Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Debate on Islamic Fundamentalism in Trinity College
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I'll let Qadri answer that, I wasn't taking notes so I don't have the references he used!Osman wrote:So what were Qadri's arguments?
I'm interested, this might be useful!0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59091
I didn't get to go in the end, but a friend did and he echoed Frank Grimes take on the whole affair. The media types and others certainly were out to get a good headline at the expense of honest reporting. Maybe that's a good start for further discussion on the news/media forum though?
I do have a view questions however. Maybe move this to a new thread if this isn't the place for it.
These questions relate to Islam itself not Muslims. As someone on another thread pointed out(no search on boards so..Death to pagans I think it was called), Islam and the Quran is an oral and auditory faith and Muslims praying hear the word peace all the time. Hence the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful(he explained it far better). I would contend that generally people are more peaceful than not. Most Christians/Jews for example don't take on board some of the dubious passages of the Old Testament/Torah and act upon them. That doesn't deny that those passages exist, though. Is it not harder to ignore those kind of passages in the Quran? Unlike the others mentioned it is considered the direct word of Allah, while the others are regarded as words of man directed by God, IE more open to interretation.
I'm more concerned by passages jumped on by more radical(some might say more "correct") Muslims, that may back up their more violent acts and opinions.
Fair enough Qadri, I take your point, but is this not peace from the point of view of a Muslim towards other Muslims. IE when one submits in peace to the message of the Quran, then it's OK. What about those non muslims, the pagans and idolators? Those who don't want to "submit" to the message of Islam? Are there not far more aggressive passages in the Quran that may be interpreted differently? Also if Islam was a religion of peace from the first, why was the message carried on the back of numerous battles and wars from the start in the time of the Prophet, by both him and his followers?Qadri wrote:The name Islam is derived from rootword SILM and SALAMA. These have many meanings:
1.Peace
2.Tranquility
3. Security > which leads to peace
4. Submission to Allah ( to goodness)
So Islam right from its beginning and very first impression (first impression is the last impression) and title is a Religion of Peace with a Message of peace..
Again this seems aimed at Muslims greeting other Mulsims, Allah and angels. What about those passages that suggest take no friends who are not Muslims? How does one greet a non Muslim according to the Quran?Examples of daily practices where the message of peace is given.
1. When Muslims meet each other they greet each other with 'Assalamu alaikum' which is 'Peace be upon you'
2.Muslims end their prayers with sending peace to the angels on the right and left of the body.
3. After prayer we supplicate to Allah (swt) with these words: ' Allahumma Antas Salaam wa minkas Salaam wa ilaiya yarji us Salaam' O Allah you are Salaam (Peace) and peace is from you...
By giving these examples one can judge that the Peace is the main objective of Islam.
No argument there, but Hobbes will rightfully have my neck if we get political.:D Joking aside, much of this problem is more the remit of politics though and could be argued better in that forum.We Muslims are angree because of the dual standards of the Western policies.
I've seen that quote before. You wouldn't have a link for the full text and context handy, would you? I couldn't find it by searching.Quran says :
He who kills any individual injusticly (death penalty for a murderer) is is like he has killed whole mankind, he who saves one individual it is like he has saved whole mankind. (Al Mayidah 32)
Again reserved for the believers.O you who believe enter in peace ..
Are there not examples of the Prophet being less than loving? I seem to remember one incident where he ordered(or didn't stop) the death of a poet(I think) who made fun of him. I may be way off there though. Apologies if I am.Prophet's teaching.....
Did he not kill or enslave any of them? What about other battles where he did? In any event, if the message was so persuasive why did he have to conquer Makkah in the first place? Did he not fight on till he subdued other tribes and peoples under Islam?* Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his companions and families were boycotted in Makkah for 2 years. Nobody would sell them anything...All Muslims had to eat leaves for 2 years ! Still when he conquared Makkah he did not take revenge from the people of Makkah, but he actually forgave all of them...
True, but how does one define a "defensive" war. Is it not also said that one must fight the unbelievers until there is no God but Allah(among other sura)? By that logic, a war could be started on the basis that your enemy is an unbeliever. Did the Prophet not do this? Did he not have a peace treaty with the Meccans that he overturned because they did not believe in his message?
* In Jihaad (holy struggle) one can only fight a war which is defensive and even than only against the enemie and the enemy is the one who is carrying weapons against you...Not the familly of the enemy (according to Shariah) so one is not allowed to hurt children, woman and elderly in Jihad....
True, nor holy men IIRC. I think idols are fair game though. I could be wrong, but I think that was the justification of the destruction of the Afghan Buddhas.* In Jihad (holy war) Muslims can not destroy churches, temples and other holy buildings/places
Well I think most would go along with that concept of defensive war.those who invade your country against them to fight is ones right....Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Quote:
* Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his companions and families were boycotted in Makkah for 2 years. Nobody would sell them anything...All Muslims had to eat leaves for 2 years ! Still when he conquared Makkah he did not take revenge from the people of Makkah, but he actually forgave all of them...
Did he not kill or enslave any of them? What about other battles where he did? In any event, if the message was so persuasive why did he have to conquer Makkah in the first place? Did he not fight on till he subdued other tribes and peoples under Islam?
No he did not kill them . He forgave everyone in Makkah, when he had a chance of murdering he did not. But in battles he had to fight because otherwise his followers would have killed. It is totally wrong that he fought to make other nations muslims. It is a wellknown fact that he allowed the people to stay in their belief if they wanted to. Nobody was pressurized to accept Islam.
Quote:
* In Jihaad (holy struggle) one can only fight a war which is defensive and even than only against the enemie and the enemy is the one who is carrying weapons against you...Not the familly of the enemy (according to Shariah) so one is not allowed to hurt children, woman and elderly in Jihad....
True, but how does one define a "defensive" war. Is it not also said that one must fight the unbelievers until there is no God but Allah(among other sura)? By that logic, a war could be started on the basis that your enemy is an unbeliever. Did the Prophet not do this? Did he not have a peace treaty with the Meccans that he overturned because they did not believe in his message?
No the verse you are quoting i do not have knowledge of it. Please provide proof.
Defensive war: War to defend your own property, belongings and most importantly to defend own existance (life)
He did have a peace treaty with the Makkans ( Treaty of Hudaibiyah), but it were the Makkans who overturned and breached the treaty my dear. PLease correct yourself. The Makkans overturned the contract, and once a party overturns a contract the contract is not void anymore and is cancelled. Same happend...Makkans breached one article and the Treaty automatically got cancelled. If you want proof let me know we can open a thread on this Treaty.Quote:
* In Jihad (holy war) Muslims can not destroy churches, temples and other holy buildings/places
True, nor holy men IIRC. I think idols are fair game though. I could be wrong, but I think that was the justification of the destruction of the Afghan Buddhas.
Afghan Budhhas were destroyed and this was against Islamic Principles. Taliban were not representing true Islam. They were radicals and extremists. They had a wrong understanding of Islam. And when they destroyed it whole muslim world protested against it, but the "Neutral" WESTERN MEDIA did not show this 0 -
Qadri wrote:Afghan Budhhas were destroyed and this was against Islamic Principles. Taliban were not representing true Islam. They were radicals and extremists. They had a wrong understanding of Islam.
Its a sweet system where if some of your co-religionists do something "bad" as you see it you can disown them - even if they also say they are acting out of religious duty incumbent on them as followers of the same religion.
The Taliban (and people like them) say they are following the true version of Islam and everyone else is backsliding. They also cite scripture for their purposes to "prove" this as they see it.:rolleyes:
In the same way, many majority muslim countries trumpet themselves as "Islamic republics" or somesuch while many of the laws and the practices of the people there would seem to disqualify them as "Islamic" in your view. They clearly believe what they are saying and the people believe they are good muslims so why should we disbelieve them?
Unless you expect all of us evil Westerners to become Koranic scholars or something its very hard to tell who is right here. Anyway, why would our opinion as infidels or our suspect understanding make any difference? Who has the right of it is something for the muslims themselves to sort out.Qadri wrote:And when they destroyed it whole muslim world protested against it, but the "Neutral" WESTERN MEDIA did not show this
Yes - it's always the evil West's fault in the end. Maybe it was really CIA operatives who blew up the dirty great big Buddhas to smear Islam?Wibbs wrote:TBH fly_agaric, that's not my intention. One of the most peaceful humans I've known has been a Muslim(Sufi bloke, lovely guy). I just want to know how that peace is reconciled with the contradictions that appear to be inherent in the faith that is Islam(not just Islam BTW). He struggled with some of it and frankly so do I, especially from an unbelievers point of view.
I have also known several muslims. Had a few in my class in school and knew two in college. None of them were really very religious though. The most religious of them did observe Ramadan strictly. One of the others liked a few bevvies on occasion though.:eek: IMO, unless people naturally have a very saintly and kind live-and-let-live nature, the more seriously they take their religion and its observances the more intolerant they tend to become of others who they see living lives at odds with the tenets of their particular religion.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
they should go to Iraq and fight alongside the Iraqis.
I suggest you all watch the Islam Channel, SKY-836.
Iyvonne Ridley speaks as well as the jounalist Faisal Bodi, an amazing man.
Ridley says the best thing that ever happened to her was being kidnapped by the taliban.0
Advertisement