Debate on Islamic Fundamentalism in Trinity College

Qadri

Islamic Fundamentalism

Thursday, 10 November 2005 at 7:30pm in the GMB

"This house believes that 9/11 was a legitimate form of resistance of American pressure to the Islamic world."

The Phil's Annual Islamic Debate, which in past years has highly controversial/interesting.

Speakers:

Musleh Faradhi:President of the Islamic Forum
Mohamed Ali:Chief Executive of Islamic Channel.
Yvonne Ridley:Political Editor of Islamic Channel.
Sheikh Zille Umar Qadri: Director Minhaj-ul-Quran North Dublin Islamic Centre.
Ian O’Doherty:Columnist with Irish Independent.
Anjem Choudary: The leader of Al Muhajiroun in the UK.

Hobbes

I'd like a breakdown of this debate after it happened here if that is possible.

Please note that anything posted in this forum that condones terrorism will lead in a ban and the thread nuked. Which is why I am looking for more details as the quote is somewhat questionable.

Frank Grimes

Where exactly is it in the college? Keep in mind that I don't know my way around Trinity at all

Hobbes

Frank Grimes wrote:

Where exactly is it in the college? Keep in mind that I don't know my way around Trinity at all

http://www.tcdphil.com/news.php

Frank Grimes

Thanks Hobbes, is that the Graduates Memorial Building they're referring to?

Frank Grimes

I've found a map. Could be an interesting debate, I might go along.

hawkmoon269

The debate title is nothing short of a disgrace and Trinity should be ashamed.
Islamic fundamentalists are killing people around the world but in some peoples' eyes apparently it's all the fault of America. Excuse me but what about the US intervention to protect Bosnian Muslims in the 1990's? What was anti-Islam about that?


Thoroughly revolting.

hawkmoon269

Hobbes wrote:

I'd like a breakdown of this debate after it happened here if that is possible.

Please note that anything posted in this forum that condones terrorism will lead in a ban and the thread nuked. Which is why I am looking for more details as the quote is somewhat questionable.

I agree with you and if some speakers are arguing in favour then they should be expelled from Ireland.

HelterSkelter

hawkmoon269 wrote:

I agree with you and if some speakers are arguing in favour then they should be expelled from Ireland.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Go live in the US if you agree with that kind of crap.

Hobbes

Its being discussed on Mod forum. A mention is that the questionable title is to get more people to come to it.

bonkey

HelterSkelter wrote:

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Go live in the US if you agree with that kind of crap.

The irony.....

HelterSkelter

bonkey wrote:

The irony.....

;-)

OfflerCrocGod

HelterSkelter wrote:

;-)

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


That's American by the way, not Irish. I wish such a strong protection were afforded to us.

HelterSkelter

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


That's American by the way, not Irish. I wish such a strong protection were afforded to us.

"Freedom of speech, or of the press" - my arse. Is that why the US Government put so much pressure on Disney that they wouldn't distribute Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11???

Hobbes

Its getting off topic. Kindly take that discussion to Politics. Thanks.

Qadri

I as kow one thing and that is the person who is an enemy of a human is a terrorist. Wether it is a Christian, Muslim or an Atheist. Those who believe that killing innocent people is justified have nothing to do with Islam and Humanity at all!

I will be speaking also against it ofcourse. And I was also suprised why they allowed such a debate in Trinity...
Was told that it was for the sake of freedom...

hawkmoon269

Qadri wrote:

I as kow one thing and that is the person who is an enemy of a human is a terrorist. Wether it is a Christian, Muslim or an Atheist. Those who believe that killing innocent people is justified have nothing to do with Islam and Humanity at all!

I will be speaking also against it ofcourse. And I was also suprised why they allowed such a debate in Trinity...
Was told that it was for the sake of freedom...

I am glad to hear it.

Wibbs

It would also depend on what some would regard as "innocent". That's part of the problem. Many in the world would regard an American(as an example) as part of the problem of the country that they represent, so their innocence mightn't be considered as clearcut. Osama Bin Laden seems to take that point of view from what I've read of his statements. As Hobbes points out though, that's a point maybe better raised in the politics forum as much as here.

Suff

I don't really think that its a religion thing, I came to think that 9/11 was planned with the help of the US goverment. in a way to give them the freedom to attack other nations (Iraq, Afghanstan)
remember thet Osam Ben Laden was working with the US all along and was in contct with the CIA in the UAE few months before 9/11.

source:
* 9/11: The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan. URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592090265/103-2141431-3103851?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance"]Link[/URL
*Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore. URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446693790/103-2141431-3103851?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance"]Link[/URL

Qadri

I don't really think that its a religion thing, I came to think that 9/11 was planned with the help of the US goverment. in a way to give them the freedom to attack other nations (Iraq, Afghanstan)
remember thet Osam Ben Laden was working with the US all along and was in contct with the CIA in the UAE few months before 9/11.

source:
* 9/11: The Big Lie by Thierry Meyssan. [Link]
*Dude, Where's My Country? by Michael Moore. [Link]

I agree with you Suff, but the problem is these fanatic Muhajiroun leader will come and the media will asume he is a mainstream Muslim. He will try to justify the attacks. This is why I ask all of you and specially Muslims to be there. Because than we can tell that he is not representing the Islam taught and practiced by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)!

Frank Grimes

Qadri wrote:

I agree with you Suff, but the problem is these fanatic Muhajiroun leader will come and the media will asume he is a mainstream Muslim.

I thought that Al Mujaharoun broke up recently because the British government planning to ban them.

Qadri

Al Muhajirouns leader is coming Please read the first message of this thread.
Anjum Chaudhary is leader od Al Muhajiroun after the fanatic Omar Bakri

Frank Grimes

Qadri wrote:

Al Muhajirouns leader is coming Please read the first message of this thread.
Anjum Chaudhary is leader od Al Muhajiroun after the fanatic Omar Bakri

I did read it. I just thought they'd broken up/disbanded, that's all!

lostexpectation

is one more concerned about the propostion given or the Anjum Chaudhary and what he advocates.


i *think* im the latter

Qadri

I am concerned that the Media will highlight:

"Muslim Extremist in Dublin justifies 9/11 attacks!"

While it will be only one person out of the 5 speakers who will be in favour of it...

Hobbes

Qadri wrote:

I am concerned that the Media will highlight:

"Muslim Extremist in Dublin justifies 9/11 attacks!"

While it will be only one person out of the 5 speakers who will be in favour of it...

I would put the blame on this due to the name of the debate rather then the 1 debater. Just reading the title seems to imply that a number of people are claiming it was justified.

Frank Grimes

Qadri wrote:

I am concerned that the Media will highlight:

"Muslim Extremist in Dublin justifies 9/11 attacks!"

While it will be only one person out of the 5 speakers who will be in favour of it...

They already have, in the Independent anyway.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1502592&issue_id=13240

Pro-violence scholar to speak


AN ISLAMIC scholar will speak in support of violence against the West at Trinity College's Philosophical Society tonight.

Umran Javed Choudary, believes "the Koran justifies the kidnapping and killing of Westerners in occupied Muslim lands".

Opposing Choudary's fundamentalist views will be Muhammad Ali of the Islam Channel and Yvonne Ridley, who was kidnapped while working as a journalist in Afghanistan.

Suff

I would condem the killing of any innocent person whatever they be, man, woman or a child.
I'm sure no one will justify the attackes no matter whatever the case of them. however I am SO SICK of the media and the USA on how they over used the tragedy and enlarge it to be the biggest tradegy in the world where it's not!

Does anybody remember's the ....

8,000 civilians killed by the US booming of Lebanon in the 80's?
Sabra and Shatila massacres?
Million + killed by the US in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945?
100,000 killed in Iraq in the last 2 years alone?
the messcare in Fallujah?
The Jenin massacre ?
800+ women& children taking shelter in a UN building from the Isreali's Guns - Qana massacre??
and the list goes on and on.....

we ment to remember 9/11 as the greatest horror done to humanity!?
that's Bull**** !

Are they trying to say that the American/westren life is worth more???

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

Are they trying to say that the American/westren life is worth more???

Sadly that's often the case. Human nature it seems only gets affected when it's spectacular and it happens to ones own. Millions are starving around the world or needlessly dying of curable disease, yet a single TV friendly disaster usually holds the attention more.

I would agree with most of your examples too(would argue over the atomic/japanese thing a little).

Hobbes

I will say this one more time. If you want to continue on this line of discussion take it to politics. Unless its information regarding the debate anyone posting after this post is risking a temp ban.

marco murphy

Yvonne Ridley:Political Editor of Islamic Channel.







I will attend this and cant wait to see her.

Wibbs

Yes, it'll be interesting. I may trundle along to this one myself.

Frank Grimes

Qadri wrote:

I am concerned that the Media will highlight:

"Muslim Extremist in Dublin justifies 9/11 attacks!"

While it will be only one person out of the 5 speakers who will be in favour of it...

It's almost exactly as you said in today's newspapers Qadri!
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1504695&issue_id=13260
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=44&si=1504583&issue_id=13260
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1111/2316825313HM6ISLAMIC.html
(I'll post the articles if anyone wants)

I was there last night, and to be honest the Muslim speakers who were against the "motion" were far superior (in knowledge, articulation etc. not just the fact that they would not condone killing civilians) to the ex al Mujaharoun people. Almost on queue however, the media have jumped on what Anjem Choudary said. I'm not sure why the Times desribes him as a cleric either, he doesn't seem to actually be one.

Qadri, was it yourself who said he studied for 10 years in Pakistan and Syria?

hairyheretic

The media, especially certain segments of it, has a habit of sensationalising the news. What do you think will attract peoples attention more?

"Moderate islamic speakers condemn extremist actions"

or

"Muslim extremist declares Ireland next terror target" ?

The news organisations are out to sell their version of the news, and they'll produce the headlines that focus peoples attention on them, and want them to read more.


Would it be possible to get a brief rundown on how the debate went?

Qadri

Its sad what the newspaper wrote. The Al Muhajiroun were only using logic and emotions to justify these attacks. They did not quote a single text of the Holy Quran which justified it.

I did not get chance to speak in discussion because was sitting on reserved seats behind the table. And yes i was the one who studied for 10 years in Pak and Syria

Frank Grimes

hairyheretic wrote:

The media, especially certain segments of it, has a habit of sensationalising the news. What do you think will attract peoples attention more?

Oh, I know why they're doing it alright. I just think it's both unfair and bordering on irresponsible for them to only portray Muslims in this light. From reading the articles you could be lead to think that it was a one sided hate fest from the Al Mujaharoun people.
It was ironic actually, a Newstalk presenter was there interviewing the speakers. She devoted more time to the Al Mujahoroun people (and it was actually her that brought up the "is Ireland a legitimate target" question), and then turned around to Musleh Faradhi and asked if his voice (i.e. "moderate" Islam or whatever term you want) wasn't being heard, generally speaking that is. I felt like standing up and pointing out the obvious - if you only let the extremists talk how can any other voice be heard!
Mohamed Ali who was another speaking against the motion and Qadri put forward two of the best arguments against terrorism (from an Islamic perspective and just in general) that I've heard. It was also them who received the longest and loudest applause.
Well done Qadri!

Osman

Peace,

So what were Qadri's arguments? I'm interested, this might be useful!

Qadri, may Allah grant you a long and prosperous life and may he bless you and may his light continue shining when all light runs out.

Regards,

Osman

Frank Grimes

Osman wrote:

So what were Qadri's arguments? I'm interested, this might be useful!

I'll let Qadri answer that, I wasn't taking notes so I don't have the references he used!

Qadri

Thank you very much for your supplication and well wishes brother Osman.

May Allah swt give me more taufeeq (chance) to preach the true message of Islam.

Notes of my speech ( I did not get time to completely do it , I just mentioned few examples in speech, the rest is mentioned for knowledge):

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..

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.

Than as I said 4th meaning is Submission to Allah (swt) . We submit to Allah (swt) by following the Quran and Sunnah. Now what does the Quran and Sunnah (practice of Holy Prophet Muhammad saw ) teach us when one is angree and one is victmized and tortured???

We Muslims are angree because of the dual standards of the Western policies. What should we do now ??? We should Submit to Allah , so we should follow Quran and Sunnah.

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)

O you who believe enter in peace ..

Prophet's teaching:

* Prophet Muhammad (SAW) used to walk through one street. An old lady used to throw garbige on him. He continued walking through that streer and everyday received garbige. One day while walking through that street he did not get garbige throwed on him. He went to the house of that woman. Woman became afraid that he will today take revenge. But Prophet (saw) said that today no garbige was throwed to me, I tought you might be sick so came to visit you.....That woman accepted Islam directly because of this message of love and peace


* 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...

* One of the enemies of Islam , a person from Makkah came to Medinah and he did not know anyone accept of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) even tough he fought with him and sweared at him and Prophet (SAW) had to leave his birthplace Makkah because people like this.....The same person knocked at door of Prophet (SAW) and said that he does not know anyone here. Prophet (SAW) directly invited him home and became his Host and prepared food with his hands for the same enemy.......In the morning before leaving that person accepted Islam

* During the time of the calipha's one governor of Damascus (Walid bin Abdul Malik) demolished a Church to build a mosque. He builded the mosque. When the caliph (Umar bin Abdul Aziz) came to know this he demolished the mosque and builded church and mosque together !

* If some Muslim destroys alocohol or pork (which is haraam) of any non Muslim, he had to pay the full price to the non muslim

* 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....

* In Jihad (holy war) Muslims can not destroy churches, temples and other holy buildings/places

By giving these examples message is Islam is very tolerant and allows only to fight against those who are invading your country, and who want to destroy your peacefull life....But even than we must understand that killing innocent people is not allowed and the people living in New York and London and the West are not our enemies....they have nothing to do with it...those who invade your country against them to fight is ones right....

But Sept. 9/11 attacks are according to the Islam which was taught and preached and practiced by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) NOT NOT NOT justified and not legitimate.

Wibbs

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.

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..

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?

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.

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?

We Muslims are angree because of the dual standards of the Western policies.

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.

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)

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.

O you who believe enter in peace ..

Again reserved for the believers.

Prophet's teaching.....

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 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?

* 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?

* 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.

those who invade your country against them to fight is ones right....

Well I think most would go along with that concept of defensive war.

Wibbs

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.

Qadri

Hi Wibbs,

Thanks for your questions and I understand your concerns.
I will insha Allah shed light on the questions today during my lunch. I just started my shift at work

Qadri

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.

First of all let me make it clear that there is not a single verse in the Quran that can back violent acts of opinions. If you have any single verse as proof please provide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadri
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..

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?

It is not peace from the point of view from a Muslim to a Muslim, but it is from the point of view of a Muslim to everyone. I said that Islam has many meanings one is PEace and another one is submission to God. So these two are different meanings , but when you eleborate submission to God, it means following Quran and Sunnah. And the Quran and Sunnah teach tolerance and understanding.

Those who dont want to submit to God for them the message from the Quran is clear:

La ikraha Fid Deen (There is no copmpulsion in Religion)

Religion is a free choice. Non Muslims were never opressed to accept Islam, but they accepted Islam always with their free will. Islam is fastest growing religion now. One out of every 5 people on earth is a Muslim. Is it because one must submist to God...No it is because one did feel the importance of submitting to God...

Islam is a religion of peace, no doubt. This is why Prophet (SAW) always gave the lesson of Tolerance and Love for mankind. But why did he fight battles also ? Very good question.

Islam is not only a religion like other religions. It does not only provide Spiritual guidance , but provides also Social, Political, Economical guidlines wo follow. So it is actually a code of Life.

If it was only believing in one God and praying five times a day than the Pagans of Makkah would never become enemies of Islam. They became enemies because Islam taught that everyone is equal. Everyone had same rights and everything should be shared with brothers and sisters. This was against the Rich Landlords of that time, so automatically they became enemies of Islam. They even asked the Prophet (SAW) that IF it is believing in one God and in the messengers we are happy to accept it. But we do not a lifestyle in which we have to share with the poor and sit with them and leave our honour and respect which we have gained with our wealth. The Prophet (SAW) said: Even if you would put the Sun on my hand I would not stop preaching this message.

So it became obvious that all Rich and Strong became enemy of a religion which is for justice and equality, so Prophet (SAW) and his followers had to migrate to Medinah . They lived her with peace but after some time the Pagans of Makkah and the Rich Landlords set up a mission to destroy the Muslims in MEdinah because they grew very quickly.

Untill now more than 50 years (out of 63) of the life of the Prophet (SAW) had passed. These years he never fought a battle, but now the Makkans would not let this nation stay and did not want them to live , so the Makkans prepared an army of 1000 people and they went to attack Madinah...When Prophet (SAW) came to know this , than he was ordered by God that now the time has come to prepare for Jihad ( Defensive war...for exsistance of this Divine Religion) so 313 Muslims prepared also to defend themself against the 1000 Pagans of Makkah. This was the very first battle of Jihaad ( Battle of Badr).

Even in battles children, woman and elderly and those who did not hold a wapon were not attacked.

This is just one example, all battles were defensive.

Quote:
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.

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?

These examples show that a Muslim in his daily life remembers the message of PEace. Which text suggest to take no friends as non Muslims ? The verse you are referring to is :

Ya ayyuhallazina Amanu La Tattakhizul Yahuda Wan Nasaara ( O you who believe do not trust the Christians)

This verse was applicable to the Muslims at that time. The christians and jews became also big enemies of the Muslims , so the Quran was speaking to the people at that time not to trust them , because generally they are against you.

If i greet you i say Peace thats the teaching of Islam.

Quote:
We Muslims are angree because of the dual standards of the Western policies.

No argument there, but Hobbes will rightfully have my neck if we get political. Joking aside, much of this problem is more the remit of politics though and could be argued better in that forum.


Quote:
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)

I have quoted the reference for you
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.

5.32] .if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind...

(The Dinner Table 5: 32) link :

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobe005.htm

Quote:
O you who believe enter in peace ..

Again reserved for the believers.

Nopes, God is speaking to believers because they are the one who will follow his orders. He can not order those who do not believe in him. Thats why he spoke to the believers and he taught them : Enter in Peace ....You see Peace is not specified here , it is General . So Peace in General for everyone not only Muslims.

One 14 Christian Priests came from Najran to Madinah. They did not have a place to stay so Prophet (SAW) allowed them to overnight in the Mosque of Madinah. They were given food and were guests of God's Messenger. They asked Him where they could pray , The Messenger (SAW) allowed them to worship their way in the mosque . Is this not proof of peace to everyone ?

Quote:
Prophet's teaching.....

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.

Yes you are right. He did not stop the killing of a poet. It was not only a poet , he was one of the biggest enemies of Islam . Even when Prophet (SAW) was the Head of the State of Madinah , he left this person. This man was spreading somuch propoganda against the Muslims but he was given chance after chance. When he did not change in some years and he became a potential threat for the Muslims (he started to combine other tribes against Islam) than he was killed. And so this is also an example of state of necessity, in order to keep your existence.



__________________

Qadri

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

fly_agaric

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.

hawkmoon269

fly_agaric wrote:

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?

Don't be silly. That's not what Qadri said.

hawkmoon269

fly_agaric wrote:

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.

Surely the exact same applies to Christianity:-

List of Christian Terrorist Organizations:-

Christian Identity movement
Ku Klux Klan (A racist Protestant Christian organization founded during the Reconstruction in the former Confederate States of America)
The Order (1980s-present)
Other Christian-related terror groups with nationalist motivations include:

Lord's Resistance Army (Christian/Pagan/Muslim) (1987-present) (Uganda)
Nagaland Rebels (1948-present) (Nagaland), including:
The National Liberation Front of Tripura
God's Army (a rebel faction of the Karen ethnic minority in Burma)

(List from Wikipedia)


And closer to home, Loyalist terrorist Billy Wright sometimes took time off from his acts of terror to bring the word of God to the Papist heathens.

Frank Grimes

fly_agaric wrote:

Unless you expect all of us evil Westerners to become Koranic scholars or something its very hard to tell who is right here.

He's not saying anywhere that he thinks Westerners are evil, why are you saying this?

fly_agaric

This reply is getting into politics so this will probably be my last post before I get banned.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Don't be silly. That's not what Qadri said.

No, it wasn't. It was the implication though. The Western media deliberately distorting things to put Islam in a bad light when the reality is just that if it bleeds - it leads. Bad news sells.

hawkmoon269 wrote:

Surely the exact same applies to Christianity:-

List of Christian Terrorist Organizations:-

Christian Identity movement
Ku Klux Klan (A racist Protestant Christian organization founded during the Reconstruction in the former Confederate States of America)
The Order (1980s-present)
Other Christian-related terror groups with nationalist motivations include:

Lord's Resistance Army (Christian/Pagan/Muslim) (1987-present) (Uganda)
Nagaland Rebels (1948-present) (Nagaland), including:
The National Liberation Front of Tripura
God's Army (a rebel faction of the Karen ethnic minority in Burma)

(List from Wikipedia)


And closer to home, Loyalist terrorist Billy Wright sometimes took time off from his acts of terror to bring the word of God to the Papist heathens.

Yes- indeed it does. There are some key differences though.

The "Christian Identity movement" are the the US zog-conspiracy fruitcakes?
Definitely evil and dangerous racists - but what have they blown up recently? The religious right in the US seems quite happy to have Bush in power.

I have heard of the KKK but it has been a few years since their last lynching, church fire bombing, or cross-burning I believe.

The grand-wizard tried to hold a rally in Detroit several years back and they were outnumbered many, many times over by angry anti-racists and had to do their thing in a small section of street caged off and protected by the Detroit police!

http://www.mppa.org/mppa/1994/news-storyhm1.html

A more recent and even more pathetic example:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/23/klan.03/

Do any of these Christian groups claim to be speaking or acting for anyone other than themselves anyway? Do the rantings of Joseph Kony have much effect on Christians in Ireland, or did King Rat's preaching have much influence on anyone outside his own select group? Do you hear anyone say that they support the goals of any of these groups but not their methods? Have they a broad base of support? The Christian groups you mention with the exception of a "Chritian Identity Movement" are mainly quite localised.

And on the Islam side of the religious violence equation we have...Al-Qaeda and its various offshoots and other Islamist groups who have been very busy boys over the past few years. And while some of it is media sensationalism some of the terrorist attacks they have managed to pull off have really been quite, well, sensational. None of it would be possible without somebody backing them with money, lots of willing recruits etc.

These organisations say they act in the name of Islam as a whole and urge all muslims wherever they may be that it is their religious duty to either follow their example or aid the jihad in non-violent ways such as giving money, preaching etc. Can you think of any similar Christian terrorist organisations?

And when Al-Qaeda or other radical Islamist groups act, isn't it often said by muslims (and others) that they are striking back in a reaction against the West for colonialism and imperialism, all the babies killed by sanctions in Iraq, for Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Kosovo, Bosnia, the cheap oil swindled out of the hands of muslims through corrupt dictators propped up by Western guns. Now added to that are the grievances of Iraq and Afghanistan. Wouldn't you say it has the flavour of a popular resistance movement whose particular tactics may not be approved of by your average muslim, but whose overall grievances are something that they identify with.

Frank Grimes wrote:

He's not saying anywhere that he thinks Westerners are evil, why are you saying this?

I was being sarcastic.
From the viewpont of the very devout muslim (and even moreso from the pov of a member of a muslim extremist organisation), the society in Western countries is evil and corrupted. As we partake in and create this society we are therefore the "evil Westerners".
In addition, many say the foriegn policy of the more powerful Western countries is evil and since these are democracies the people are partly culpable for this so they are evil too. I hope this helps somewhat.

Hobbes

You won't be banned however politics should stay on politics forum.

I will say this. Your making a very bad example. For starters AQ are no more reflective of Islam then the KKK is, and there have been recent Christan attacks (again if you want citations I suggest you take it to politics as this has nothing to do with this forum).

Also go check the figures on those who follow AQ (and its offshoots) verus the total number of muslims in the world. A small minority is not reflective of the majority.

Now.. kindly bring it back on topic. Any more off-topic posting will result in thread locked.

marco murphy

What did Iynonne Ridley Speak about?