A Muslim's perspective

[soulcougher73]

This kind of reminds me of Christianity in America. Where one group says that they are Christians and bash on all other Christians, but if a third party threatens them or if there is political advantage they come together and together denounce the "evils" of the day. (Kind of like soup of the day)


I'm a mormon. here's my perspective. Back in the 1800's Mormons and their leaders were tarred, feathered, and driven from their homes. The state of Missouri had a standing law to exterminate Mormons, which only in the last decade the state officially denounced and apologized for. What is going on with Muslims today in the US is nothing compared to the crap that Mormons had in the past.

Recently, a mass grave of Irish Immigrants was found. These Irishmen were hired to work on the expanding railroad system in the 1800s and after they finished their work were killed and buried in an unmarked grave.

Native Americans had their land stolen and were taken advantage of because of their looks and culture. They were utterly destroyed besides a few groups that now run cheap Casinos.


So, boooo wooo. Enough of this " Waa waa Muslim's have it rough in the US. Why can't we have our Gym next to ground Zero?" Do you think it's easy for my church to build those Temples of ours around the world? Hell no, but we just recently secured a plot of land in Vatican City. Do you think that was easy? NO, it took years of relationship building and mutual tolerance between Mormons and Catholic church leaders.

Mormons were the most despised religious group for years in the US and has spread world wide. We have missionaries sharing our beliefs around the world. However, we don't proselyte in most middle eastern countries because of the risk to the lives of new members. (though mormon members belonging to the military have received permission to baptize converts in Iraq and Afghanistan).

If the Muslim world in the middle east is so backwards why doesn't the Muslim community (practicing correct Islamic principle) send their version of missionaries to those parts of the world and teach a more peaceful version of Islam.


We have the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible counted as our holy scriptures, if anyone were to destroy one of these books you wouldn't see us starting fires, rioting, or whatever anywhere in the world.

I can understand having groups claiming to be Muslim and really are far from the practices of mainstream Islam. Mormonism has splinter groups as well. Just like the polygamist in southern Utah. We publicly dissociate from them completely. The Mormon church has active and vocal leadership.

The thing that probably scares people about Islam is that when they try to think of who leads the religion they think of guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iranian President). At least Christianity has paintings of Jesus, whether he's drawn to be white, middle eastern, black, Asian, Velociraptor, or whatever, and people can associate him as the head of Christianity. Islam forbids any sort of depiction of Muhammad and if you try someone in the middle east gets butt hurt and cuts someone's head off in protest.

See how Islam is a pretty scarey religion? We don't care about the moderate Muslims here in the US. Its the crazy pricks over seas that scare us.

People don't want a mosque anywhere near ground Zero, not because of intolerance towards Muslims here, but because the crazy "muslims" over there will think its their victory. Not yours.

The US is at war with a group of people using Islam as their face to the world, but it doesn't seem that alot of Muslim's here are as vocal about it as a lot of us think they should be. If someone was claiming to be Mormon and blowing up places you would hear an outcry from the Mormon community world wide saying f that guy! (they wouldn't say F most likely... only cool mormons still swear, they'd say gee wilikers and make a note to pray that God would help the world see that this guy did not represent them. As well as the massive media blitz the church would most likely make to make sure the rest of the world got the memo).

That Army Major that converted to Islam is still fresh in our minds too! He was one of our own for Christ's sake! And he shot up a base on american soil in the name of Islam.

Islam needs to take some PR points from the Mormons because the world may be annoyed with us at times because of the guys on bike's that knock on their door during dinner, but they are not afraid we're going to kill them.

Ever heard of the Mountin Meadow Massacre? Back in the day, like late 1800s. After the expulsion from Missiouri, Mormons went west and settled in what is now Utah. A few years later, People heading west from Missouri were passing through the southern part of Utah near a mormon colony. The bishop, who was the defacto mayor of sorts at the time, ordered that this group be engaged in fear that if left alone would attack the colony far away from the main group of mormons farther north in Utah. This lead to the massacre of innocent people by the hands of Mormon pioneers. You know what happened after that? Most people stop the story their as publish it as anti mormon literature. After that, the mormon church (the defacto government of the not even a territory region of Utah) put that Bishop on trial for murder and instigating the whole event. He was found guilty and executed according to the laws that were set up at the time. Justice was served for the senseless slaughter of innocence.

Is Islam making itself accountable for these extremist?

Many of us here in the US are afraid that while Muslims give us winks and smiles here that many of the larger organizations are sending money overseas that is then being laundered into terrorist activities (knowingly or unknowingly).

There is no sense of leadership, no sense of definable doctrine, and extemely different signals being sent out from people claiming to represent Islam.

I want to see some moderate Islam reps denouncing the extreme sects as not being Islamic before I can really say, "want to build something near ground zero? cool."

This post gets :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Infohawk]

This post gets :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Another thumbs up for FTM0305's post. It also compliments a point I made earlier in this thread. As an American I take responsibility for bad things done in America's name. I speak out against them. Even if I've never killed a native American, I could see that it would be insensitive if the US government tried to excavate a native American burial ground. I wouldn't scream, "stop persecuting me!" if Native Americans were upset about it and if they harped on about crimes by the US Military. Why? As someone else pointed out on P&N, it's not always about you. If you're a moderate Muslim, then do the same as moderate Mormons, moderate Americans, and most people in the world and recognize that.

 

[woolfe9999]

Really? What was the purpose of defending the legality of the act then? I called it a crime against humanity. Then he said it wasn't. You don't see a pattern of him trying to downplay it?

Which is the convincing condemnation and which is the half-assed one that downplays it? Which category does Routan fall into.

A) I deplore the murder of civilians by the Nazis but they ABSOLUTLEY had the right to do it. And it wasn't as bad as some other crimes.

B) The murder of civilians by the Nazis was deplorable and inexcusable.

What was the purpose of saying the act was legal? Well first of all, I assume he actually thinks the act was legal because the Taliban were the government and they made the laws at that time. So the statement that it was at least nominally "legal" is hardly controversial. But really, the whole purpose of his remark was to set up an analogy to explain that while people may have the legal right to burn a Koran, it still isn't the right thing to do. And to his credit, he made the point using a bad act of Muslims as an example to analogize to. It's clear that the thrust of his comment was to make an argument against Koran burning by setting up an analogy, not to defend the act of destroying statues, which he actually condemned.

Incidentally, destroying statues actually isn't a "crime against humanity." Besides the fact that "crimes against humanity" has a definition in international law (the Nazis were tried for "crimes against humanity," among other things, at Nuremberg), even common sense runs contrary. Crimes against humanity are not crimes against property, no matter how much such crimes may upset humans. Your statement was a hyperbole since you well know that the expression "crimes against humanity" connotes things like genocides, mass murder, and torture. It isn't apologia to point out facts, male relevant distinctions, and point out the errors in other people's posts.

I'll make one final comment before bowing out since Routon can defend himself and my input has gone on longer that I anticipated. I actually agree with you and disagree with him on several points in this thread. For example, I don't agree with him saying that the 9/11 attackers were "terrorists" and not "Muslims" as if one cannot be both at the same time, and I agree with you that he doesn't get to decide who is a Muslim. The difference here is one of attitude. I generally expect people not to be rational about their religion. I don't expect a Muslim to be entirely objective about Islam. But when I see someone like Routon who is not entirely objective but has several reasonable opinions, I'd rather encourage the reasonable opinions and politely point out where he is wrong. Whereas you want to call him out for the wrong stuff, and "interpret" the right stuff as "weasily" so that you can keep him the tiny little box in your head labeled "wacky Muslim."

- wolf

 

[Orignal Earl]

snip

Do you think Muslims should form their own army within the US like the Mormons did and swear an Oath of vengeance against the United States

 

[Orignal Earl]

Also could you provide a link for the land in Vatican City. I have a hard time believing that.

 

[Infohawk]

Whereas you want to call him out for the wrong stuff, and "interpret" the right stuff as "weasily" so that you can keep him the tiny little box in your head labeled "wacky Muslim."

- wolf

I'm saddened that you still think the blowing up of the monuments is analogous to destroying Qurans. One is irreplaceable. The other is basically a commodity product. The idea of free speech is that you are only "damaging" ideas and symbols. As soon as you start damaging people or other people's property it isn't fair game.

I'm still not buying that he wasn't downplaying. His condemnation was half-assed and not unequivocal which is what most people do when they condemn something. And now that you've explained his analogy I'm less convinced that it isn't apologetics. Again, the idea that the exercise of free speech is anything like the destruction of human heritage is ridiculous and only serves to downplay the destruction.

I'm not trying to keep Routan in any box. That's what you were doing to me when you were saying that the only reason I'm arguing with him is because I have personal issues with Muslims. I would love to see Routan actually use some decent arguments or point to evidence. So far he hasn't done that and I'm calling him out on it.

If I change one word in a sentence of yours maybe you will understand: "It isn't [hate] to point out facts, male relevant distinctions, and point out the errors in other people's posts."

 

[routan]

Routan, are you sure I'm the liar? You asked me where you defended their right to blow up the statues. I posted where and now I'm bolding it. We can each bold different parts but ultimately you feel that they have a right to do it. I don't. It's just one example of your trying to downplay crimes made in the name of Islam.

Infohawk, this is an example of where you repeat the same statement without any reason whatsoever.

Do you dispute their right to defend? On what basis? Just because you dispute their right does not make it valid reason. Just because I state the obvious does not in any way purport my defense to that action.

 

[routan]

I think what bfdd is asking is for you to answer pjabbers questions since im sure he has the same ones. Does he need to copy and paste his questions for you for to make it seem like it is offically from bfdd?

soulcougher73, so you're saying because I refuse to answer stupid spam questions by one member, that makes me weaslish and avoiding hard questions? Really?

 

[routan]

Routan, since you and Wolfe have such a connection I'd like to ask him to help you understand the basics out. He can start by helping you see where you went wrong in this post.

I'm not saying the contents of random links are necessarily true. But when they are statistics or translations of the Quran, they are evidence. You are free to dispute that evidence, but you have to actually point out what's wrong with the evidence. I really hope you can start to see the difference.

Your 100% trust of the US government is probably a reflection of your blind faith in your religion. The US government has done a lot right but also a lot wrong. Have you ever heard of the Tuskegee experiments? Do you remember what the US said about WMDs in Iraq? Get it now? The US government's official position is wrong a lot of the time.

Bfdd did a good job of simplifying my point for you, too. Not sure how there is still any ambiguity for you.

Infohawk, I dont have 100% trust in the US Government but I do have 0% trust in random links and websites. You accused me of being weaslish by not addressing Imam Faisal's negative statements. I suggested that biased reports are unworthy of a response if the US Government supports him. If you have a beef with the government on this particular scenario, or Tuskegee experiences or WMD, take it up with them. Explain to me why I have to "explain" Imam Faisals negative comments when you have no consideration of his positive work?

 

[Orignal Earl]

I'm saddened that you still think the blowing up of the monuments is analogous to destroying Qurans. One is irreplaceable. The other is basically a commodity product. The idea of free speech is that you are only "damaging" ideas and symbols. As soon as you start damaging people or other people's property it isn't fair game.

I've never seen an American (on this board anyways) offer up an apology for all the destruction of Iraqi Archaeological sites and thousands of looted objects.
*Stuff happens* - Rummy
Hell most people won't even accept responsibility for the War. It was that sides fault, no it was that sides. I never voted for him, I did but it's not my fault.
We never murdered most of the people there, they did
It's kind of an American thing to never accept responsibility isn't it?

 

[bfdd]

bfdd, please provide YOUR questions where you have not seen an answer, and I will address them. I cannot believe that some posters would "attack" me in this manner. I mean, really, your bias against me, based on my being Muslim can be SO partial that you would stoop to attack my number of responses?

YOU have accused me of not providing evidence, and being weaslish. If you are having that opinion, then give me a rationale reason. Just saying it, and then ALSO calling ME weaslish is not in any possible way answerable.

There are HUNDREDS of posts/questions/opinions I have replied to. This is a bullshit assertion. I am not bound to answer EVERY single person, and it is entirely up to my wishes not to respond to simply an idiotic post. Yet, I have been utmost tolerant of everyone, including those ridiculously Islamophobic.

With baseless assertions like these, normal people should realize that it is not only the Muslims who have fanatics, but fanatics exist within America itself.

Sigh.... I've had easier times explaining myself to women than I have you... unless you're a woman then this totally makes sense. First off the questions I've said you haven't answered are not mine. I thought that was rather clear when I said it like THREE OTHER TIMES. Nor have I even attacked you here. I didn't use "weaselish" as my own words, notice it's in quotes? I shouldn't have to explain how quotation marks work. Lets not forget I wasn't even talking to you until I tried to clear up what I perceived as a miscommunication between you and Infohawk.

Like I told you before, for someone who keeps talking about education blah blah blah your reading comprehension is fucking terrible.

 

[routan]

This post is a good example of your debating style:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30503138&postcount=32

You make a baseless claim without any evidence and then once someone else offers evidence to the contrary you bail.

Infohawk, on the contrary, I waited for quite a while in my free time for your response. You didnt provide. I turned my attention to this thread. I will address that thread later.

 

[werepossum]

werepossum, where have you learned of this? Can you please explain where in Islam is it specifically allowed and even encouraged for Muslims to lie to "infidels"?

Taqiyya - the Islamic principle of lying to further the interests of Islam - is an ancient and still widely-practiced art within Islam. The interpretation of taqiyyah obviously varies from group to group, but it's quite common to see Muslims vigorously deny something in English and then vigorously promote it in Arabic, Farsi, etc. Taqiyya holds that Muslims may lie to non-Muslims as long as the lie is external (on the tongue) and not internal (in the heart), as long as such a lie advances Islam. Muhammed himself is quoted in one of the hadith as having said: “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath." This is specifically seen in his conquest of Mecca, where Muhammed made a 10-year treaty and two years later invaded by surprise and conquered the Meccans. Kitman - the art of lying through omission - is also widespread.

As the scope of taqiyya personally is usually extended to anything that would endanger one's life, wealth, or esteem, it is perfectly permissible for a very devout Muslim to lie to me if telling the truth would harm him financially or harm his esteem. In other words, if a relative or fellow Muslim (or fellow Arab, Turk, or whatever perceived brotherhood) has done me a disservice and the Muslim judges that it would because of that perceived connection harm his own esteem were this to be known, then he has dispensation to use taqiyyah (telling me a lie) to protect his esteem. If he believes this knowledge will harm his faith, then he likewise has dispensation to lie to protect his faith. This broad interpretation of taqiyya may or may not be the majority view, I don't know, and certainly not all Islamic clerics interpret taqiyya as allowable except when being persecuted for being Muslim, but certainly it has been endorsed by well-respected clerics within all major Islamic sects. Also, some Sunni clerics shun taqiyya but endorse the same practices under another term, which escapes me.

Also in one of the hadith is a passage that says approximately: If a praiseworthy goal may be achieved by lying or by telling the truth, then one must not lie. But if a praiseworthy goal may be achieved only by lying and not by telling the truth, then it is permissible to lie. Many if not most Muslims consider worldwide sharia and Islamic clerical rule to be a very praiseworthy goal indeed.

Obviously I don't have the references in front of me, but I did do some research on the matter a couple decades ago.

 

[routan]

Sigh.... I've had easier times explaining myself to women than I have you... unless you're a woman then this totally makes sense. First off the questions I've said you haven't answered are not mine. I thought that was rather clear when I said it like THREE OTHER TIMES. Nor have I even attacked you here. I didn't use "weaselish" as my own words, notice it's in quotes? I shouldn't have to explain how quotation marks work. Lets not forget I wasn't even talking to you until I tried to clear up what I perceived as a miscommunication between you and Infohawk.

Like I told you before, for someone who keeps talking about education blah blah blah your reading comprehension is fucking terrible.

bfdd, Stating that the word was in quotes and saying they werent yours but that you were just repeating them is a sorry excuse.

I specifically asked you which of YOUR questions I havent replied to for you to make those accusations, and you just reply saying you werent talking about your questions

As to your accusations and attacks, your words:

For sure wolfe9999, I understand bro I'm just stating I do believe routan has avoided "harder" questions posed to him though. Though I do see where you're coming from.

sorry woolfe9999, but I have to agree with Infohawk. routan has been "weaselish" when it comes to people with differing viewpoints as his own. He really has not answered any "hard" question posed to him. Sure Infohawk comes down on Islam a lot, but that doesn't mean he isn't right now.

 

[werepossum]

I've never seen an American (on this board anyways) offer up an apology for all the destruction of Iraqi Archaeological sites and thousands of looted objects.
*Stuff happens* - Rummy
Hell most people won't even accept responsibility for the War. It was that sides fault, no it was that sides. I never voted for him, I did but it's not my fault.
We never murdered most of the people there, they did
It's kind of an American thing to never accept responsibility isn't it?

Um, yeah, we'll jump right on apologizing for Iraqis behaving badly, because Lord knows there's nothing that isn't America's fault at bottom.

Here's a helpful tip for dictators everywhere: If you value your art, don't invade your neighbors and don't shoot at American warplanes.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk, I dont have 100% trust in the US Government but I do have 0% trust in random links and websites. You accused me of being weaslish by not addressing Imam Faisal's negative statements. I suggested that biased reports are unworthy of a response if the US Government supports him. If you have a beef with the government on this particular scenario, or Tuskegee experiences or WMD, take it up with them. Explain to me why I have to "explain" Imam Faisals negative comments when you have no consideration of his positive work?

If you don't have 100% trust in the US government then how do you know what they say bout the Imam is true? I don't remember you saying why you have to explain his comments. I just pointed out that your OP demonstrated close-mindedness.

 

[routan]

What was the purpose of saying the act was legal? Well first of all, I assume he actually thinks the act was legal because the Taliban were the government and they made the laws at that time. So the statement that it was at least nominally "legal" is hardly controversial. But really, the whole purpose of his remark was to set up an analogy to explain that while people may have the legal right to burn a Koran, it still isn't the right thing to do. And to his credit, he made the point using a bad act of Muslims as an example to analogize to. It's clear that the thrust of his comment was to make an argument against Koran burning by setting up an analogy, not to defend the act of destroying statues, which he actually condemned.

Incidentally, destroying statues actually isn't a "crime against humanity." Besides the fact that "crimes against humanity" has a definition in international law (the Nazis were tried for "crimes against humanity," among other things, at Nuremberg), even common sense runs contrary. Crimes against humanity are not crimes against property, no matter how much such crimes may upset humans. Your statement was a hyperbole since you well know that the expression "crimes against humanity" connotes things like genocides, mass murder, and torture. It isn't apologia to point out facts, male relevant distinctions, and point out the errors in other people's posts.

I'll make one final comment before bowing out since Routon can defend himself and my input has gone on longer that I anticipated. I actually agree with you and disagree with him on several points in this thread. For example, I don't agree with him saying that the 9/11 attackers were "terrorists" and not "Muslims" as if one cannot be both at the same time, and I agree with you that he doesn't get to decide who is a Muslim. The difference here is one of attitude. I generally expect people not to be rational about their religion. I don't expect a Muslim to be entirely objective about Islam. But when I see someone like Routon who is not entirely objective but has several reasonable opinions, I'd rather encourage the reasonable opinions and politely point out where he is wrong. Whereas you want to call him out for the wrong stuff, and "interpret" the right stuff as "weasily" so that you can keep him the tiny little box in your head labeled "wacky Muslim."

- wolf

wolf, please allow me to address your last point. I dont particularly recall where I made a specific distinction to 9/11 attackers as being solely "terrorists" and not Muslims - nonetheless, your point is valid. They were terrorists who purported to belong to the Islamic faith.

It is also correct to state that the actions imply a reference to the faith - they committed the act as a religious attack.

However, just as all bad Americans do not speak for me, or for America, the bad Muslims do not speak for me or for Islam. Many injustices can be committed in the name of America/Islam. However, they are not reflective of the entire people, Americans/Muslims.

And in the same vein, just as it is incumbent on Americans to say such and such act is not adherent to the values and principles of America, it is my obligation to do the same - to condemn and speak out against such acts.

That has been (at least) my intent and action on this forum.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk, on the contrary, I waited for quite a while in my free time for your response. You didnt provide. I turned my attention to this thread. I will address that thread later.

I did provide but I'll let you address it in that thread.

 

[Infohawk]

I've never seen an American (on this board anyways) offer up an apology for all the destruction of Iraqi Archaeological sites and thousands of looted objects.
*Stuff happens* - Rummy
Hell most people won't even accept responsibility for the War. It was that sides fault, no it was that sides. I never voted for him, I did but it's not my fault.
We never murdered most of the people there, they did
It's kind of an American thing to never accept responsibility isn't it?

Your post doesn't make sense as usual. Are you equating the intentional destruction of prized historical monuments to looting that took place under a negligent occupation? I hope you can see a difference there. But I was always against the Iraq war. And it is shameful that the occupational forces allowed historical treasures to be looted.

 

[werepossum]

wolf, please allow me to address your last point. I dont particularly recall where I made a specific distinction to 9/11 attackers as being solely "terrorists" and not Muslims - nonetheless, your point is valid. They were terrorists who purported to belong to the Islamic faith.

It is also correct to state that the actions imply a reference to the faith - they committed the act as a religious attack.

However, just as all bad Americans do not speak for me, or for America, the bad Muslims do not speak for me or for Islam. Many injustices can be committed in the name of America/Islam. However, they are not reflective of the entire people, Americans/Muslims.

And in the same vein, just as it is incumbent on Americans to say such and such act is not adherent to the values and principles of America, it is my obligation to do the same - to condemn and speak out against such acts.

That has been (at least) my intent and action on this forum.

Good points all. Certainly Islamic extremists do not speak for all Muslims, but they do represent far too large a part of international Islam. Just as good Muslims need to speak out and oppose Islamic terrorists and those who would impose sharia, good Christians need to speak out against those who bomb abortion clinics, burn Muslim mosques, and commit atrocities in Africa in the name of Christianity.

 

[routan]

Taqiyya - the Islamic principle of lying to further the interests of Islam - is an ancient and still widely-practiced art within Islam. The interpretation of taqiyyah obviously varies from group to group, but it's quite common to see Muslims vigorously deny something in English and then vigorously promote it in Arabic, Farsi, etc. Taqiyya holds that Muslims may lie to non-Muslims as long as the lie is external (on the tongue) and not internal (in the heart), as long as such a lie advances Islam. Muhammed himself is quoted in one of the hadith as having said: “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath." This is specifically seen in his conquest of Mecca, where Muhammed made a 10-year treaty and two years later invaded by surprise and conquered the Meccans. Kitman - the art of lying through omission - is also widespread.

As the scope of taqiyya personally is usually extended to anything that would endanger one's life, wealth, or esteem, it is perfectly permissible for a very devout Muslim to lie to me if telling the truth would harm him financially or harm his esteem. In other words, if a relative or fellow Muslim (or fellow Arab, Turk, or whatever perceived brotherhood) has done me a disservice and the Muslim judges that it would because of that perceived connection harm his own esteem were this to be known, then he has dispensation to use taqiyyah (telling me a lie) to protect his esteem. If he believes this knowledge will harm his faith, then he likewise has dispensation to lie to protect his faith. This broad interpretation of taqiyya may or may not be the majority view, I don't know, and certainly not all Islamic clerics interpret taqiyya as allowable except when being persecuted for being Muslim, but certainly it has been endorsed by well-respected clerics within all major Islamic sects. Also, some Sunni clerics shun taqiyya but endorse the same practices under another term, which escapes me.

Also in one of the hadith is a passage that says approximately: If a praiseworthy goal may be achieved by lying or by telling the truth, then one must not lie. But if a praiseworthy goal may be achieved only by lying and not by telling the truth, then it is permissible to lie. Many if not most Muslims consider worldwide sharia and Islamic clerical rule to be a very praiseworthy goal indeed.

Obviously I don't have the references in front of me, but I did do some research on the matter a couple decades ago.

werepossum, I would have very much appreciated a reference. Allow me to answer every point raised.

Foremost, I would like to say, Lying is prohibited in Islam, except in certain cases. The "except in certain cases falls under the concept of Taqiyya". This is not a novel concept. We lie everyday in certain circumstances. Islam just provides a name to it, so that it does not weigh as a massive sin.

Taqiyya is definitely an Islamic concept. However, to claim that it is a "widely-practiced art" is quite incorrect. I would like to see some substantiation to that claim. The second claim of denying something in English and promoting it in another language is also a claim without substantiation. Please provide substantiation, so that either I can address it or condemn it as the case may be.

The hadith is quite irrelevant to the invasion of Mecca. The history of the treaty and the invastion of Mecca can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah

The scope you are referring to is a misrepresentation. Lying to benefit self-esteem is permissible under Islam in cases like where if your wife asks you if she is fat, you say, no darling, you arent. Its not meant to lie by saying stuff like "I make $1 million dollars", just so you boost your self-esteem.

The Lying for "protection of faith" is with respect to situations where your life depends on your religious belief. As we all know, history is rife with examples of where your life was in danger based on your faith. Islam allows you to lie about your faith when a gun is pointed to your temple. This is simple common sense.

As you stated, the broad interpretation of Taqiyya is not the majority view. Can you please provide clarify to which Sunni clerics shun Taqqiya and also endorse the practice in another term?

I am not sure the context to the praiseworthy goal hadith that you quote. If I have time, I will definitely try to educate myself about it and come back with a educated response. I can certainly tell you that no Muslim thinks that Sharia and Islamic clerical rule can be only achieved by lying. Most Muslims are not even in support of Islamic clerical rule.

Hope this helps.

 

[bfdd]

bfdd, Stating that the word was in quotes and saying they werent yours but that you were just repeating them is a sorry excuse.

I specifically asked you which of YOUR questions I havent replied to for you to make those accusations, and you just reply saying you werent talking about your questions

As to your accusations and attacks, your words:

[/I]

Like I said they weren't my questions I said you weren't answering just as I never stated you haven't answered my questions. I said there were "harder" questions I haven't seen you answer and if you have you mostly give a non-answer or try to change the subject. The only thing I directed at you was what I perceived as a miscommunication between you and Infohawk that I was trying to correct. I used the word "weaselish" in quotes because it had already been used by the people I was replying to. I quoted Infohawk because it's not exactly the word I would of used to describe what you were doing. So keep believing whatever you want to believe, but I'd be the very first person on this forum to admit I was wrong when I am. I just don't see it here.

 

[woolfe9999]

wolf, please allow me to address your last point. I dont particularly recall where I made a specific distinction to 9/11 attackers as being solely "terrorists" and not Muslims - nonetheless, your point is valid. They were terrorists who purported to belong to the Islamic faith.

It is also correct to state that the actions imply a reference to the faith - they committed the act as a religious attack.

However, just as all bad Americans do not speak for me, or for America, the bad Muslims do not speak for me or for Islam. Many injustices can be committed in the name of America/Islam. However, they are not reflective of the entire people, Americans/Muslims.

And in the same vein, just as it is incumbent on Americans to say such and such act is not adherent to the values and principles of America, it is my obligation to do the same - to condemn and speak out against such acts.

That has been (at least) my intent and action on this forum.

I'm pretty sure you said they weren't Muslims earlier in the thread, and now you are kind of still saying that by using the word "purported." I have seen this come up before with Christians actually, when a bad act done by a Christian in the name of Christianity is pointed out, the Christian says that person wasn't a "true Christian." I see your argument as paraellel to that and I don't agree with it either way. I am half Jewish and I have never said that Baruch Goldstein was "not a Jew" or only "purported to be a Jew." I fully accept that he was a Jew.

Now the second part of your statement, that they don't speak for all Muslims, I of course agree with. It might also be fair to say that they are atypical Muslims, or that they supported an unusual interpretation of Islamic scriptures that isn't in the mainstream. I really don't know when it comes to Islam.

I do feel that the distinction is kind of important though. Naturally you want to distance yourself from this atrocious act that you did not agree with, but saying they weren't Muslims is denying that there is an issue that needs to be sorted out amongst Muslims. It seems that there is some disagreement amongst Muslims about this sort of thing and there needs to be internal dialogue. So if you say they weren't Muslims its like an excuse to disengage from that dialogue because "those people are not Muslims" and therefore you have no connection to them. By "connection" I don't mean moral responsibility for the acts. I do mean engagement in the dialogue within your own faith about violence, attitudes toward non-Muslims, etc.

I will engage and call out bigoted Americans, but I'm not going to say they aren't really Americans therefore I wash my hands of it. You get what I'm saying?

- wolf

 

[routan]

This kind of reminds me of Christianity in America. Where one group says that they are Christians and bash on all other Christians, but if a third party threatens them or if there is political advantage they come together and together denounce the "evils" of the day. (Kind of like soup of the day)


I'm a mormon. here's my perspective. Back in the 1800's Mormons and their leaders were tarred, feathered, and driven from their homes. The state of Missouri had a standing law to exterminate Mormons, which only in the last decade the state officially denounced and apologized for. What is going on with Muslims today in the US is nothing compared to the crap that Mormons had in the past.

Recently, a mass grave of Irish Immigrants was found. These Irishmen were hired to work on the expanding railroad system in the 1800s and after they finished their work were killed and buried in an unmarked grave.

Native Americans had their land stolen and were taken advantage of because of their looks and culture. They were utterly destroyed besides a few groups that now run cheap Casinos.


So, boooo wooo. Enough of this " Waa waa Muslim's have it rough in the US. Why can't we have our Gym next to ground Zero?" Do you think it's easy for my church to build those Temples of ours around the world? Hell no, but we just recently secured a plot of land in Vatican City. Do you think that was easy? NO, it took years of relationship building and mutual tolerance between Mormons and Catholic church leaders.

Mormons were the most despised religious group for years in the US and has spread world wide. We have missionaries sharing our beliefs around the world. However, we don't proselyte in most middle eastern countries because of the risk to the lives of new members. (though mormon members belonging to the military have received permission to baptize converts in Iraq and Afghanistan).

If the Muslim world in the middle east is so backwards why doesn't the Muslim community (practicing correct Islamic principle) send their version of missionaries to those parts of the world and teach a more peaceful version of Islam.


We have the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible counted as our holy scriptures, if anyone were to destroy one of these books you wouldn't see us starting fires, rioting, or whatever anywhere in the world.

I can understand having groups claiming to be Muslim and really are far from the practices of mainstream Islam. Mormonism has splinter groups as well. Just like the polygamist in southern Utah. We publicly dissociate from them completely. The Mormon church has active and vocal leadership.

The thing that probably scares people about Islam is that when they try to think of who leads the religion they think of guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iranian President). At least Christianity has paintings of Jesus, whether he's drawn to be white, middle eastern, black, Asian, Velociraptor, or whatever, and people can associate him as the head of Christianity. Islam forbids any sort of depiction of Muhammad and if you try someone in the middle east gets butt hurt and cuts someone's head off in protest.

See how Islam is a pretty scarey religion? We don't care about the moderate Muslims here in the US. Its the crazy pricks over seas that scare us.

People don't want a mosque anywhere near ground Zero, not because of intolerance towards Muslims here, but because the crazy "muslims" over there will think its their victory. Not yours.

The US is at war with a group of people using Islam as their face to the world, but it doesn't seem that alot of Muslim's here are as vocal about it as a lot of us think they should be. If someone was claiming to be Mormon and blowing up places you would hear an outcry from the Mormon community world wide saying f that guy! (they wouldn't say F most likely... only cool mormons still swear, they'd say gee wilikers and make a note to pray that God would help the world see that this guy did not represent them. As well as the massive media blitz the church would most likely make to make sure the rest of the world got the memo).

That Army Major that converted to Islam is still fresh in our minds too! He was one of our own for Christ's sake! And he shot up a base on american soil in the name of Islam.

Islam needs to take some PR points from the Mormons because the world may be annoyed with us at times because of the guys on bike's that knock on their door during dinner, but they are not afraid we're going to kill them.

Ever heard of the Mountin Meadow Massacre? Back in the day, like late 1800s. After the expulsion from Missiouri, Mormons went west and settled in what is now Utah. A few years later, People heading west from Missouri were passing through the southern part of Utah near a mormon colony. The bishop, who was the defacto mayor of sorts at the time, ordered that this group be engaged in fear that if left alone would attack the colony far away from the main group of mormons farther north in Utah. This lead to the massacre of innocent people by the hands of Mormon pioneers. You know what happened after that? Most people stop the story their as publish it as anti mormon literature. After that, the mormon church (the defacto government of the not even a territory region of Utah) put that Bishop on trial for murder and instigating the whole event. He was found guilty and executed according to the laws that were set up at the time. Justice was served for the senseless slaughter of innocence.

Is Islam making itself accountable for these extremist?

Many of us here in the US are afraid that while Muslims give us winks and smiles here that many of the larger organizations are sending money overseas that is then being laundered into terrorist activities (knowingly or unknowingly).

There is no sense of leadership, no sense of definable doctrine, and extemely different signals being sent out from people claiming to represent Islam.

I want to see some moderate Islam reps denouncing the extreme sects as not being Islamic before I can really say, "want to build something near ground zero? cool."

FTM0305, this is quite a long post, so please allow me to only address the salient points raised. If I missed any, feel free to point it out and I will try my best to address those as well.

Most of the what you said is statements, and not questions.

The comparison to building Churches elsewhere should not be a consideration of what should be allowed in the United States. I am not living in the Vatican. If I was, I would support the laws of the land there.

From your posts, I see that Mormons have devised a good system to educate its fellow members around the world. I accept that system is absent from Islam. But it is in the works. There is a substantial difference when educating 20 million Mormons and over 1 billion Muslims. The efforts of good Muslims are present. The effects will take time.

The Mormon values and Islamic values may be different - and are different. I wrote about how a Muslim values the Quran here: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30484073&postcount=33. That is NOT to say that Muslims should be rioting, starting fires, or whatever. But the comparison between Mormons and Islam in this context is not just.

The absence of a figurehead in Islam is a problem. I do not have a solution to it. However, because someone ELSE perceives Ahmadinejad to be representative of Islam, and then vilifies the religion, it would be more discredit to the person/s than Ahmadinejad.

As regards to the point about the mosque, you are painting this into a no-win situation. On the one hand, you argue that nutbag Muslims would think of it as a "victory" symbol. One can also argue that not letting the mosque be built who certainly prove that America is intolerant of Muslims, thereby fueling more apathy towards this country. Should you decide your course of actions on what nutbags think? That is up to you. I do not.

Please read Google News on how many Muslim countries are trying their hardest to fight extremism and terrorists.

Money is laundered and that is a sad reality. Those who send money for terrorist activities should be brought to justice, under AMERICAN penal system. This is a legal issue, and not something that I can enforce, and not something that can or should be blamed on Islam. Every terrorist action is financed by some group. The accountability of terrorist actions does not fall under the populace of a said country or a religion.

Hope this helps.

 

[routan]

I'm pretty sure you said they weren't Muslims earlier in the thread, and now you are kind of still saying that by using the word "purported." I have seen this come up before with Christians actually, when a bad act done by a Christian in the name of Christianity is pointed out, the Christian says that person wasn't a "true Christian." I see your argument as paraellel to that and I don't agree with it either way. I am half Jewish and I have never said that Baruch Goldstein was "not a Jew" or only "purported to be a Jew." I fully accept that he was a Jew.

Now the second part of your statement, that they don't speak for all Muslims, I of course agree with. It might also be fair to say that they are atypical Muslims, or that they supported an unusual interpretation of Islamic scriptures that isn't in the mainstream. I really don't know when it comes to Islam.

I do feel that the distinction is kind of important though. Naturally you want to distance yourself from this atrocious act that you did not agree with, but saying they weren't Muslims is denying that there is an issue that needs to be sorted out amongst Muslims. It seems that there is some disagreement amongst Muslims about this sort of thing and there needs to be internal dialogue. So if you say they weren't Muslims its like an excuse to disengage from that dialogue because "those people are not Muslims" and therefore you have no connection to them. By "connection" I don't mean moral responsibility for the acts. I do mean engagement in the dialogue within your own faith about violence, attitudes toward non-Muslims, etc.

I will engage and call out bigoted Americans, but I'm not going to say they aren't really Americans therefore I wash my hands of it. You get what I'm saying?

- wolf

woolfe9999, again, well stated opinions. I think you are over-reading my choice of words, and we are arguing over semantics.

To clarify, I am not denying the terrorists were Muslims. When Muslims amongst themselves say "those people werent Muslims", they are not in fact "disengaging"... the intent of that statement is to mean those actions were not Islamic - thereby making a statement that such acts are not allowed in Islam and that Muslims should NOT commit terrorist acts.

I hope I am conveying the thought the right way. It is more of a statement to teach Islam, rather than the bastardized interpretations of sickos. Which is exactly what you are suggesting - a dialogue within Muslims about the what the faith teaches about violence, attitudes toward non-Muslims, etc. And this dialogue is also extended to non-Muslims.

Hope this helps.