About TheReligionofPeace.com

[Kalam]

Muslims are allowed to deny their faith in situations where failure to do so will lead to their death or torture. I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

Isn't this in direct conflict with:

Anyone who associates consequentialism with Islam clearly has no understanding of the religion. They may want to refer to the first of Imam an-Nawawi's 40 ahadith.

Not at all. If our morality was consequentialistic then we'd have no use for niceties like rules of engagement. It is stated clearly and repeatedly that proper adherence to Islam never taxes a person beyond their capabilities. Asking someone to be tactless and forward about their beliefs when doing so is likely to get them killed is an unreasonable demand that isn't consistent with this assurance. Self-preservation is every creature's most basic instinct -- the fact that God doesn't command us to act against this fundamental aspect of our own nature can't be used to justify the association of Islamic morality with consequentialism.

Who has declared war on islam??????? Links, evidence

Must a party openly proclaim hostility toward the entire religion before we're allowed to retaliate? If our assailants were allowed to carry on killing us as long as they did so under pretense then we'd have been wiped out centuries ago.

Every party that initiates hostilities against a believing party (through either the use of aggressive force or the inhibition of free worship) effectively declares war on Islam. If you want me to provide scripture and other evidence in support of this statement I'll gladly do so. In my estimation, today's preeminent non-Muslim antagonists are the governments of Russia, Israel, India, and China. All of the political entities that currently control the so-called Muslim world are equally inimical if not worse; this is especially true of those governments attacking us in the name of Islam.

I gave you ample opportunities to present the passages "in the correct context". You chose not to do that.

Which passages?

I gave you information off of one site out of hundreds and you want to get indignant?

I hope you'll overlook my contumely. I had no right or reason to be discourteous and ask for your forgiveness along with that of the Almighty. Conducting myself disgracefully constitutes a failure on my part to abide by the religion we're discussing; I'll follow your precedent of civility from now on in sha' Allah.

Again, feel free to explain the passages in the "correct" context. To me, the quran seems to contradict itself, repeatedly.

Some Qur'anic injunctions are general and universal, some are conditional, and other passages are entirely allegorical. Living in the manner prescribed for us in God's book requires understanding them in the light of the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS) and the specific circumstances of each passage's revelation. No inconsistencies will be perceived by anyone who does this.

What is "taught" by the leaders has even bigger discrepancies.

That's because history has given rise to discrepant interpretations formed along political, theological, mystical, and jurisprudential axes. Differences in understanding are permitted so long as they're legitimate -- when one of the Prophet's (SAWS) instructions to an expeditionary group led to a disagreement over the meaning of his words, the group explained their dispute to him upon returning and he didn't criticize or reject either of the understandings that arose. Some issues are black and white, however. The best interpretation is always that which is based on the soundest evidence. Each 'alim and 'alimah must determine for himself or herself which interpretations are the most solid, and each must provide the laity with cogent analyses and explanations of indeterminate issues. Of course, some people are insincere and attempt to wield religious influence to their own worldly benefit (especially those at the top of the corrupt established order.) A bit of scrutiny and common sense is usually all it takes to recognize the perfidiousness of their schemes.

Example the British extremist Omar Bakri Mohammad's former aide, Anjem Choudary, a British extremist said, "the Muslims don't want democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are anathema to Islam and the Shariah." He continues: Choudary said that at his protest, he will call on Obama and all Americans to "embrace Islam, not only as a religion but as a way of life." and with: He warned Obama: "I do believe that the only way for him to save himself in this life and in the hereafter is to embrace Islam. Islam will eradicate all his sins; he will be like the day his mother gave birth to him. Otherwise, when we do implement the Shariah, obviously he will face the consequences of a trial under the Shariah court."

Choudary has publicly stated he believes the flag of Islam will fly over White House. He repeated that contention in his radio interview.

"I do believe that as a Muslim every part of the world will be governed by the Shariah," he said. "So symbolically the flag of Islam will fly from every single country, every single nation."

Read more: 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis' 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis'

If you have time, refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread which discusses Choudary. He has no religious credentials and his words on the subject carry no more weight than my own or those of any other unaccredited layman. The media always provides platforms for the silly views of rabble-rousers like him because stirring up frivolous controversies keeps their pockets lined and our heads empty.

Democracy as it's usually understood is not Islamic in my view because (in theory) it entrusts people with sovereignty and the power to legislate according to whatever the majority's vain desires happen to be at a given moment. Political authority should belong to the people as a whole, yes, but sovereignty belongs wholly to God. Legislation and the structure of human society should be based not on our own mercurial prejudices but on the eternal and infinitely prudent will of al-Hakim, who revealed His guidance for us in the Qur'an and saw that it was implemented illustratively for us by Muhammad (SAWS) and his companions.

This is not an islamic website. I am free to "submit" questions to my abilities, not your preferences. Again, here is another opportunity for you to demonstrate how islam will not make a total stain on the earth. Will you continue to ignore reality and evidence or stay with the land of Oz?

I'm not sure why you'd point out that this isn't an Islamic website or what that has to do with your ability to present your argument, but I'm always happy to explain my religion as accurately as I can with the knowledge and resources at my disposal.

I can assure you that I'm aware of reality and am on the long and arduous path toward fully perceiving it in its wholeness and ineffable perfection. There is only one Reality, one Existence, and He is blindingly apparent to anyone who bothers to contemplate His many signs.

And we both know that He knows best and that He'll inform us about our differences in belief when he sends 'Isa (AS) to us once again and calls all of mankind to account for the last time.

 

[Kalam]

What I think is silly, is debating Islamic scripture when you're not a Muslim. There are intellects out there who read books about Buddhism and think they're Buddhist experts.

Buddhist meditation cannot be learned from a book. It's experiential. The teachings are transmitted orally, symbolically and mind-to-mind.

Same is true for Islam and Christianity. You have to apply the teachings to your lives.

Debating it is one thing; attempting to interpret it as someone who doesn't believe in it is the main problem IMO.

But yes, it's certainly experiential. As far as spiritual experiences are concerned I imagine our two spiritual paths and methods of meditation have given us similar insight into the nature of existence. Adherents of religions that departed slightly from the straight path still follow what was and in many ways still is the will of the Divine. That's why all of our ways of life bear certain basic similarities to each other and it's also why the Garden is within your reach even if you live and die without belief in my religion -- a sincere quest for understanding and honorable treatment of oneself and others are the keys to Jannah or Nirvana or Heaven or whatever you choose to call the final state of beatitude and communion with the Supreme Essence. These two things dwarf worldly affairs such as the political causes we support and who we make love to. I think you in particular are able to appreciate Tasawwuf because it's the science which illustrates this doctrine of universality and the path toward ultimate wisdom and comprehension of the Unity of Being, a truth which is also recognized and meditated upon in Buddhism if I recall correctly. But Allah knows best.

 

[logical4u]

Not at all. The Catholic Church covered up the priest pedophilia and they should be condemned for that. That doesn't mean EVERY teaching in the Catholic Church is flawed. It's means the policy of putting up with and condoning abuse must stop.

I am talking about the disadvantages of anger and hatred and the advantages of having a peaceful heart and mind.

Shariah law needs to be opposed. One doesn't have to hate Muslims or denigrate their entire religion in order to do that. You have ignored my statement in the thread, RESIGNING MY DEFENSE OF ISLAM.

You ignore that and you rant. That makes you ignore rant.

Stop telling me what I believe and listen to what I actually say. Thank you.

I'm not your enemy.

Isn't islam "covering up" these terrible acts of torture, abuse and murder? If you will call out the Catholic system for not reforming the system (earlier) and for hiding wrong doing, why won't you do that with islam???????????????
If the "religion" (no matter which religion) is defending and protecting the monsters that do these terrible things, shouldn't the "religion" be exposed????
You will not hold those that do these things in islam, accountable. You want to go to "some" of the words on paper, that support "your" idea of peace, while ignoring the same paper that encourages terrible violence against peaceful peoples. That would be called "enabling" in our society.

I have never called you enemy. I am trying to let you know the system that you seem so bent on defending supports the "elimination" of all those other cultures that, you, seem to think are so wonderful..

You must have missed the thread where I resigned my defense of Islam. I don't support Islam. I support the right of any and all people of faith in America to practice their religions. As long as they are law-abiding, I don't care if they're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Zorastrian, Mormon or anything else.

"Resigning" your defense and being unable to state the truth are two different things. By not stating the truth, it seems that you are unwilling to "know" the truth.

 

[logical4u]

You must have missed the thread where I resigned my defense of Islam. I don't support Islam. I support the right of any and all people of faith in America to practice their religions. As long as they are law-abiding, I don't care if they're Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Zorastrian, Mormon or anything else.

Just like you missed the OP and the message of

About TheReligionofPeace.com

TheReligionofPeace.com is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam's true political and religious teachings according to its own texts. We present the threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom, and document the violence that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist teachings.

We are not associated with any organization. We do not promote any religion, but we are not hostile to religion. We support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, woman, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others.

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. (see About Muslims).

We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating the Quran. (The best way of discrediting the Quran is to tell non-Muslims what it actually says about them).

At the same time, we see no use in pretending that Islam is just another religion - which always seems to be the assumption of those who prefer not to look too closely.

TheReligionofPeace - About this Site
________________________________________________

I get it. The purpose of the site is to discredit the religion of Islam and tell Muslims they need to change their religion.

If by "discredit", you mean to expose the truth about the "religion of peace", then that would be yes. If you mean to tell millions of people that their spiritual lives are "wrong", that would be no. If they will not seperate political islam (heard that one from the congressional hearings) from spiritual islam, they are in direct conflict with every other religion's freedom. Since my beliefs do not follow "political islam", I must point out the "dangers" to others that will eventually be put in danger from the implementation of "political islam". Ignoring the danger will not prevent it; that will simply allow the leaders of "political islam" to abuse, rape, torture and murder at a faster pace.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Muslims are allowed to deny their faith in situations where failure to do so will lead to their death or torture. I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

Isn't this in direct conflict with:

Anyone who associates consequentialism with Islam clearly has no understanding of the religion. They may want to refer to the first of Imam an-Nawawi's 40 ahadith.

Not at all. If our morality was consequentialistic then we'd have no use for niceties like rules of engagement. It is stated clearly and repeatedly that proper adherence to Islam never taxes a person beyond their capabilities. Asking someone to be tactless and forward about their beliefs when doing so is likely to get them killed is an unreasonable demand that isn't consistent with this assurance. Self-preservation is every creature's most basic instinct -- the fact that God doesn't command us to act against this fundamental aspect of our own nature can't be used to justify the association of Islamic morality with consequentialism.

Who has declared war on islam??????? Links, evidence

Must a party openly proclaim hostility toward the entire religion before we're allowed to retaliate? If our assailants were allowed to carry on killing us as long as they did so under pretense then we'd have been wiped out centuries ago.

Every party that initiates hostilities against a believing party (through either the use of aggressive force or the inhibition of free worship) effectively declares war on Islam. If you want me to provide scripture and other evidence in support of this statement I'll gladly do so. In my estimation, today's preeminent non-Muslim antagonists are the governments of Russia, Israel, India, and China. All of the political entities that currently control the so-called Muslim world are equally inimical if not worse; this is especially true of those governments attacking us in the name of Islam.


Which passages?


I hope you'll overlook my contumely. I had no right or reason to be discourteous and ask for your forgiveness along with that of the Almighty. Conducting myself disgracefully constitutes a failure on my part to abide by the religion we're discussing; I'll follow your precedent of civility from now on in sha' Allah.



Some Qur'anic injunctions are general and universal, some are conditional, and other passages are entirely allegorical. Living in the manner prescribed for us in God's book requires understanding them in the light of the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS) and the specific circumstances of each passage's revelation. No inconsistencies will be perceived by anyone who does this.


That's because history has given rise to discrepant interpretations formed along political, theological, mystical, and jurisprudential axes. Differences in understanding are permitted so long as they're legitimate -- when one of the Prophet's (SAWS) instructions to an expeditionary group led to a disagreement over the meaning of his words, the group explained their dispute to him upon returning and he didn't criticize or reject either of the understandings that arose. Some issues are black and white, however. The best interpretation is always that which is based on the soundest evidence. Each 'alim and 'alimah must determine for himself or herself which interpretations are the most solid, and each must provide the laity with cogent analyses and explanations of indeterminate issues. Of course, some people are insincere and attempt to wield religious influence to their own worldly benefit (especially those at the top of the corrupt established order.) A bit of scrutiny and common sense is usually all it takes to recognize the perfidiousness of their schemes.

Example the British extremist Omar Bakri Mohammad's former aide, Anjem Choudary, a British extremist said, "the Muslims don't want democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are anathema to Islam and the Shariah." He continues: Choudary said that at his protest, he will call on Obama and all Americans to "embrace Islam, not only as a religion but as a way of life." and with: He warned Obama: "I do believe that the only way for him to save himself in this life and in the hereafter is to embrace Islam. Islam will eradicate all his sins; he will be like the day his mother gave birth to him. Otherwise, when we do implement the Shariah, obviously he will face the consequences of a trial under the Shariah court."

Choudary has publicly stated he believes the flag of Islam will fly over White House. He repeated that contention in his radio interview.

"I do believe that as a Muslim every part of the world will be governed by the Shariah," he said. "So symbolically the flag of Islam will fly from every single country, every single nation."

Read more: 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis' 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis'

If you have time, refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread which discusses Choudary. He has no religious credentials and his words on the subject carry no more weight than my own or those of any other unaccredited layman. The media always provides platforms for the silly views of rabble-rousers like him because stirring up frivolous controversies keeps their pockets lined and our heads empty.

Democracy as it's usually understood is not Islamic in my view because (in theory) it entrusts people with sovereignty and the power to legislate according to whatever the majority's vain desires happen to be at a given moment. Political authority should belong to the people as a whole, yes, but sovereignty belongs wholly to God. Legislation and the structure of human society should be based not on our own mercurial prejudices but on the eternal and infinitely prudent will of al-Hakim, who revealed His guidance for us in the Qur'an and saw that it was implemented illustratively for us by Muhammad (SAWS) and his companions.

This is not an islamic website. I am free to "submit" questions to my abilities, not your preferences. Again, here is another opportunity for you to demonstrate how islam will not make a total stain on the earth. Will you continue to ignore reality and evidence or stay with the land of Oz?

I'm not sure why you'd point out that this isn't an Islamic website or what that has to do with your ability to present your argument, but I'm always happy to explain my religion as accurately as I can with the knowledge and resources at my disposal.

I can assure you that I'm aware of reality and am on the long and arduous path toward fully perceiving it in its wholeness and ineffable perfection. There is only one Reality, one Existence, and He is blindingly apparent to anyone who bothers to contemplate His many signs.

And we both know that He knows best and that He'll inform us about our differences in belief when he sends 'Isa (AS) to us once again and calls all of mankind to account for the last time.

I am grateful to you for generously answering questions about Islam and keeping your cool.

I alway feel I learn something about Islam that I didn't know about after I read one of your posts.

I don't envy your position being one of the few token Muslims on this messageboard and having posters assume you have the power to speak for and influence all of them.

It's interesting that some posters expect you to separate political Islam from religous or spiritual Islam because they have a tough time with political Islam.

I have a tough time with political Christianity and political Islam. Some folks think I'm down on Christianiy as a faith or people who are Christians.

Over and over I have pointed out it's the politics of religion I have a hard time with, not the religions themselves.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Just like you missed the OP and the message of

About TheReligionofPeace.com

TheReligionofPeace.com is a pluralistic, non-partisan site concerned with Islam's true political and religious teachings according to its own texts. We present the threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom, and document the violence that ensues as a direct consequence of this religion's supremacist teachings.

We are not associated with any organization. We do not promote any religion, but we are not hostile to religion. We support the rights of atheists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, homosexuals, woman, Muslims and anyone else on the planet to live as they wish without violating the rights of others.

We strongly condemn any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world because of their religion. Every human being is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. (see About Muslims).

We also denounce any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating the Quran. (The best way of discrediting the Quran is to tell non-Muslims what it actually says about them).

At the same time, we see no use in pretending that Islam is just another religion - which always seems to be the assumption of those who prefer not to look too closely.

TheReligionofPeace - About this Site
________________________________________________

I get it. The purpose of the site is to discredit the religion of Islam and tell Muslims they need to change their religion.

If by "discredit", you mean to expose the truth about the "religion of peace", then that would be yes. If you mean to tell millions of people that their spiritual lives are "wrong", that would be no. If they will not seperate political islam (heard that one from the congressional hearings) from spiritual islam, they are in direct conflict with every other religion's freedom. Since my beliefs do not follow "political islam", I must point out the "dangers" to others that will eventually be put in danger from the implementation of "political islam". Ignoring the danger will not prevent it; that will simply allow the leaders of "political islam" to abuse, rape, torture and murder at a faster pace.

Some Christians ignore the danger of Dominionist Christian politics too. Domionism is in conflict with every other religions freedom too.

It's true, that the Domionists in America are law abiding, so far and not engaged in rape, abuse, torture or murder. Although the Christian Church in Las Vegas financially supported Martin Ssempa, who leads the movement in Uganda to legalize gay executions)

Muslims in America are law abiding too. The question is how can we befriend Islamic countries and influence them toward democracy?

 

[logical4u]

Muslims are allowed to deny their faith in situations where failure to do so will lead to their death or torture. I fail to see what's so horrible about this.

Isn't this in direct conflict with:

Anyone who associates consequentialism with Islam clearly has no understanding of the religion. They may want to refer to the first of Imam an-Nawawi's 40 ahadith.

Not at all. If our morality was consequentialistic then we'd have no use for niceties like rules of engagement. It is stated clearly and repeatedly that proper adherence to Islam never taxes a person beyond their capabilities. Asking someone to be tactless and forward about their beliefs when doing so is likely to get them killed is an unreasonable demand that isn't consistent with this assurance. Self-preservation is every creature's most basic instinct -- the fact that God doesn't command us to act against this fundamental aspect of our own nature can't be used to justify the association of Islamic morality with consequentialism.

Who has declared war on islam??????? Links, evidence

Must a party openly proclaim hostility toward the entire religion before we're allowed to retaliate? If our assailants were allowed to carry on killing us as long as they did so under pretense then we'd have been wiped out centuries ago.

Every party that initiates hostilities against a believing party (through either the use of aggressive force or the inhibition of free worship) effectively declares war on Islam. If you want me to provide scripture and other evidence in support of this statement I'll gladly do so. In my estimation, today's preeminent non-Muslim antagonists are the governments of Russia, Israel, India, and China. All of the political entities that currently control the so-called Muslim world are equally inimical if not worse; this is especially true of those governments attacking us in the name of Islam.


Which passages?


I hope you'll overlook my contumely. I had no right or reason to be discourteous and ask for your forgiveness along with that of the Almighty. Conducting myself disgracefully constitutes a failure on my part to abide by the religion we're discussing; I'll follow your precedent of civility from now on in sha' Allah.



Some Qur'anic injunctions are general and universal, some are conditional, and other passages are entirely allegorical. Living in the manner prescribed for us in God's book requires understanding them in the light of the Sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS) and the specific circumstances of each passage's revelation. No inconsistencies will be perceived by anyone who does this.


That's because history has given rise to discrepant interpretations formed along political, theological, mystical, and jurisprudential axes. Differences in understanding are permitted so long as they're legitimate -- when one of the Prophet's (SAWS) instructions to an expeditionary group led to a disagreement over the meaning of his words, the group explained their dispute to him upon returning and he didn't criticize or reject either of the understandings that arose. Some issues are black and white, however. The best interpretation is always that which is based on the soundest evidence. Each 'alim and 'alimah must determine for himself or herself which interpretations are the most solid, and each must provide the laity with cogent analyses and explanations of indeterminate issues. Of course, some people are insincere and attempt to wield religious influence to their own worldly benefit (especially those at the top of the corrupt established order.) A bit of scrutiny and common sense is usually all it takes to recognize the perfidiousness of their schemes.

Example the British extremist Omar Bakri Mohammad's former aide, Anjem Choudary, a British extremist said, "the Muslims don't want democracy and freedom. Democracy and freedom are anathema to Islam and the Shariah." He continues: Choudary said that at his protest, he will call on Obama and all Americans to "embrace Islam, not only as a religion but as a way of life." and with: He warned Obama: "I do believe that the only way for him to save himself in this life and in the hereafter is to embrace Islam. Islam will eradicate all his sins; he will be like the day his mother gave birth to him. Otherwise, when we do implement the Shariah, obviously he will face the consequences of a trial under the Shariah court."

Choudary has publicly stated he believes the flag of Islam will fly over White House. He repeated that contention in his radio interview.

"I do believe that as a Muslim every part of the world will be governed by the Shariah," he said. "So symbolically the flag of Islam will fly from every single country, every single nation."

Read more: 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis' 'Islam will solve U.S. financial crisis'

If you have time, refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread which discusses Choudary. He has no religious credentials and his words on the subject carry no more weight than my own or those of any other unaccredited layman. The media always provides platforms for the silly views of rabble-rousers like him because stirring up frivolous controversies keeps their pockets lined and our heads empty.

Democracy as it's usually understood is not Islamic in my view because (in theory) it entrusts people with sovereignty and the power to legislate according to whatever the majority's vain desires happen to be at a given moment. Political authority should belong to the people as a whole, yes, but sovereignty belongs wholly to God. Legislation and the structure of human society should be based not on our own mercurial prejudices but on the eternal and infinitely prudent will of al-Hakim, who revealed His guidance for us in the Qur'an and saw that it was implemented illustratively for us by Muhammad (SAWS) and his companions.

This is not an islamic website. I am free to "submit" questions to my abilities, not your preferences. Again, here is another opportunity for you to demonstrate how islam will not make a total stain on the earth. Will you continue to ignore reality and evidence or stay with the land of Oz?

I'm not sure why you'd point out that this isn't an Islamic website or what that has to do with your ability to present your argument, but I'm always happy to explain my religion as accurately as I can with the knowledge and resources at my disposal.

I can assure you that I'm aware of reality and am on the long and arduous path toward fully perceiving it in its wholeness and ineffable perfection. There is only one Reality, one Existence, and He is blindingly apparent to anyone who bothers to contemplate His many signs.

And we both know that He knows best and that He'll inform us about our differences in belief when he sends 'Isa (AS) to us once again and calls all of mankind to account for the last time.

Thank you for your considerate response.

Who has declared war on islam??????? Links, evidence

Must a party openly proclaim hostility toward the entire religion before we're allowed to retaliate? If our assailants were allowed to carry on killing us as long as they did so under pretense then we'd have been wiped out centuries ago.

I take it from this statement that NO ONE has declared war on islam?

Wasn't it the muslims that started building their religion through a campaign of war? Does the above statement mean that anyone "a muslim" thinks is at war with them should be attacked. Forgive me, but this looks like paranoia to the nth degree. From my position, it appears that islam declares themselves under attack when another civilization stands up to their attacks. If they are being diverted from some private goal, then it is an excuse to declare war?

Kalam: "That's because history has given rise to discrepant interpretations formed along political, theological, mystical, and jurisprudential axes. Differences in understanding are permitted so long as they're legitimate -- when one of the Prophet's (SAWS) instructions to an expeditionary group led to a disagreement over the meaning of his words, the group explained their dispute to him upon returning and he didn't criticize or reject either of the understandings that arose. Some issues are black and white, however. The best interpretation is always that which is based on the soundest evidence. Each 'alim and 'alimah must determine for himself or herself which interpretations are the most solid, and each must provide the laity with cogent analyses and explanations of indeterminate issues. Of course, some people are insincere and attempt to wield religious influence to their own worldly benefit (especially those at the top of the corrupt established order.) A bit of scrutiny and common sense is usually all it takes to recognize the perfidiousness of their schemes. "


As I understand it: this says that muslims are free to interpret however they want, and no one can disagree (if it is against the Lord or not), since it is all open to "personal interpretation?

This is not an islamic website. I am free to "submit" questions to my abilities, not your preferences. Again, here is another opportunity for you to demonstrate how islam will not make a total stain on the earth. Will you continue to ignore reality and evidence or stay with the land of Oz?

I'm not sure why you'd point out that this isn't an Islamic website or what that has to do with your ability to present your argument, but I'm always happy to explain my religion as accurately as I can with the knowledge and resources at my disposal.

I can assure you that I'm aware of reality and am on the long and arduous path toward fully perceiving it in its wholeness and ineffable perfection. There is only one Reality, one Existence, and He is blindingly apparent to anyone who bothers to contemplate His many signs.

And we both know that He knows best and that He'll inform us about our differences in belief when he sends 'Isa (AS) to us once again and calls all of mankind to account for the last time.[/QUOTE]

I pointed out that this was not an islamic website because of your dismissal of a question that was not worded to "your preference". I have not told you how to address me, and I do not expect to have my questions "dictated" to me.

Yes, when the Lord comes again, we will all be judged, and He is a Just Lord. Why do muslims think they have the "right"/"duty" to control the Lord's time table by forcing the "Caliphate"?

 

[logical4u]

I get it. The purpose of the site is to discredit the religion of Islam and tell Muslims they need to change their religion.

If by "discredit", you mean to expose the truth about the "religion of peace", then that would be yes. If you mean to tell millions of people that their spiritual lives are "wrong", that would be no. If they will not seperate political islam (heard that one from the congressional hearings) from spiritual islam, they are in direct conflict with every other religion's freedom. Since my beliefs do not follow "political islam", I must point out the "dangers" to others that will eventually be put in danger from the implementation of "political islam". Ignoring the danger will not prevent it; that will simply allow the leaders of "political islam" to abuse, rape, torture and murder at a faster pace.

Some Christians ignore the danger of Dominionist Christian politics too. Domionism is in conflict with every other religions freedom too.

It's true, that the Domionists in America are law abiding, so far and not engaged in rape, abuse, torture or murder. Although the Christian Church in Las Vegas financially supported Martin Ssempa, who leads the movement in Uganda to legalize gay executions)

Muslims in America are law abiding too. The question is how can we befriend Islamic countries and influence them toward democracy?

This is an improvement!

Please explain why you felt it necessary to throw in a Christian group that has no where near (if any) the attrocities that "islam" has been credited with (of their own free will claimed responsibility in the name of allah)? Why do you only focus on Christians that disagree with homosexuality while ignoring the terrible treatment of homosexuals (or even a person that a muslim thinks is a homosexual: it is like permission to rape them) in islamic communities? NO, you do not defend islam, do you?

NO ONE is trying to slam law-abiding muslims that want to focus on the spiritual aspect of islam. SOME of us are trying to focus on the real problems with the political islam (Sharia law for you). Please quit side-tracking with pretense that you do not understand the situation.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If by "discredit", you mean to expose the truth about the "religion of peace", then that would be yes. If you mean to tell millions of people that their spiritual lives are "wrong", that would be no. If they will not seperate political islam (heard that one from the congressional hearings) from spiritual islam, they are in direct conflict with every other religion's freedom. Since my beliefs do not follow "political islam", I must point out the "dangers" to others that will eventually be put in danger from the implementation of "political islam". Ignoring the danger will not prevent it; that will simply allow the leaders of "political islam" to abuse, rape, torture and murder at a faster pace.

Some Christians ignore the danger of Dominionist Christian politics too. Domionism is in conflict with every other religions freedom too.

It's true, that the Domionists in America are law abiding, so far and not engaged in rape, abuse, torture or murder. Although the Christian Church in Las Vegas financially supported Martin Ssempa, who leads the movement in Uganda to legalize gay executions)

Muslims in America are law abiding too. The question is how can we befriend Islamic countries and influence them toward democracy?

This is an improvement!

Please explain why you felt it necessary to throw in a Christian group that has no where near (if any) the attrocities that "islam" has been credited with (of their own free will claimed responsibility in the name of allah)? Why do you only focus on Christians that disagree with homosexuality while ignoring the terrible treatment of homosexuals (or even a person that a muslim thinks is a homosexual: it is like permission to rape them) in islamic communities? NO, you do not defend islam, do you?

NO ONE is trying to slam law-abiding muslims that want to focus on the spiritual aspect of islam. SOME of us are trying to focus on the real problems with the political islam (Sharia law for you). Please quit side-tracking with pretense that you do not understand the situation.

I don't ignore the treatment that Muslims give gay people. You keep forgetting that I started a thread saying that I am resigning my defense of Islam.

I'm saying that inspite of how scary Islam is to gay people in Islamic countries, American Muslims are not doing any of this in America.

Why aren't you concerned about Dominionists at all? Do they get a pass just because they're Christian?

I think any movement to make America a theocracy should be of concern to all Americans. Instead, some of you folks seem to think a Muslim theocracy will happen in America.

It won't. A Christian theocracy is more likely here than a Muslim one.

 

[logical4u]

Some Christians ignore the danger of Dominionist Christian politics too. Domionism is in conflict with every other religions freedom too.

It's true, that the Domionists in America are law abiding, so far and not engaged in rape, abuse, torture or murder. Although the Christian Church in Las Vegas financially supported Martin Ssempa, who leads the movement in Uganda to legalize gay executions)

Muslims in America are law abiding too. The question is how can we befriend Islamic countries and influence them toward democracy?

This is an improvement!

Please explain why you felt it necessary to throw in a Christian group that has no where near (if any) the attrocities that "islam" has been credited with (of their own free will claimed responsibility in the name of allah)? Why do you only focus on Christians that disagree with homosexuality while ignoring the terrible treatment of homosexuals (or even a person that a muslim thinks is a homosexual: it is like permission to rape them) in islamic communities? NO, you do not defend islam, do you?

NO ONE is trying to slam law-abiding muslims that want to focus on the spiritual aspect of islam. SOME of us are trying to focus on the real problems with the political islam (Sharia law for you). Please quit side-tracking with pretense that you do not understand the situation.

I don't ignore the treatment that Muslims give gay people. You keep forgetting that I started a thread saying that I am resigning my defense of Islam.

I'm saying that inspite of how scary Islam is to gay people in Islamic countries, American Muslims are not doing any of this in America.

Why aren't you concerned about Dominionists at all? Do they get a pass just because they're Christian?

I think any movement to make America a theocracy should be of concern to all Americans. Instead, some of you folks seem to think a Muslim theocracy will happen in America.

It won't. A Christian theocracy is more likely here than a Muslim one.

From you "It's true, that the Domionists in America are law abiding, so far and not engaged in rape, abuse, torture or murder."
If a group is legally working for a political agenda, trying to stop them would be working against freedom and liberty. I have not met any Domionists or had any conversations with them. If I disagreed with them, I would let them know. If they gave me some 'pie in the sky' fantasy about how their system of government would work, I would give them the same type of questions that I give: socialists, communists, muslims that encourage Sharia law, homosexual activists. Questions like: Do you have any evidence where this has been implemented, and how did that work out? This country has increased the standard of living for the entire world, can't you buy some island or broke country and prove your system works there before destroying the most productive country on the face of the earth?

Being Christian does not mean that you tolerate crimminal behavior from other Christians: it is different. It is your responsibility to point out sinful ways and encourage improvement. If they choose not to listen (as long as their behavior is not crimminal, you leave them alone: not pretend you are friends, not pretend they are not acting in a sinful behavior, not physically hurt them or murder them).

 

[Sky Dancer]

This is an improvement!

Please explain why you felt it necessary to throw in a Christian group that has no where near (if any) the attrocities that "islam" has been credited with (of their own free will claimed responsibility in the name of allah)? Why do you only focus on Christians that disagree with homosexuality while ignoring the terrible treatment of homosexuals (or even a person that a muslim thinks is a homosexual: it is like permission to rape them) in islamic communities? NO, you do not defend islam, do you?

NO ONE is trying to slam law-abiding muslims that want to focus on the spiritual aspect of islam. SOME of us are trying to focus on the real problems with the political islam (Sharia law for you). Please quit side-tracking with pretense that you do not understand the situation.

I don't ignore the treatment that Muslims give gay people. You keep forgetting that I started a thread saying that I am resigning my defense of Islam.

I'm saying that inspite of how scary Islam is to gay people in Islamic countries, American Muslims are not doing any of this in America.

Why aren't you concerned about Dominionists at all? Do they get a pass just because they're Christian?

I think any movement to make America a theocracy should be of concern to all Americans. Instead, some of you folks seem to think a Muslim theocracy will happen in America.

It won't. A Christian theocracy is more likely here than a Muslim one.

From you "It's true, that the Domionists in America are law abiding, so far and not engaged in rape, abuse, torture or murder."
If a group is legally working for a political agenda, trying to stop them would be working against freedom and liberty. I have not met any Domionists or had any conversations with them. If I disagreed with them, I would let them know. If they gave me some 'pie in the sky' fantasy about how their system of government would work, I would give them the same type of questions that I give: socialists, communists, muslims that encourage Sharia law, homosexual activists. Questions like: Do you have any evidence where this has been implemented, and how did that work out? This country has increased the standard of living for the entire world, can't you buy some island or broke country and prove your system works there before destroying the most productive country on the face of the earth?

Being Christian does not mean that you tolerate crimminal behavior from other Christians: it is different. It is your responsibility to point out sinful ways and encourage improvement. If they choose not to listen (as long as their behavior is not crimminal, you leave them alone: not pretend you are friends, not pretend they are not acting in a sinful behavior, not physically hurt them or murder them).

Does this mean that you leave Dominionists alone because their behavior is not criminal?

Sarah Palin is a Dominionist btw.

 

[Intense]

I get it. The purpose of the site is to discredit the religion of Islam and tell Muslims they need to change their religion.

No. I see the purpose of the Site as spreading Light on a subject to help initiate Humanitarian Change, Reform, not Conversion.

I see no problem calling Muslims on their violence and abuses made in the name of Shariah Law.

What's unfortunate is that no one is consulting moderate Muslims about how they interpret their scriptures. This site focuses only on the negative in Islam. It's not all bad. If it were, there wouldn't be 1.5 billion adherents.

What I think is silly, is debating Islamic scripture when you're not a Muslim. There are intellects out there who read books about Buddhism and think they're Buddhist experts.

Buddhist meditation cannot be learned from a book. It's experiential. The teachings are transmitted orally, symbolically and mind-to-mind.

Same is true for Islam and Christianity. You have to apply the teachings to your lives.

You state a mater which is your opinion, not fact, not even truth. The Reforms that Moderate Muslim's risk their lives to bring about are the whole point. You denying the truth and obstructing Justice and adaptation, true reform works against what you claim. You Enable the Totalitarian Government branch of Islam, making excuses for it time after time, working against the agents of change and reform pretty consistently. At least you are predictable.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No. I see the purpose of the Site as spreading Light on a subject to help initiate Humanitarian Change, Reform, not Conversion.

I see no problem calling Muslims on their violence and abuses made in the name of Shariah Law.

What's unfortunate is that no one is consulting moderate Muslims about how they interpret their scriptures. This site focuses only on the negative in Islam. It's not all bad. If it were, there wouldn't be 1.5 billion adherents.

What I think is silly, is debating Islamic scripture when you're not a Muslim. There are intellects out there who read books about Buddhism and think they're Buddhist experts.

Buddhist meditation cannot be learned from a book. It's experiential. The teachings are transmitted orally, symbolically and mind-to-mind.

Same is true for Islam and Christianity. You have to apply the teachings to your lives.

You state a mater which is your opinion, not fact, not even truth. The Reforms that Moderate Muslim's risk their lives to bring about are the whole point. You denying the truth and obstructing Justice and adaptation, true reform works against what you claim. You Enable the Totalitarian Government branch of Islam, making excuses for it time after time, working against the agents of change and reform pretty consistently. At least you are predictable.

Absolutely not. That statement completely misrepresents my view. Please show me the post where I make excuses for totalitarian regimes.

I do not support dictators or religious fanatics of any religious persuasion nor do I obstruct justice anywhere on earth.

What's predictable is YOU misprepresenting my position with these false statements about what I think and feel.

What Muslim groups are working to reform Islam that you support?

 

[Intense]

I see no problem calling Muslims on their violence and abuses made in the name of Shariah Law.

What's unfortunate is that no one is consulting moderate Muslims about how they interpret their scriptures. This site focuses only on the negative in Islam. It's not all bad. If it were, there wouldn't be 1.5 billion adherents.

What I think is silly, is debating Islamic scripture when you're not a Muslim. There are intellects out there who read books about Buddhism and think they're Buddhist experts.

Buddhist meditation cannot be learned from a book. It's experiential. The teachings are transmitted orally, symbolically and mind-to-mind.

Same is true for Islam and Christianity. You have to apply the teachings to your lives.

You state a mater which is your opinion, not fact, not even truth. The Reforms that Moderate Muslim's risk their lives to bring about are the whole point. You denying the truth and obstructing Justice and adaptation, true reform works against what you claim. You Enable the Totalitarian Government branch of Islam, making excuses for it time after time, working against the agents of change and reform pretty consistently. At least you are predictable.

Absolutely not. That statement completely misrepresents my view. Please show me the post where I make excuses for totalitarian regimes.

I do not support dictators or religious fanatics of any religious persuasion nor do I obstruct justice anywhere on earth.

What's predictable is YOU misprepresenting my position with these false statements about what I think and feel.

What Muslim groups are working to reform Islam that you support?

Absolutely not. That statement completely misrepresents my view.

That statement represents the Hypocrisy and contradiction of your view. You deny the relationship between Islam and Sharia Law, and through misunderstanding, you miss-characterize, and enable those that would believe they are doing one thing, while actually doing another. You Miss-characterize the OP which is pointing out the problem with Sharia Law and the need for reform, not condemning Islam as a Religion. You fail to see that Islam refuses to separate Church from State, while actively working to expand the Islamic State, subjecting the rest of us to it's will. Sharia Must Reform, that is the object of the Thread. 41 pages of you trashing everyone that defends Reform, true reform, changes nothing. You doing what you accuse me of changes nothing. You agree with us, in part, then talk down. The only one you are bullshitting is yourself.

Please show me the post where I make excuses for totalitarian regimes.

You are rudderless and blind, diverting the argument away from the purpose of it's being, rather than addressing the abuses of Sharia that need remedy. Don't get me wrong here, the Spiritual Path Requires change and growth in all of us. That is achieved through conviction, which is a personal matter, it is internal as much as external, be it Kalam, You, or I. Again, you speak against parts of Sharia that you find uncomfortable, yet fail to address the Indoctrination through the Mosques, or the failure to distinguish between Church and State, which need reform. In doing that, you feed the Totalitarian Mind, while attempting that which opposes it.

I do not support dictators or religious fanatics of any religious persuasion nor do I obstruct justice anywhere on earth.

You have contradicted yourself throughout this whole Thread Whining about the rigidness of Sharia, yet failing the whole time to recognize that it is the Foundation of Islam. Personally I have No Problem with what One Imposes on Oneself in matters of Religion, it is what we Impose on Others and how we treat others, where the problems start. I have no interest in converting you or Kalam, or anyone else. My interest is pointing you to your own higher self, your own Conscience, what goes on there is between you and God, it is not my business.

What's predictable is YOU misprepresenting my position with these false statements about what I think and feel.

This thread is overflowing with your feelings, your first Post here was a False Statement about the OP Link. How should I value that??? How should I value 41 Pages of misdirection??? What is your Constructive Position on the Issue on the need for Sharia to Reform to the point that it is not abusing Human Rights??? From the start I asked you to start your own Thread.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Bullshit, Intense. I do not support Shariah Law, the Taliban, Islamic extremists, terrorists, or violence of any kind.

You are making stuff up.

YOU are the one with the big agenda, not me. I'm NOT an activist telling Muslims that they need to reform their entire religion because I don't like Shariah Law.

YOU work with the mosques if you choose. Just don't tell me what my views are. I'm more than capable of speaking for myself.

YOU like the OP group, I don't.

 

[Intense]

Bullshit Intense. I do not support Shariah Law, the Taliban, Islamic extremists, terrorists, or violence of any kind.

That is obvious, as obvious as your defense of what you do not support. The distinction between surrendering directly to the Communion and Harmony of the Forces of Creation, and surrendering on another Persons terms and definition of what the Forces of Creation are, is something you need to meditate more on. Injustice, in any form, is something we can agree, is hurtful to the balance. We are Each Human First, accountable on terms, not our own, for the choices we make. You choose to make the best of it, Power to you. In Truth do you seek Remedy??? I try to. I have watched the Be-headings in the OP Link, which were Muslim on Muslim by the way, and they are Heart Breaking SD. There is allot of shit in all our lives that needs to stop, directions that need to change, things we all need to outgrow. There is No One Alive Today that will not benefit through growth.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Bullshit Intense. I do not support Shariah Law, the Taliban, Islamic extremists, terrorists, or violence of any kind.

That is obvious, as obvious as your defense of what you do not support. The distinction between surrendering directly to the Communion and Harmony of the Forces of Creation, and surrendering on another Persons terms and definition of what the Forces of Creation are, is something you need to meditate more on. Injustice, in any form, is something we can agree, is hurtful to the balance. We are Each Human First, accountable on terms, not our own, for the choices we make. You choose to make the best of it, Power to you. In Truth do you seek Remedy??? I try to. I have watched the Be-headings in the OP Link, which were Muslim on Muslim by the way, and they are Heart Breaking SD. There is allot of shit in all our lives that needs to stop, directions that need to change, things we all need to outgrow. There is No One Alive Today that will not benefit through growth.

Gobbledeegook. Don't tell me I need to meditate on anything like this.

I don't support beheadings, my friend. Stop acting like I do. I don't support violence. Period.

 

[Intense]

Bullshit Intense. I do not support Shariah Law, the Taliban, Islamic extremists, terrorists, or violence of any kind.

That is obvious, as obvious as your defense of what you do not support. The distinction between surrendering directly to the Communion and Harmony of the Forces of Creation, and surrendering on another Persons terms and definition of what the Forces of Creation are, is something you need to meditate more on. Injustice, in any form, is something we can agree, is hurtful to the balance. We are Each Human First, accountable on terms, not our own, for the choices we make. You choose to make the best of it, Power to you. In Truth do you seek Remedy??? I try to. I have watched the Be-headings in the OP Link, which were Muslim on Muslim by the way, and they are Heart Breaking SD. There is allot of shit in all our lives that needs to stop, directions that need to change, things we all need to outgrow. There is No One Alive Today that will not benefit through growth.

Gobbledeegook. Don't tell me I need to meditate on anything like this.

I don't support beheadings, my friend. Stop acting like I do. I don't support violence. Period.

You Enable it by denying it's presence. You are chasing your tail. You are attacking anyone and everyone that raises question or alarm.

 

[logical4u]

I don't ignore the treatment that Muslims give gay people. You keep forgetting that I started a thread saying that I am resigning my defense of Islam.

I'm saying that inspite of how scary Islam is to gay people in Islamic countries, American Muslims are not doing any of this in America.

Why aren't you concerned about Dominionists at all? Do they get a pass just because they're Christian?

I think any movement to make America a theocracy should be of concern to all Americans. Instead, some of you folks seem to think a Muslim theocracy will happen in America.

It won't. A Christian theocracy is more likely here than a Muslim one.

From you "It's true, that the Domionists in America are law abiding, so far and not engaged in rape, abuse, torture or murder."
If a group is legally working for a political agenda, trying to stop them would be working against freedom and liberty. I have not met any Domionists or had any conversations with them. If I disagreed with them, I would let them know. If they gave me some 'pie in the sky' fantasy about how their system of government would work, I would give them the same type of questions that I give: socialists, communists, muslims that encourage Sharia law, homosexual activists. Questions like: Do you have any evidence where this has been implemented, and how did that work out? This country has increased the standard of living for the entire world, can't you buy some island or broke country and prove your system works there before destroying the most productive country on the face of the earth?

Being Christian does not mean that you tolerate crimminal behavior from other Christians: it is different. It is your responsibility to point out sinful ways and encourage improvement. If they choose not to listen (as long as their behavior is not crimminal, you leave them alone: not pretend you are friends, not pretend they are not acting in a sinful behavior, not physically hurt them or murder them).

Does this mean that you leave Dominionists alone because their behavior is not criminal?

Sarah Palin is a Dominionist btw.

This means that I leave Dominionists alone because they have made no public demonstrations that I know have slammed this country, or have suggested that they take over through force where they "murder, convert, or treat non-believers as second class citizens". Have they done any beheadings SD? Have they bombed peaceful civilians at funerals, weddings or gathering places? Is their behavior sinful?

BTW, I leave most people alone even if I disagree with them. I have cousins that choose to call me names because I question their liberal beliefs. They cannot answer the questions and in many cases are totally unaware of the subject; they resort to chanting liberal mantras and name-calling. I leave them alone, now. I do not interfere with Christian Scientists even though they sign a contract that calls for them to "belong" to the "church" for 10,000 years (the same length of punishment the Lord gave to angels that did not follow the set path). I do not bother Hindus that live in this country, though do ask questions about their ways (last week I was surprised to discover they do not eat fish).

I find it ironic that you go to great lengths to discredit Christian groups, and yet will not state facts against islam (that is not individual muslims, that is a problamatic political system that uses religion to control people). The same things that you claim to find so horrendous with these other groups, you will pretend do not happen in islam with a far greater frequency and with far greater violence. Your avoidance of truth makes me wonder if you are sincere about any of your statements.