Mosque attacked by Islamists!

[PaliRichard]

But Islamic suppression is because of the ideology behind it, if people are treated differently then it is not a religion of peace, tolerance or understanding.

 

No faith which is this divisive and hateful inspired by primitive barbaric Islamic teachings can ever be reformed, these idelogies belong in the stone age where the faith originated.

 

Islamic ideology allows people of different ideologies to live in Islamic states but they have to pay different taxes (in place of the charitable taxes that Muslims are required to pay) and people of other religions are not allowed to convert Muslims.

 

Although I don't agree personally with any of these things it is a long way from the Islamist ideology of not allowing other ideologies at all in an Islamic state. This is the only point I have been trying to make on this thread, that Islamist ideology and Islamic extremism contain elements, and they are usually the more dramatic elements, that are not in line with the Quranic teaching.

 

I am not a Muslim, but short of (and as alluded to in the second part of your post) Islam being confined to history we have to make an effort to reform those parts of Islam that contradict that of the core teachings, and, in my opinion, work with those British Muslims who want to implement those ideologies in contradiction to the laws of the land.

 

Simply saying 'Islam is outdated' and clumping all Muslims in one boat, when the majority have very little in common with the more extreme elements, is a breeding ground for extremism. We don't have to agree with Islam to avoid fueling the fire of extreme Islamic opinion, be we do have to try to understand it and we certainly have to respect the Muslims who do choose to live peacefully amongst us.

[Green Web]

Islamic ideology allows people of different ideologies to live in Islamic states but they have to pay different taxes (in place of the charitable taxes that Muslims are required to pay) and people of other religions are not allowed to convert Muslims.

 

Although I don't agree personally with any of these things it is a long way from the Islamist ideology of not allowing other ideologies at all in an Islamic state. This is the only point I have been trying to make on this thread, that Islamist ideology and Islamic extremism contain elements, and they are usually the more dramatic elements, that are not in line with the Quranic teaching.

 

I am not a Muslim, but short of (and as alluded to in the second part of your post) Islam being confined to history we have to make an effort to reform those parts of Islam that contradict that of the core teachings, and, in my opinion, work with those British Muslims who want to implement those ideologies in contradiction to the laws of the land.

 

Simply saying 'Islam is outdated' and clumping all Muslims in one boat, when the majority have very little in common with the more extreme elements, is a breeding ground for extremism. We don't have to agree with Islam to avoid fueling the fire of extreme Islamic opinion, be we do have to try to understand it and we certainly have to respect the Muslims who do choose to live peacefully amongst us.

 

Fair points, and sorry i misread your post.

 

however if Muslims can’t tolerate criticism of their faith then how can it ever be reformed?

[PaliRichard]

Sorry I was under the impression that you were claiming that Islam treats people equally and it was Islamism that doesn’t, therefore Islamism isn’t really Islam. So Islam and Islamism both discriminate based on religion and race.

 

I am claiming Islamism isn't really Islam (not from a scriptural point of view).

 

I have never claimed Islam treats everyone the same, according to Islam Muslims* go to heaven and the rest go to hell. According to Islam those who are non Muslim are not equal to those that are.

 

I defend Islam alot on this forum because alot of people don't really understand it and lump alot of extreme behaviour in with the 'Islam' that most 'everday' Muslims practice and they are two different things.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with Islam on the whole (if I did I would be a Muslim) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get a fair hearing in my opinion.

 

* according to Islam a Muslim is one who submits to the will of Allah. The will of Allah is the Quran. This means that strictly speaking according to Islam suicide bombers/people who chop off the heads of apostates etc are not Muslims, because this behaviour contradicts the instruction given in the Quran. The Hadith and Sunnah are suplimentary texts to the Quran, not it's equal, so anyone who cites these texts as authoritive in actions the contradict the Quran are also not Muslims

[PaliRichard]

Fair points, and sorry i misread your post.

 

however if Muslims can’t tolerate criticism of their faith then how can it ever be reformed?

 

They can.

 

Some of them at least (there will always be those who just ignore you regardless in any ideology), one of the points I keep trying to stress is that treating Muslims with respect and not just dismissing them because they are Muslim creates much more opportunity for honest, respectful dialogue.

 

Many Muslims already have a balanced view of their faith but those that don't are much more likely to listen to an opposing argument if they are given respect. It is when Muslims understand the criticism that change can take place because the more extreme elements are much more likely to listen to friends/family members of their own faith than someone shouting 'Islam is just plain wrong'.

[MrSmith]

I am claiming Islamism isn't really Islam (not from a scriptural point of view).

 

I have never claimed Islam treats everyone the same, according to Islam Muslims* go to heaven and the rest go to hell. According to Islam those who are non Muslim are not equal to those that are.

 

I defend Islam alot on this forum because alot of people don't really understand it and lump alot of extreme behaviour in with the 'Islam' that most 'everday' Muslims practice and they are two different things.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with Islam on the whole (if I did I would be a Muslim) but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get a fair hearing in my opinion.

 

* according to Islam a Muslim is one who submits to the will of Allah. The will of Allah is the Quran. This means that strictly speaking according to Islam suicide bombers/people who chop off the heads of apostates etc are not Muslims, because this behaviour contradicts the instruction given in the Quran. The Hadith and Sunnah are suplimentary texts to the Quran, not it's equal, so anyone who cites these texts as authoritive in actions the contradict the Quran are also not Muslims

 

The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any earthly punishment for apostasy but does say it will be punished; Islamic scholars differs on its punishment, ranging from execution – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths.

 

So because it would be impossible to understand all of the verses of the Qur’an without referring to the Sunnah of the Prophet, it’s possible to conclude that punishment could mean execution.

 

So a Muslim that interprets the punishment to mean execution is following his interpretation of Islam and his interpretation could well be the correct interpretation.

This is a problem when one tries to understand a book written 1400 years ago by a man.

[PaliRichard]

The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any earthly punishment for apostasy but does say it will be punished; Islamic scholars differs on its punishment, ranging from execution – based on an interpretation of certain hadiths.

 

So because it would be impossible to understand all of the verses of the Qur’an without referring to the Sunnah of the Prophet, it’s possible to conclude that punishment could mean execution.

 

So a Muslim that interprets the punishment to mean execution is following his interpretation of Islam and his interpretation could well be the correct interpretation.

This is a problem when one tries to understand a book written 1400 years ago by a man.

 

I'm afraid you're incorrect.

 

I can't put the verses up as I'm at work (and can't remember the numbers off the top of my head) but the Quran specifically says apostates will be punished by Allah in the hereafter. It also prescribes the way Muslims should treat (not punish) them while on earth. It prescribes no earthly punishment exactly for this reason.

 

So any Muslim prescribing any earthly punishment is specifically disobaying the will of Allah.

 

I will give you the verses when I am able.

[mj.scuba]

I'm afraid you're incorrect.

 

I can't put the verses up as I'm at work (and can't remember the numbers off the top of my head) but the Quran specifically says apostates will be punished by Allah in the hereafter. It also prescribes the way Muslims should treat (not punish) them while on earth. It prescribes no earthly punishment exactly for this reason.

 

So any Muslim prescribing any earthly punishment is specifically disobaying the will of Allah.

 

I will give you the verses when I am able.

 

You must know this is not true, there are plenty of references in the Quran/Hadith dealing with the treatment of apostates.

 

I recommend you read this:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm

 

This is a really good point:

 

"A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers"

[Green Web]

They can.

 

Some of them at least (there will always be those who just ignore you regardless in any ideology), one of the points I keep trying to stress is that treating Muslims with respect and not just dismissing them because they are Muslim creates much more opportunity for honest, respectful dialogue.

 

Many Muslims already have a balanced view of their faith but those that don't are much more likely to listen to an opposing argument if they are given respect. It is when Muslims understand the criticism that change can take place because the more extreme elements are much more likely to listen to friends/family members of their own faith than someone shouting 'Islam is just plain wrong'.

 

So to treat Muslims with respect we therefore have to be tolerant of their intolerance, interesting take on solving many problems.

 

Should the Jews have been tolerant of Hitlers regime? Would this creat much more opportunity for honest, respectful dialogue? Or was they wrong for dismissing them as nasty racists?

[moabdul]

So to treat Muslims with respect we therefore have to be tolerant of their intolerance, interesting take on solving many problems.

 

Should the Jews have been tolerant of Hitlers regime? Would this creat much more opportunity for honest, respectful dialogue? Or was they wrong for dismissing them as nasty racists?

 

you make a very interesting point, pointing out the intolerance of a minority is a sure way to end your employment.

[PaliRichard]

You must know this is not true, there are plenty of references in the Quran/Hadith dealing with the treatment of apostates.

 

I recommend you read this:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm

 

This is a really good point:

 

"A sound philosophy never requires violence or threats to retain believers"

 

I agree with the quote about sound philosophy, as I've tried saying countless times, I am not defending every aspect of Islam, I'm just trying to give a balanced view.

 

The instances of the hadith I have already dealt with, as far as I'm concerned if it is from a Hadith and contradicts the Quran it is not Islamic, and people who elevate the Hadith above the Quran are, by Islams own rules, not Muslims.

 

The link you give contains some misleading examples. I am referring to to apostates in general, some of the verses you linked to refer to apostates who are actively at war with Mohammed, Muslims are allowed according to the Quran to fight those they are at war with, so those instances will (and do) have different rules.