Religion of peace update...

Dang blast this laggy connection of mine! double post...sorry

[edit on 18-2-2005 by babloyi]

Ask away Saint, I have no problem answering questions about what I know.
Yes, I do go to the Masjid (you might know it better as a mosque). There is a congregation 5 times a day, where prayers are offered, but it is not compulsory to offer them at the mosque, you can pray anywhere. However, every Friday there is a congregation that it is compulsory to attend at the masjid. The Imam (priest) starts off with a sermon, and ends with leading the prayers. After the prayers are completed you greet your friends, shake hands etc. then leave.
I have encountered prejudice, sometimes to the point that I had to leave the masjid and attend congregation at other masjids, but this generally stems from personal opinions based off untrustworthy and undecided hadith. It is usually of the nature of "The correct place of women is in the kitchen" or "Don't wear the "western" clothes in the mosque".
I have been on the lesser pilgrimage (not the one that has to be done that once a year after the month of fasting).

Another ROP update:

Great article summarizing why the political culture of Islam is incompatible with democracy. Follow the link for the explanations why these are misconceptions.

"Five Misconceptions about Islam that could kill Democracy"

www.jewishworldreview.com...

1. Islam is a religion of peace, and is not anti-Jewish.
2. Islam is just a religion.
3. Mosques are only a sacred place of worship
4. Jihad is not a practice of Islam but only of a few radicals.
5. Islam and Democracy are compatible.

Hello again Freedom_for_sum
I was looking forward to an interesting debate concerning your previous points, what happened? However, you put in some new information into the mix, I suppose I will have to content myself with analysing that.

First of all, it seems I have to repeat this in every post:
Just because a country/individual/group calls itself muslim, and it follows a certain set of rules and ideologies, that does not make those rules and ideologies Islamic. To see what ideologies are Islamic, look at the Quran and Hadith

Now, I find Islam IS a religion of peace.
The site first talks about the life of Muhammad. There was war, but it was never started by Muslims. Muslim attacks were always in response to enemy action- The enemy declared war, the enemy attacked innocent Muslims, etc.
It then says:

[Muhammad] originally saw himself as a prophet to the Jews, Christians, and pagans of Arabia. In his early reign he instructed his followers to bow down and pray to Jerusalem! The Jews of Arabia rejected him as a Hebrew prophet and he was almost killed in battle with them. He then changed the direction of prayer to Mecca.

This is very interesting. The site tries to imply that Muhammad first claimed to be a Jewish prophet, but then changed. It does so by saying "The Jews of Arabia rejected him..." and then "He then changed the direction of prayer to Mecca". It even inserts "he was almost killed in battle with them" as if to imply that fear drove him. Muhammad claimed to be (and muslims believe him to be) a prophet of the God of Abraham (I assume you would call that a Jewish prophet), with a message to all of humanity. He never changed his mind, though. Just because the direction in which he prayed changed, doesn't mean he went back on his beliefs!
As far as Islam being anti-jewish, well, muslims believe that the jews changed their ways and warped the religion that Abraham, Moses, etc. had brought to them. They believe that many of the current jewish traditions are not the way of God. If you want to believe that means Islam is Anti-Jewish, go ahead. Remember though, that then Christianity would also be considered "Anti-Jewish". No where in the Quran or Hadith does it advocate unwarranted killing of Jews.
About Islam just being a religion: That is absolutely incorrect. Islam is meant to be a way of life. In that at least the site is correct. However, it goes on to talk about political and military organisations, which is just nonsense. The site also finds space to tell us that "The very word Islam means submission", but it neglects to explain that it means submission to God, not to muslims. Islam DOES advocate equality for all, muslim or non-muslim. The Jizyah tax for non-muslims is so that these non-muslims also contribute to charity (along with the muslims who pay it in the form of Zakat). There is nothing "unequal" about this.
About Mosques being only a sacred place of worship. Who ever said it was? Mosques can be used as schools, hospitals (in times of need), meeting places for the community. Islam is a very practical religion in this way.
Now: Jihad is not a practice of Islam but only of a few radicals. Who said this? Jihad is obligatory for all muslims. Jihad means "struggling in the way of God". It does not mean to wage war, war is only one kind of Jihad (practiced only when the muslims in question are under oppression). The site says that "Every Islamic nation in the Middle East and Northern Africa is a result of military invasion". That is plain nonsense. There are many countries that accepted Islam without war (Ethopia for one). There are also countries and groups that did not bother the muslims. They were not fought, or "force converted". They converted themselves later on, although some stayed as they were even till today (do you think coptic christians could have lasted so long if the mission of all muslims was to eliminate non-muslims?).
The site says "The only sure way to obtain paradise is to die in Jihad". This is again, completely untrue. Live a pure life. That is a sure way to obtain paradise. Build mosques. That is a sure way to obtain paradise. Die during Hajj. That is a sure way to obtain paradise.

I have to say that I think that article is nothing more than a BS load of propaganda. It uses every trick- false implications, no references, irrelevant pieces of mis-information etc.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
First of all, it seems I have to repeat this in every post:
Just because a country/individual/group calls itself muslim, and it follows a certain set of rules and ideologies, that does not make those rules and ideologies Islamic. To see what ideologies are Islamic, look at the Quran and Hadith

The problem, as the site points out, is that Muslims are bound by Islamic Law (Sharia). The Sharia is a set of its own rules that clash with western democracies and laws. Case in point: In the US, we've had several instances where Muslim women refused to remove their [vails or (face covering)] when applying for a driver's license. Driving here is a priviledge, not a right; and everyone is required to have their picture shown on the license. When these women were denied the license, they invoked religious descrimination complaints--which, ultimately, I believe they won; though I'm not sure.

You see, rather then accepting and integrating into the culture that has accepted them, they instead impose their religious beliefs/rules on us.

I'm not saying ALL muslims do this but there is no doubt in my mind that there is a very large contingent of Muslims who do believe that Islam must be spread, forcibly if necessary, to every nation on the Earth.

Here's a couple questions for you Babloyi: What country are you from/do you live? Do you live under the Sharia? As a Muslim, do you believe that Islamic Law is the supreme law of the land/world? What is your opinion of the Taliban/Wahabiism and Osama bin Laden and the way they practice Islam? Do you believe that those who critisize Islam should be put to death vis-a-vis: Theo van Gogh, Salmon Rushdie etc?

Hey Freedom
In reply to your Questions:
I am British. I have lived in Egypt, and am now in Pakistan. As a muslim, I believe that the way of living outlined in the Quran and Hadith is the best way of living for myself. My opinion of the Taliban and Bin Laden is that they are/were misinterpreting the message of Islam to suit their own needs. They proved that they are not following true Islam with all the atrocities they did against innocents. No, I don't believe anyone should be put to death for criticising Islam. I do as it says in the Quran. Try to explain the truth, and if the others are not willing to listen, I walk away.

28:55
And when they hear vain talk, they turn away therefrom and say: "To us our deeds, and to you yours; peace be to you: we seek not the ignorant."

About the veiled women- good for them! If they wish to have their pictures taken with their veils on, so what? You can see all of the face even if someone is wearing a veil, it is only their hair that is covered. This does not clash with "western democracy and laws". Infact, "Western Democracy and Laws" ought to support this. It is, after all, Rule of the PEOPLE.
I don't see it as an impostion of culture. The US is supposed to be the epitome of mixed culture.

Originally posted by babloyi
...am now in Pakistan.

Odd question I know, but I'd known someone who'd spend some time there and was adviced to move out of the territory a few years ago when the world seemed to be shifting. Can you talk a little about the state of affairs in the country? What kind of religious freedoms are available? Was the transition from the previous countries to Pakistan challenging? I was surprised that the prejudice you'd described was within the mosque itself, though can understand how organizations can be sometimes. I thought there'd be moreso tales of harassment at airports, travel and daily business.

Originally posted by babloyi
About the veiled women- good for them! If they wish to have their pictures taken with their veils on, so what? You can see all of the face even if someone is wearing a veil, it is only their hair that is covered. This does not clash with "western democracy and laws". Infact, "Western Democracy and Laws" ought to support this. It is, after all, Rule of the PEOPLE.
I don't see it as an impostion of culture. The US is supposed to be the epitome of mixed culture.

Seems reasonable/constitutional to me.

Originally posted by babloyi

About the veiled women- good for them! If they wish to have their pictures taken with their veils on, so what? You can see all of the face even if someone is wearing a veil, it is only their hair that is covered. This does not clash with "western democracy and laws". Infact, "Western Democracy and Laws" ought to support this. It is, after all, Rule of the PEOPLE.
I don't see it as an impostion of culture. The US is supposed to be the epitome of mixed culture.

Driver's licenses are a means used to identify the individual. The clothing I'm talking about is the Hajib(sp) which does cover the entire face. I'm not talking about just the head covering. This is an example where their religious laws are being intertwined with our civil laws and it simply won't work on a large scale.

BTW, regarding the Jizya: You call it charity, I call it a tax. The difference between the two is that one is VOLUNTARY (charity) and the other is compulsory (Jizya).

If being a Coptic Christain in Egypt is so great, why have so many (several hundred thousand) left Egypt?

I want to make one point very clear: I am not religious. I am agnostic and as such believe that anything that can be used by people to polarize one from another is generally bad. All religions are guilty of this--as are skinheads, Nazis etc. The problem I have with Islam is that right now the growth of this "extreme" interpretation of the Qur'an (including in Pakistan) is particularily Alarming--especially when there are Imams and Clerics providing official stamps of approval of this interpretation. I am pleased to know, Babloyi, that you seem to have no ill-intent against apostates and infidels, such as myself. This, however, is no consolation as I haven't heard of Christains/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists etc decapitating heads or blowing themselves up, killing innocent women and children, all in the name of their God.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Driver's licenses are a means used to identify the individual.

Yeah, and none of us ever lie about our age and weight, right?
So, what other conflicts of law do you have for us? I'm not defending another religion, but I will defend the rights of the people in this country founded on the 1st amendment.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
This, however, is no consolation as I haven't heard of Christains/Jews/Hindus/Buddhists etc decapitating heads or blowing themselves up, killing innocent women and children, all in the name of their God.

For kicks and giggles Freedom, how many of the people who do that do you think are here? The point I'm making is 'Christians' who screw up scripture (because it says to love everyone) to the point of killing people aren't going to represent here in a discussion forum, are they? Maybe I'm being naive.

Originally posted by saint4God

Yeah, and none of us ever lie about our age and weight, right?

Lie as you wish--a picture is worth a thousand words

So, what other conflicts of law do you have for us?

How about "charitable" organizations raising money to fund Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Illegal under our laws--not only legal but expected under Islamic law.

I'm not defending another religion, but I will defend the rights of the people in this country founded on the 1st amendment.

The first amendment in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... (emphasis added)

Clearly, the state allowing an individual to stray from the norm (picture on license) based on religious grounds is indeed respecting an establishment of religion

For kicks and giggles Freedom, how many of the people who do that do you think are here...

I'm not sure I understand your line of questioning. Could you please rephrase?

Regarding the Jizya; here is an essay from arabnews.com which places it in historical context:

www.arabnews.com...

"In the early Islamic period, the people of Bukhara sent a small delegation to Damascus, the capital of the Muslim state, complaining to the Caliph that the Muslim army took over their city without giving them notice and offering them the three standard alternatives of 1) accepting Islam; 2) paying jizyah, which is a tribute confirming loyalty in return for protection against any outside attack; or 3) war." [emphasis added]

babloyi:

From your neck of the woods:

Christian jailed for insulting Koran

breakingnews.iol.ie...

Excerpt:

"Masih was sentenced under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and moved to a jail in the nearby town of Bhawalnagar. He can appeal the sentence.

Under the blasphemy laws, anyone who insults the Koran, Islam or its prophet Muhammad can be punished by death. Throwing the holy book on the ground, touching it with feet or saying derogatory things about it are deemed insulting."

Tolerance for other's beliefs? I don't think so

We'll call this today's ROP update

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Lie as you wish--a picture is worth a thousand words

Not me, just sayin' I'm fairly sure it happens a lot. I grew a lot of hair since my pic so other than skin colour, it doesn't look like me.

So, what other conflicts of law do you have for us?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
How about "charitable" organizations raising money to fund Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Illegal under our laws--not only legal but expected under Islamic law.

The banking term is 'clean money' (raised legally though used for illegal purposes) instead of 'dirty money' (from crime) *nods*. I've heard of this but not in detail.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
The first amendment in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... (emphasis added)

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Clearly, the state allowing an individual to stray from the norm (picture on license) based on religious grounds is indeed respecting an establishment of religion

I'm not sure I understand your line of questioning. Could you please rephrase?

Sure. Just saying those killing radicals probably don't hang out on ATS discussion boards. This place is everything but truly "Above Top Secret"

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Christian jailed for insulting Koran

Excerpt:

"Masih was sentenced under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws and moved to a jail in the nearby town of Bhawalnagar. He can appeal the sentence.

Under the blasphemy laws, anyone who insults the Koran, Islam or its prophet Muhammad can be punished by death. Throwing the holy book on the ground, touching it with feet or saying derogatory things about it are deemed insulting."

Tolerance for other's beliefs? I don't think so

We'll call this today's ROP update

1.) What was a 'Christian' doing practicing magik? Did s/he not read Leveticus, Galatians and all the other books that speaks on NOT practicing it?

2.) It says 3% of the country is of the Christian faith. Does that mean they can live in peace as long as they're not "blasphemous" or do they have to hide their own practices?


[edit on 24-2-2005 by saint4God]

"Masih was arrested in August last year in the cotton-growing village of Chak 109 Fateh after a Muslim man complained to police that Masih was insulting the Koran by putting his legs on the holy book while he lay in bed at home, Ahmed said."

...conducting blasphemist behavior in his own home? I guess privacy laws don't apply when disrespecting Islam. I don't know--maybe there are no privacy laws in Pakistan!

Ahmed said that after his arrest Masih told police he would place the Koran on his feet and tear out pages..."

I would like to see a picture of him doing that. Let's see; was he on his back with his feet in the air; holding the Qur'an with one hand and tearing the pages with his other? Maybe I'm misunderstaing what he was doing.

I'm glad I live in a place where I can do whatever I want with any scripture and not worry about being thrown in jail.

ok, I have a ton of questions to answer:
Saint4God:
Religious freedom seems OK. There are many different religions that blend in almost invisibly here. I am friends 2 Christians, and even know a few Parsis (what you would call Zoraostan...something). At Christmas time the shops and some houses are all lit up. There ARE of course, the Blasphemy Laws that Freedom was talking about, but I thought that it should be obvious to even the most foolish person that it is not a good idea to mess around with the Quran in a Muslim country.
There IS what I suppose you could call "harassments", although I don't think it has anything to do with religion. It amounts to being pointed at in the streets because I am a foreigner. Things like that. Mostly harmless.
OK, now Freedom:
About the Charity that Muslims give. It is not voluntary. It is compulsory to give zakat.
I don't know why several hundred thousand (not sure about the accuracy of this number) Coptic Christians left Egypt. Why did many Muslims leave Egypt? Why did so many Parsis leave Iran?
I have been in Egypt. I never saw any hatred towards Coptic Christians. I am pretty sure they are safe. Being a tourist nation, Egypt NEEDS all those Coptic Christian sites, museum pieces, Churches, and general Coptic Christian "atmosphere"- which includes the people. It all generates the countries income. So logically, Egyptians would be very strict in regard to religious tolerance in this way.
I agree with you. Religion should not be used as a means of polarising people from one another. It is about ones own faith.
You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that just because a cleric or imam puts an "stamp of approval" on a descision, it makes it correct. There is no "Organisation" as such in Islam. There is no Pope, or Arch-bishop. There are only "councils" that decide certain fatwas about certain situations. Depending on the validity of the evidence they provide to support their claim, you can choose whether or not to believe them. There is a Hadith that says something to the effect that when making a difficult decision about faith, look in the Quran. If the answer is not there, examine the life and sayings of Muhammad. If the answer is still not there, use your best judgement.
About the guy that was sentenced to jail. I don't think he was tolerant of Islam. I mean insulting the Quran, putting his feet on it and threatening to tear out its pages can only be put down to malicious behaviour. Why did he wish to do that anyway? I am very respectful of ANY book. I would never dream of stepping on a book purposely, or tearing it's pages out.


[edit on 24-2-2005 by babloyi]

[edit on 24-2-2005 by babloyi]

There ARE of course, the Blasphemy Laws that Freedom was talking about, but I thought that it should be obvious to even the most foolish person that it is not a good idea to mess around with the Quran in a Muslim country.

Why? In most western nations one can "mess" with any religious scripture without being arrested. What's so different about a Muslim country?

There IS what I suppose you could call "harassments", although I don't think it has anything to do with religion. It amounts to being pointed at in the streets because I am a foreigner.

What is different about you that makes it obvious you're a foriegner? Despite being a foriegner, you are Muslim. Doesn't that mean anything to these "pointers". When I "walk the streets" I see foriegners all the time and I don't feel compelled to point or stare at them.

About the Charity that Muslims give. It is not voluntary. It is compulsory to give zakat.

That being the case then the Zakat is a "tax". There is nothing "charitable" about making a payment that is compulsory.

You've stated in an earlier post that both the Jizya and Zakat are charity. If so, why the two separate names?

I don't know why several hundred thousand (not sure about the accuracy of this number) Coptic Christians left Egypt. Why did many Muslims leave Egypt? Why did so many Parsis leave Iran?

The following is an advanced search funtion at google.com of "coptic christians in egypt":

www.google.com... filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

There you will many references some legit--others biased--of what they are going through.

About the guy that was sentenced to jail. I don't think he was tolerant of Islam. I mean insulting the Quran, putting his feet on it and threatening to tear out its pages can only be put down to malicious behaviour. Why did he wish to do that anyway?

That is a very good question!! Why did he wish to do that? He wasn't given a voice in the article. His actions seem to be that of a person subjugated with no justice.

I am very respectful of ANY book. I would never dream of stepping on a book purposely, or tearing it's pages out.

The point is: You don't have a choice without severe retribution!

One thing I would like to point out is that when I walk down the street I dont get pestered by people wanting to reach Islam to me. No flyers. No annoying dickheads wanting to sell me Allah on my front doorstep. If Muslims are trying to convert/subjugate the rest of us then how, exactly are they doing so.

I will say that the mystery of Islam attracts my interest becuase I am so used to being force fed xtianity. It is refreshing to see a people who have their faith and no need to impose or even mention it. Things may be different in Islamic nations but in Australia Muslims are a pleasant and polite people for all I have seen.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Why? In most western nations one can "mess" with any religious scripture without being arrested. What's so different about a Muslim country?

I didn't say it was right, or fair, or supported by Islam. I just said it was common sense.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
What is different about you that makes it obvious you're a foriegner? Despite being a foriegner, you are Muslim. Doesn't that mean anything to these "pointers". When I "walk the streets" I see foriegners all the time and I don't feel compelled to point or stare at them.

What can I say? Wouldn't you recognise a Pakistani person, walking down your street in Pakistani garb to be foreigner? Like I said, it has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps seeing a foreigner is a rare occasion for some Pakistanis.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
That being the case then the Zakat is a "tax". There is nothing "charitable" about making a payment that is compulsory.
You've stated in an earlier post that both the Jizya and Zakat are charity. If so, why the two separate names?

It goes to charity. I would call that charitable. Thinking of it as tax is a very materialistic and small minded way of looking at it. Jizya IS considered a tax though. While Muslims have it in their religion to give zakat, there is nothing like this for non-muslims, hence, it is done in the form of tax.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

I am very respectful of ANY book. I would never dream of stepping on a book purposely, or tearing it's pages out.

The point is: You don't have a choice without severe retribution!

I was not talking about Holy Scriptures. I was talking about ANY book. Although the law here may not prevent me from taking my old History books and burning them, I would consider it a horrendous act to do any such thing. Another Islamic value I suppose- respect for knowledge in any form.

[edit on 24-2-2005 by babloyi]

What's a 'Coptic Christian'? I think I was out that day of class.

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Why? In most western nations one can "mess" with any religious scripture without being arrested. What's so different about a Muslim country?

babloyi said:
I didn't say it was right, or fair, or supported by Islam. I just said it was common sense.

What is common sense for one person may not be for another. I'm interested in YOUR opinion on the rightness or fairness of this issue.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
What is different about you that makes it obvious you're a foriegner? Despite being a foriegner, you are Muslim. Doesn't that mean anything to these "pointers". When I "walk the streets" I see foriegners all the time and I don't feel compelled to point or stare at them.

babloyi wrote:
What can I say? Wouldn't you recognise a Pakistani person, walking down your street in Pakistani garb to be foreigner? Like I said, it has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps seeing a foreigner is a rare occasion for some Pakistanis.

I might recognise him but I certainly wouldn't point fingers at him! BTW: you didn't answer the question--What is different about you that makes it obvious you're a foriegner?

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
That being the case then the Zakat is a "tax". There is nothing "charitable" about making a payment that is compulsory.
You've stated in an earlier post that both the Jizya and Zakat are charity. If so, why the two separate names?

Babloyi Wrote:
It goes to charity. I would call that charitable. Thinking of it as tax is a very materialistic and small minded way of looking at it. Jizya IS considered a tax though. While Muslims have it in their religion to give zakat, there is nothing like this for non-muslims, hence, it is done in the form of tax.

So, the Islamic requirement of giving "the poor their due" is forced upon non-muslims? How can this NOT be a form of subjugation?

I was not talking about Holy Scriptures. I was talking about ANY book. Although the law here may not prevent me from taking my old History books and burning them, I would consider it a horrendous act to do any such thing. Another Islamic value I suppose- respect for knowledge in any form.

You're muddying the logic. Whether or not you would or would not "put your feet on or tear pages from" a holy scripture is irrelevent. As I said: the point is you can't without severe retribution. What about simply criticizing Islam? What would happen then? How do you feel about the fact that there are many Muslims, including in Pakistan, who view you as an apostate for taking such a "moderate" view of Islam? Have you ever encountered or debated with an "extremist"? If so, what was the outcome?