A Positive Look at Islam

[Sky Dancer]

Others were there before you and if you fail will be there after we're long gone. Many non-Muslims there can trace their ancestry back to pre-Muslim times. Other than right of conquest what makes this yours?

Both of the places I mentioned have long-standing historical connections to Islam and have been inhabited by Muslim-majority populations for centuries.

Also isn't it true Many Muslims wish a real return to possession of all the lands held during the Golden Age in prelude to an eventual world wide caliphate?

Maybe. It's difficult to quantify that sort of thing. In spite of being considered "Islamist", most of the resistance movements seem to have few ambitions beyond the borders of their respective regions of origin.

I wasn't talking resistance movements, I was talking about Islam and Muslims in general. The point I'm trying to get across and the question I'm asking are Empires are built by conquest and assimilation, how do you go about that? I do know for a fact the ultimate goal of Islam is a world wide caliphate with the conversion of all to Islam. The reality is conquest because all will not come readily into the fold and repression for the same reason. The same is partially true in supposed Muslim lands where non-Muslims have lived for as many if not more centuries. How do you bring the "religion of peace" to these areas and the world without eventual war, injustice and repression?

BTW I'm not trying to "trap you", I'm trying to understand your mindset in relation to reality, not scripture.

The worldwide goal of some Christian organizations is to usher in a Christian world.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

The worldwide goal of some Christian organizations is to usher in a Christian world.

What scripture do they quote to hang this on?

 

[Ringel05]

Both of the places I mentioned have long-standing historical connections to Islam and have been inhabited by Muslim-majority populations for centuries.


Maybe. It's difficult to quantify that sort of thing. In spite of being considered "Islamist", most of the resistance movements seem to have few ambitions beyond the borders of their respective regions of origin.

I wasn't talking resistance movements, I was talking about Islam and Muslims in general. The point I'm trying to get across and the question I'm asking are Empires are built by conquest and assimilation, how do you go about that? I do know for a fact the ultimate goal of Islam is a world wide caliphate with the conversion of all to Islam. The reality is conquest because all will not come readily into the fold and repression for the same reason. The same is partially true in supposed Muslim lands where non-Muslims have lived for as many if not more centuries. How do you bring the "religion of peace" to these areas and the world without eventual war, injustice and repression?

BTW I'm not trying to "trap you", I'm trying to understand your mindset in relation to reality, not scripture.

The worldwide goal of some Christian organizations is to usher in a Christian world.

Never denied this though the one's you are referring to are minor sects besides, like most of Islam (currently) Christians want to do this in Gods time by willful conversion without violence. However the same is true for them as for Islam when placed in context of real world application as I have stated.
I know some will disagree with me but that's okay, not every member of both religions want destruction and war, the issue arises when cultures clash and or leaders and groups manipulate for powers sake which unfortunately happens constantly.
The problem most have with Islam in particular is their desire to combine the secular and religious as government in areas that are not fully Muslim or areas where many Muslims desire the separation of the two as we see happening is some countries and their willingness do do so by force and terror.
Some areas such as in the former Soviet Union have in truth been persecuted first by neighboring tribes, Cossacks, Russians, Soviets and now by Russians again though it wasn't until the 1600s that these areas became predominately Islamic. I have no problem with their fight against oppression as long as they don't become the oppressors themselves if they win and the only way for that to happen is to drive out or kill all that refuse to be subjected to their religious laws, hence it's a moot point, they will become oppressors themselves.

 

[Kalam]

I wasn't talking resistance movements, I was talking about Islam and Muslims in general. The point I'm trying to get across and the question I'm asking are Empires are built by conquest and assimilation, how do you go about that? I do know for a fact the ultimate goal of Islam is a world wide caliphate with the conversion of all to Islam. The reality is conquest because all will not come readily into the fold and repression for the same reason. The same is partially true in supposed Muslim lands where non-Muslims have lived for as many if not more centuries. How do you bring the "religion of peace" to these areas and the world without eventual war, injustice and repression?

That's a point of contention among thinkers and scholars. Mainstream Hanafi opinion seems to hold that war is waged in self-defense. Historically, Shafi'i jurisprudence made an exception in the case of the pagans of the Arabian peninsula, although the campaigns against them weren't strictly "offensive" since they were launched in retaliation to abandoned agreements or other forms of insubordination on their part. According to 'Abdullah Azzam, Shafi'i jurisprudence also allows war to be waged in response to provocative actions like the amassing of troops on borders. Mainstream Hanbali jurisprudence seems to permit offensive warfare with the stipulation that it's waged at the behest of the khalifah or a similar authority figure. I don't know about the Maliki school and I usually don't concern myself with Shi'ite thought. Less traditional thinkers like Sayyid Qutb believe that warfare is not only permissible, it's necessary to liberate the entire world from what he views as forced servitude to the laws of men. I don't know if any single approach is correct. I believe that warfare in self-defense and warfare in response to oppression of Muslims and suppression of Islam are justified. If a society doesn't allow for the peaceful propagation of the religion, for example, I think that warfare is justified as a means of paving the way for peaceful propagation.

BTW I'm not trying to "trap you", I'm trying to understand your mindset in relation to reality, not scripture.

I realize that a lot of my responses focus on scripture and jurisprudential opinions. That's because these are the teachings that ultimately guide our actions and because any war waged by a truly Islamic group can only be understood in the context of these teachings.

 

[Kalam]

Some areas such as in the former Soviet Union have in truth been persecuted first by neighboring tribes, Cossacks, Russians, Soviets and now by Russians again though it wasn't until the 1600s that these areas became predominately Islamic. I have no problem with their fight against oppression as long as they don't become the oppressors themselves if they win and the only way for that to happen is to drive out or kill all that refuse to be subjected to their religious laws, hence it's a moot point, they will become oppressors themselves.

It looks like you've created a self-contradictory series of criteria that make it impossible for these resistance movements to gain your approval.

 

[Ringel05]

I wasn't talking resistance movements, I was talking about Islam and Muslims in general. The point I'm trying to get across and the question I'm asking are Empires are built by conquest and assimilation, how do you go about that? I do know for a fact the ultimate goal of Islam is a world wide caliphate with the conversion of all to Islam. The reality is conquest because all will not come readily into the fold and repression for the same reason. The same is partially true in supposed Muslim lands where non-Muslims have lived for as many if not more centuries. How do you bring the "religion of peace" to these areas and the world without eventual war, injustice and repression?

That's a point of contention among thinkers and scholars. Mainstream Hanafi opinion seems to hold that war is waged in self-defense. Historically, Shafi'i jurisprudence made an exception in the case of the pagans of the Arabian peninsula, although the campaigns against them weren't strictly "offensive" since they were launched in retaliation to abandoned agreements or other forms of insubordination on their part. According to 'Abdullah Azzam, Shafi'i jurisprudence also allows war to be waged in response to provocative actions like the amassing of troops on borders. Mainstream Hanbali jurisprudence seems to permit offensive warfare with the stipulation that it's waged at the behest of the khalifah or a similar authority figure. I don't know about the Maliki school and I usually don't concern myself with Shi'ite thought. Less traditional thinkers like Sayyid Qutb believe that warfare is not only permissible, it's necessary to liberate the entire world from what he views as forced servitude to the laws of men. I don't know if any single approach is correct. I believe that warfare in self-defense and warfare in response to oppression of Muslims and suppression of Islam are justified. If a society doesn't allow for the peaceful propagation of the religion, for example, I think that warfare is justified as a means of paving the way for peaceful propagation.

BTW I'm not trying to "trap you", I'm trying to understand your mindset in relation to reality, not scripture.

I realize that a lot of my responses focus on scripture and jurisprudential opinions. That's because these are the teachings that ultimately guide our actions and because any war waged by a truly Islamic group can only be understood in the context of these teachings.

If a society doesn't allow for the peaceful propagation of the religion, for example, I think that warfare is justified as a means of paving the way for peaceful propagation.

This looks like the sticking point. Where ever Islam becomes the majority it seems there is a push to replace the local secular government and law with sharia law. Since the primary method of developing a majority in any one region is immigration and propagation more so than conversion is it any wonder there is a push back from the original inhabitants, sometimes by enacting "draconian" anti-Islamic laws and or by outright violence.

 

[Ringel05]

Some areas such as in the former Soviet Union have in truth been persecuted first by neighboring tribes, Cossacks, Russians, Soviets and now by Russians again though it wasn't until the 1600s that these areas became predominately Islamic. I have no problem with their fight against oppression as long as they don't become the oppressors themselves if they win and the only way for that to happen is to drive out or kill all that refuse to be subjected to their religious laws, hence it's a moot point, they will become oppressors themselves.

It looks like you've created a self-contradictory series of criteria that make it impossible for these resistance movements to gain your approval.

It matters not whether they gain my approval. I'm just making observations based on centuries of known and proven human/cultural interactions hence I've created nothing. I'm simply pointing out reality as it has always existed throughout history with extreme few exceptions. Recognizing the interplay of peoples throughout history is not the same as forming judgments when done so from a purely observational standpoint. Judgments are formed based on our own and collective paradigms and yes partially based on said observations.
My personal view is anyone who desires to subjugate me for my own good is my enemy. If indeed it is Islam's goal to follow this path then ergo......
If not then I have no issue with Islam as long as Islam has no issue with me or those who believe like me.

 

[Ringel05]

Some areas such as in the former Soviet Union have in truth been persecuted first by neighboring tribes, Cossacks, Russians, Soviets and now by Russians again though it wasn't until the 1600s that these areas became predominately Islamic. I have no problem with their fight against oppression as long as they don't become the oppressors themselves if they win and the only way for that to happen is to drive out or kill all that refuse to be subjected to their religious laws, hence it's a moot point, they will become oppressors themselves.

It looks like you've created a self-contradictory series of criteria that make it impossible for these resistance movements to gain your approval.

I realize that a lot of my responses focus on scripture and jurisprudential opinions. That's because these are the teachings that ultimately guide our actions and because any war waged by a truly Islamic group can only be understood in the context of these teachings.

And here is the other issue. The use or misuse of these (and other non-Islamic religious/secular) teachings and their application to war and conquest is what we know to be excuses used to expand and propagate power. The study of mankind shows this to be all too true.

 

[Bill Angel]

My contribution is loving the Sufi poets. Sufism is the mystical side of Islam. I'm close to a Sufi, who mentored me in my counseling practice.

Since we have at least six or seven Islam bashing threads here is an opportunity to look on the positive side.

1.5 billion people find something uplifting about Islam as a religion. Here is an article about Islam in Indonesia.
America at a Crossroads . A Different Jihad: Indonesia's Struggle for the Soul of Islam | PBS

Can you?

Interested readers might wish to take a look at the WIKI article about the
"Amman Message" that was issued in 2004
Amman Message - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To quote from that article:
""The sermon [Amman Message] stressed the need to re-emphasise Islam's core values of compassion, mutual respect, tolerance, acceptance and freedom of religion."

Explaining why the message was issued, King Abdullah [of Jordan] stated: "[W]e felt that the Islamic message of tolerance was being subjected to a fierce and unjust attack from some in the West who do not understand Islam's essence, and others who claim to be associated with Islam and hide behind Islam to commit irresponsible deeds."

 

[logical4u]

You're ignoring the fact that the deviance began far before the Muslim world reached its economic height, so no, I don't think that the failure can be attributed to economic issues. Tolerance also didn't necessarily decrease under the deviant dynasties; recall that the so-called "Golden Age" of Spanish Jewry occurred under the Umayyads. You're implying that the failure of a government to last into perpetuity precludes any possibility of future success. I'm sure that you don't need me to tell you why this is illogical.

Interesting. Remember I was initially addressing perfect systems and my reason is simple. Whenever (in the past) we have had a discussion concerning Islam, it's followers and the rest of the world you tend to quote the Koran as to how it should be while ignoring the reality and real image of how it is today.

The word of Allah ta'ala is eternal and immutable and cannot be affected by anything, including the actions of those who claim to adhere to it. The inability of many on your side to distinguish between the religion itself and the actions of its followers is something that I'll continue to point out until, Insha'Allah, you recognize the difference.

You have provided an example that you see as near perfect as one can get, I am aware of the flaws that were in this same system, flaws which you seem to want to ignore, downplay or dismiss. I agree that it was indeed the most tolerant Islamic system in history but it was by modern standards of tolerance (ideal American standards) far short of the mark. And yes, history shows a great discrepancy between the golden age view and reality. While the golden age prosperity continued some (not all) princedoms were quite tolerant, even allowing non-Muslims to work in offices and professions normally denied them by law but when the dynasty began imploding and suffering economic hardships all this changed, enforcement of the discriminatory laws became zealously pursued.
Still even during the golden age discrimination was legally mandated.
Doesn't strike me as a very perfect system for those of us who are not nor never would follow Islam.

The perfect example is and always will be Muhammad (SAWS). The Rashidun can be seen to a certain extent as an example of Islamic governance on a larger scale. When a society is founded on the word of God, as it should be, how can it be led by those who reject that word? Disbelievers are given a considerable amount of freedom and autonomy considering their rejection of the God and religion that affords them those rights. Plus, you aren't being asked to live under it now. The assumption is that you'll come to recognize it as the Truth once we've established it successfully among ourselves.

"The assumption is that you'll come to recognize it as the Truth once we've established it successfully among ourselves." this is what I have been trying to demonstrate: where muslims are in charge, touting islam as the way, the country is in disarray. It is a disaster, and is getting worse, not better. Why don't muslims provide a shining example of a successful islamic society? They have had fourteen hundred years, you would think, the system would be nearing "perfection" at this point, not slipping back to the stone ages.

 

[logical4u]

Problems only began when some of Uthman's (RA) provincial governors failed to suppress insurrections. The specifics of political administration in Shari'ah aren't set in stone and can be adapted to fit any situation. Again, pointing to administrative shortcomings during Uthamn's period of leadership and arguing that the system will always fail wherever it's implemented makes no sense. If you're so convinced that the Caliphate is doomed to failure, prove it by getting out of our way and giving us a chance to implement it again.

And what will you do with those people in these areas that have no desire to get out of your way?

Remove them using whatever degree of force their actions make necessary.

Islam has how many countries in the middle east? How many countries do you need to prove islam does not work as a government? Do you need all of Africa? Islam has northern Africa, an area that was wealthy for centuries before "islam" took over the governments. Islam is moving eastward, what countries are being improved by "islam"?

Removing producers by degrees of force will leave you exactly where you are in the middle east: a population that is afraid to produce, because government "islam" will take what they produce. doesn't this sound like liberals?

 

[Kalam]

This looks like the sticking point. Where ever Islam becomes the majority it seems there is a push to replace the local secular government and law with sharia law. Since the primary method of developing a majority in any one region is immigration and propagation more so than conversion is it any wonder there is a push back from the original inhabitants, sometimes by enacting "draconian" anti-Islamic laws and or by outright violence.

I don't know, but they justify violence on our part by doing so.

 

[Jack Fate]

This looks like the sticking point. Where ever Islam becomes the majority it seems there is a push to replace the local secular government and law with sharia law. Since the primary method of developing a majority in any one region is immigration and propagation more so than conversion is it any wonder there is a push back from the original inhabitants, sometimes by enacting "draconian" anti-Islamic laws and or by outright violence.

I don't know, but they justify violence on our part by doing so.

Do you believe in violence to further the cause of Islam?

 

[logical4u]

Both of the places I mentioned have long-standing historical connections to Islam and have been inhabited by Muslim-majority populations for centuries.


Maybe. It's difficult to quantify that sort of thing. In spite of being considered "Islamist", most of the resistance movements seem to have few ambitions beyond the borders of their respective regions of origin.

I wasn't talking resistance movements, I was talking about Islam and Muslims in general. The point I'm trying to get across and the question I'm asking are Empires are built by conquest and assimilation, how do you go about that? I do know for a fact the ultimate goal of Islam is a world wide caliphate with the conversion of all to Islam. The reality is conquest because all will not come readily into the fold and repression for the same reason. The same is partially true in supposed Muslim lands where non-Muslims have lived for as many if not more centuries. How do you bring the "religion of peace" to these areas and the world without eventual war, injustice and repression?

BTW I'm not trying to "trap you", I'm trying to understand your mindset in relation to reality, not scripture.

The worldwide goal of some Christian organizations is to usher in a Christian world.

I believe the goal, correctly stated, is to bring the truth and the light to all people. What they choose to do with it is up to them. There is no threat of "earthly" death threat to you or members of your family if you choose to "ignore" the truth.

 

[Kalam]

This looks like the sticking point. Where ever Islam becomes the majority it seems there is a push to replace the local secular government and law with sharia law. Since the primary method of developing a majority in any one region is immigration and propagation more so than conversion is it any wonder there is a push back from the original inhabitants, sometimes by enacting "draconian" anti-Islamic laws and or by outright violence.

I don't know, but they justify violence on our part by doing so.

Do you believe in violence to further the cause of Islam?

Too vague. You'll have to ask questions that are more specific.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Ringel05
Some areas such as in the former Soviet Union have in truth been persecuted first by neighboring tribes, Cossacks, Russians, Soviets and now by Russians again though it wasn't until the 1600s that these areas became predominately Islamic. I have no problem with their fight against oppression as long as they don't become the oppressors themselves if they win and the only way for that to happen is to drive out or kill all that refuse to be subjected to their religious laws, hence it's a moot point, they will become oppressors themselves.

Absolutely right, Ringel.

Theocracies of any flavor are totalitarian political ideologies to the core. Islamic theocrats in particular want to replace:

1 - The jewish racial dictatorship that keeps the palestinian people herded into ethnic enclaves by an Islamic theocratic dictatorship that imposes muslim values on the whole society.

2 - The indian political control over Kashmir by a dictatorial religious government.

Their goal is to replace repressive governments by EVEN MORE totalitarian states that interfere with the personal lives of its citizens hiding behind legitimate political grievances to advance their medieval political ideology.

What I can't understand is the absurd fear of islamic theocracies I see among the members of this Board.

Theodor Kaczinsky stands a better chance of destroying the modern technological scientific civilization and ITS CONGENIAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS BASED ON SECULARISM than islamic theocrats of taking over the world.

So I strongly urge all the members of the Board that rightly sees muslim theocracies as a totalitarian cancer that needs to be removed to remain calm.

Islamic theocracies (NOT ISLAM) will be buried and relegated to the dustbin of human history in a few centuries not by brute force, not by the US Army but by the sheer exponential advance of the techno-scientific civilization our species is building that does not mix well with governments based on religious superstition and in fact represent a mortal threat to them in the long term.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I don't know, but they justify violence on our part by doing so.

Do you believe in violence to further the cause of Islam?

Too vague. You'll have to ask questions that are more specific.

you cannot get any more specific than that. In otherwords your answer is yes.

 

[THE LIGHT]

This looks like the sticking point. Where ever Islam becomes the majority it seems there is a push to replace the local secular government and law with sharia law. Since the primary method of developing a majority in any one region is immigration and propagation more so than conversion is it any wonder there is a push back from the original inhabitants, sometimes by enacting "draconian" anti-Islamic laws and or by outright violence.

I don't know, but they justify violence on our part by doing so.

Are you saying 9/11 was justified?

 

[Ringel05]

This looks like the sticking point. Where ever Islam becomes the majority it seems there is a push to replace the local secular government and law with sharia law. Since the primary method of developing a majority in any one region is immigration and propagation more so than conversion is it any wonder there is a push back from the original inhabitants, sometimes by enacting "draconian" anti-Islamic laws and or by outright violence.

I don't know, but they justify violence on our part by doing so.

I guess my direction here is Islam and Muslims are viewed by a freedom loving west, (as defined in western, secular terms), as invaders with the goal of eventually replacing western values and freedom with (what westerners view) a repressive theocracy.
You (used in the collective) talk about defending Islam against western invaders to preserve your system and values but in the same breath accuse western and western allied of hatred censorship, and repression when they (westerners) fight back to preserve their values and way of life.
There in lies the crux of my point. Both side claim righteousness of action while in reality the entire conflict concerns who has the most control and power over localities and entire regions so it truly isn't about oppression, Islamic self determination or re instituting a new Golden Age to benefit all (it wouldn't), it's about power and control.
The west wants middle eastern governments that are friendly to them governed by western type systems hopefully consisting of the western view of equality and freedom - secular in nature, rule of law.
The Islamists want their Golden Age back encompassing all areas Islam claims as holy to Islam (and anywhere Islam has been is considered holy to Islam regardless of who was there first). That's a given.
Hell, Russia wants it's empire, other than one's secular and the other is religious in nature what;s the difference?

 

[Ringel05]

Originally posted by Ringel05
Some areas such as in the former Soviet Union have in truth been persecuted first by neighboring tribes, Cossacks, Russians, Soviets and now by Russians again though it wasn't until the 1600s that these areas became predominately Islamic. I have no problem with their fight against oppression as long as they don't become the oppressors themselves if they win and the only way for that to happen is to drive out or kill all that refuse to be subjected to their religious laws, hence it's a moot point, they will become oppressors themselves.

Absolutely right, Ringel.

Theocracies of any flavor are totalitarian political ideologies to the core. Islamic theocrats in particular want to replace:

1 - The jewish racial dictatorship that keeps the palestinian people herded into ethnic enclaves by an Islamic theocratic dictatorship that imposes muslim values on the whole society.

2 - The indian political control over Kashmir by a dictatorial religious government.

Their goal is to replace repressive governments by EVEN MORE totalitarian states that interfere with the personal lives of its citizens hiding behind legitimate political grievances to advance their medieval political ideology.

What I can't understand is the absurd fear of islamic theocracies I see among the members of this Board.

Theodor Kaczinsky stands a better chance of destroying the modern technological scientific civilization and ITS CONGENIAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS BASED ON SECULARISM than islamic theocrats of taking over the world.

So I strongly urge all the members of the Board that rightly sees muslim theocracies as a totalitarian cancer that needs to be removed to remain calm.

Islamic theocracies (NOT ISLAM) will be buried and relegated to the dustbin of human history in a few centuries not by brute force, not by the US Army but by the sheer exponential advance of the techno-scientific civilization our species is building that does not mix well with governments based on religious superstition and in fact represent a mortal threat to them in the long term.

Don't omit or underestimate the totalitarianism of the secular.