It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Taha said that the Sudanese constitution needed to be reformed, in order to reconcile “the individual’s need for absolute freedom with the community’s need for total social justice.” This political ideal, he argued, could be best achieved not through Marxism or liberalism but through Islam—that is, Islam in its original, uncorrupted form, in which women and people of other faiths were accorded equal status.
One day, Osman took a book by Taha off her father’s shelf, “The Koran, Mustapha Mahmoud, and Modern Understanding,” published in 1970. By the time she finished it, she was weeping. For the first time, she felt that religion had accorded her fully equal status. “Inside this thinking, I’m a human being,” she said. “Outside this thinking, I’m not.” It was as if she had been asleep all her life and had suddenly woken up: the air, the taste of water, food, even the smell of things changed. She felt as if she were walking a little off the ground.
In Taha’s most important book, a slender volume called “The Second Message of Islam” (published in 1967, with the dedication “To humanity!”), he writes that the lives of the “early Muslims” in Mecca “were the supreme expression of their religion and consisted of sincere worship, kindness, and peaceful coexistence with all other people.” Abdullahi an-Naim, who is now a law professor at Emory University, translated the book into English; in his introduction, he writes, “Islam, being the final and universal religion according to Muslim belief, was offered first in tolerant and egalitarian terms in Mecca, where the Prophet preached equality and individual responsibility between all men and women without distinction on grounds of race, sex, or social origin. As that message was rejected in practice, and the Prophet and his few followers were persecuted and forced to migrate to Medina, some aspects of the message changed.”
Originally posted by k4rupt
Exactly... we cannot force Muslims to change, they have to change themselves.
Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Why is it that we allow organizations like godhatesfags.com , the KKK , christians advocating the murder of abortion doctors and other radical versions of christianity to exist? Just because one makes claims that "These people are not true christians" does not mean that they themselves do not believe it to be soor that in fact they aren't christians.
Maybe one day we will get around to cleaning up our own versions of radicals and then we can dictate to the Muslims what they should do with theirs. Till then look into your own backyards first before condemning your neighbor for being unclean.
Originally posted by BitRaiser
Hrm...
This makes me wonder... What event or events curbed the Christian brutality? We all know that a hell of alot of blood was spilled by fundamentalist Christians through Witch hunts, Inquesitions, Crusades, and the like. However, the nature of the faith seemed to change around the late 1800s to early 1900s. Now, for the most part, Christianity is reasonably calm and hate-free (not totally, there's still some issues, but you know what I'm getting at).
Can anyone with a little more historic knowlage in this area help describe how Christianity went from Blood-soaked to benign? It could be very relevent to this discussion.
Originally posted by BitRaiser
Hrm...
This makes me wonder... What event or events curbed the Christian brutality? We all know that a hell of alot of blood was spilled by fundamentalist Christians through Witch hunts, Inquesitions, Crusades, and the like. However, the nature of the faith seemed to change around the late 1800s to early 1900s. Now, for the most part, Christianity is reasonably calm and hate-free (not totally, there's still some issues, but you know what I'm getting at).
Can anyone with a little more historic knowlage in this area help describe how Christianity went from Blood-soaked to benign? It could be very relevent to this discussion.
Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The fact is that the koran teaches nothing but hatred. It excuses any actions which it's followers take in the name of "holy war".
Originally posted by Diseria
'Tis not true.
As I said in the OP, half of the Qu'ran was written in peaceful times, and the other half during war times.
The part that's getting pushed by the media and popular sentiment is the violent part, because the radicals are holding it up on high.
There's a whole 'nother half that preaches peace, justice, equity and compassion. ...we just never hear about that part.
Originally posted by iori_komei
Not being a hisotrian, I can't say from a true historical point of
view, but I think that it was influenced by the industrial revolution
and the improvement in communications.
People started leaning towards more liberal viewpoints, after
getting tired of what conservative religion taught.