and his people from the oppression of byzantine talk to the victorious like that, but he took his horse and travelled from Medina to Jerusalem one month going and one month return just to sign let them feel peace and comfort and he refused to pray in the church in order not to be converted to a mosque after his death, and so he could gain their hearts and signed a constitution agreed also by all, Jews, Muslims and Christians live there, it’s not a Charisma more than obeying the way of Allah and his messenger

 

[dynavert2012]

Just now, muslim societies do have better examples in view, especially in the area of human rights.

if it's Islam, so why not this barbarity appears since the dawn of Islam, why it appears only these days?

 

[Riverwolf]

i think i disagree with you, Islam didn't split after the prophet's death, Islam split after ottoman's death, and it was the rose up of what called shia islam sect, Yes after the prophet's death there was some strong revolutions but it was ok to be handled

and i think it's not related to Charisma more than a revelation and support of the god to his prophet, do you read about the treaty of Hudaybya? if you don't find out it The Treaty Of Hudaybiya | Islam Story - Supervised by Dr. Ragheb Elsergany, I don’t think that there’s a leader could accept that conditions these days, how he would face his followers by such unjust conditions although he’s the upper hand? And I want to observe Umar’s reaction and how he got mad, also observe this situation with a Jewish man http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/islam-dir/152804-some-morals-we-actually-need-forbearance.html and observe also Umar’s reaction
then after abu bakr's death,Umar take the role and he got more experience from the prophet and so when Muslims conquered Jerusalem, the pope of it refused to give Muslims the keys of the town and he refused to sign a treaty and constitution with anybody but Umar “the commander of the believers” and Umar didn’t get mad when he heard that request and he didn’t say how this pope who we liberate him and his people from the oppression of byzantine talk to the victorious like that, but he took his horse and travelled from Medina to Jerusalem one month going and one month return just to sign let them feel peace and comfort and he refused to pray in the church in order not to be converted to a mosque after his death, and so he could gain their hearts and signed a constitution agreed also by all, Jews, Muslims and Christians live there, it’s not a Charisma more than obeying the way of Allah and his messenger

Sorry, but I'm having serious trouble following you. Keeping track of people has never been my strongest skill. But it seems like simple politics at work, nothing supernatural.

I'm pretty sure Jerusalem didn't have a pope; that's a distinctly Roman thing.

 

[Looncall]

if it's Islam, so why not this barbarity appears since the dawn of Islam, why it appears only these days?

I would very much like to know that. Something has changed in islam. I wonder if it happened at the same time that islam abandoned science.

 

[dynavert2012]

I would very much like to know that. Something has changed in islam. I wonder if it happened at the same time that islam abandoned science.

review post# 60 in that thread, you may not notice it