A Positive Look at Islam

[eots]

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?

these cats rock


YouTube - ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?!

 

[Kalam]

Some highlights of of Cordoba and Andalusia

Toledo Massacre

1,200 Jews were massacred by a Christian and Moslem mob attack on the Jewish section of Toledo, Spain, on this date in 1355.( Jewish calender)

850-859 - Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim-ruled Córdoba, is beheaded after he refuses to retract numerous insults he made about Muhammad. Numerous other priests, monks, and laity would follow as Christians became caught up in a zest for martyrdom.
Forty-eight Christians men and women are decapitated for refusing to convert or blaspheming Muhammad. They will be known as the Martyrs of Córdoba.

818 - The revolt in Córdoba against the Muslims is punished by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20,000 families expelled.
819 - The Franks suppress revolt in Pamplona.
The Myth of the Golden Age of Tolerance in Medieval Muslim Spain - New English Review

Global Politician - The Twin Myths of Eurabia

The Legacy of Jihad [Andrew G. Bostom] - The Islamization of Europe

http://www.mmisi.org/ir/41_02/fernandez-morera.pdf

Typical of your style of argument. Nobody held up Umayyad Spain as a a glowing example of tolerance; in fact, I pointed out that they were deviants. But that didn't stop you from attacking a strawman with "facts" from blog posts and works of revisionist history written by groveling, half-witted servants of Zionism like you. Thanks for being consistent.

 

[Ringel05]

The problem is the perfect, ideal view of Islam you have and project is like the perfect, ideal view of every theism or human system for that matter, a flight of fancy, a pipe dream that doesn't, nor ever will exist in the real world. Behind the walls of churches, mosques, temples, monasteries, buildings, court yards, homes, etc it can occasionally be made to work but out in the real world where politics, economics and power come into play, individuals, groups and governments make it what it is, not desired ideal theory.

But it did.

Rashidun Caliphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, it worked off of the conquered's resources. The below is from the site you gave. It looks like the military was working full time killing and collecting others' wealth. It doesn't look like this system of governence can stand on its own, it must take/steal from others to survive.


Abu Bakr desired Umar to be his successor and he persuaded the most powerful of the followers of Muhammad to go along. Umar was gifted both militarily and politically.
Umar continued the war of conquests begun by Abu Bakr. He pressed into the Sassanid Persian Empire itself, but he also headed north into Syria and Byzantine territory and west into Egypt. These were some of the richest regions in the world guarded by powerful states, but a lengthy war between the Byzantines and Sassanids had left both states militarily exhausted. Islamic forces easily prevailed in war against the two states. By 640, Islamic military campaigns had brought all of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine under the control of Rashidun Caliphate. Egypt was conquered by 642 and the entire Persian Empire by 643.

Umar, however, was one of the great political geniuses of history. While the empire was expanding at a mind-numbing rate beneath his leadership, he also began to build the foundations for a political structure that would hold it together. Umar did not require that non-Muslim populations convert to Islam nor did he try to centralize government, as the Persians had done. Instead, he allowed subject populations to retain their religion, language, customs, and government relatively untouched. The only intrusion would be a governor (amir) and a financial officer called an amil.

(I believe we would call that a "tax collector")

Umar's most far-reaching innovations were in the area of building a financial structure to the empire. He understood that the most important aspect of the empire was a stable financial structure for the government. To this end, he built an efficient system of taxation and brought the military directly under the financial control of the state. He also founded the Diwan, a unique Islamic institution. The diwan consisted of individuals that were important to the Islamic faith and the Islamic world, such as the companions of Muhammad. Their contribution to the faith was so great that they were given pensions on which to live, (supported by others' resources) which freed them up to pursue religious and ethical studies, and thus provide spiritual leadership to the rest of the Islamic world.

Umar established many Islamic traditions, including the process of collating the Quran. Among his most lasting traditions was the establishment of the Muslim calendar. Like the Arabian calendar, it remained a lunar calendar, but Umar set the beginning of the calendar to the year in which Muhammad emigrated to Medina. This, as far as Umar was concerned, was the turning point in Islamic history.

Umar was mortally wounded in an assassination attempt by the Persian slave Abu Lulu Fieroz, (a disgruntled employee?) during morning prayers in 644. Before he died, Umar appointed a committee of six men to decide on the next caliph—they were charged to choose one of their own number.


Looks like this "perfect system" was busy conquering neighbors and collecting war booty. It appears islam cannot survive without "conquering" (spending other peoples' resources).

Unfortunately that has been true of all expanding cultures throughout history to one degree or another.

 

[logical4u]

But it did.

Rashidun Caliphate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uthman refused to initiate any military action to avoid civil war between Muslims, and preferred negotiations.[citation needed] His polite attitude towards rebels emboldened them and they broke into Uthman's house and killed him while he was reading the Qur'an.

Yep, perfect example of a perfect system. If this is your perfect example of the peace of Islam you can understand why I, and others, express skepticism.

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.

Islam has had one thousand four hundred years, give or take some decades to "get it right". The religion and government are woven together. There are no countries that are mostly muslim that you can hold up to demonstrate how great islam "can be". It is time for "reform". If you insist the spiritual side draws you closer to "truth", fine, keep it. Lose the government portion of the "religion". It doesn't work. It causes death and despair any place that it is implemented. the only ones that appear satisfied are the blood thirsty leaders at the top.

 

[Kalam]

It sorta worked for a very short period of time (relatively speaking) and when their economies started falling so did their tolerance of other religions within their boarders. Other religions that were considered second class citizens in the first place. It was also created by war and conquest, (not a new concept) had it's internal power plays, revolutions etc. so no, it didn't.

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.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Typical of your style of argument. Nobody held up Umayyad Spain as a a glowing example of tolerance; in fact, I pointed out that they were deviants. But that didn't stop you from attacking a strawman with "facts" from blog posts and works of revisionist history written by groveling, half-witted servants of Zionism like you. Thanks for being consistent.

High praise indeed.
I think Ill add "SOZ" to my business cards

 

[Kalam]

Yep, perfect example of a perfect system. If this is your perfect example of the peace of Islam you can understand why I, and others, express skepticism.

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.

Islam has had one thousand four hundred years, give or take some decades to "get it right". The religion and government are woven together. There are no countries that are mostly muslim that you can hold up to demonstrate how great islam "can be". It is time for "reform". If you insist the spiritual side draws you closer to "truth", fine, keep it. Lose the government portion of the "religion". It doesn't work. It causes death and despair any place that it is implemented. the only ones that appear satisfied are the blood thirsty leaders at the top.

I'll continue to ignore you as long as you continue to offer nothing other than your own rhetoric as evidence of the "evils of Islam." Your claims don't mean anything unless you can back them up with specific evidence (which doesn't include any wild assumption you happen to make.) Good luck!

 

[Kalam]

Typical of your style of argument. Nobody held up Umayyad Spain as a a glowing example of tolerance; in fact, I pointed out that they were deviants. But that didn't stop you from attacking a strawman with "facts" from blog posts and works of revisionist history written by groveling, half-witted servants of Zionism like you. Thanks for being consistent.

High praise indeed.
I think Ill add "SOZ" to my business cards

You should express your support by moving to Sderot and putting an enormous magnet on the roof of your house.

 

[Kalam]

Yep, perfect example of a perfect system. If this is your perfect example of the peace of Islam you can understand why I, and others, express skepticism.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That statement contradicts itself. If insurrections existed at all, most people would define those insurrections as a problem. The failure to suppress a resurrection is not a problem, whatever caused the insurrection in the ifrst place might be though. You might be able to fool the idiots who believe your line about Islam being a religion of peace, but the rest of us know better.

 

[Kalam]

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.

That statement contradicts itself. If insurrections existed at all, most people would define those insurrections as a problem. The failure to suppress a resurrection is not a problem, whatever caused the insurrection in the ifrst place might be though. You might be able to fool the idiots who believe your line about Islam being a religion of peace, but the rest of us know better.

This is the part where you quote me saying this.

 

[Ringel05]

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.
I recognize the difference, I pointed it out. I reality it's wishful thinking because people will be people. What's so hard to understand about that.

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.

Unfortunately the truth is not everyone in what used to be the old caliphate is Muslim any longer and in some of the areas Islam comprises a small minority or a simple small majority. The rest either don't care or don't want to live under sharia law and many would react violently if "forced". Also I personally don't care to be a second class citizen in any culture for any reason and I don't know many who would.
You have the other issue of sects, good luck getting that worked out peacefully. I don't see how, with the modern conditions of peoples, economies, governments and faiths world wide you can honestly believe this can be done peacefully and or have it last without crushing repression.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

From their own lands that Islam has not controlled for hundreds of years?

 

[ConHog]

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.

From their own lands that Islam has not controlled for hundreds of years?

Indeed, because Kalam is in fact a terrorist.

 

[Kalam]

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.

From their own lands that Islam has not controlled for hundreds of years?

Well no. From lands of ours in which they brutalize and oppress us. I'm referring to places like Chechnya and Xinjiang, not Spain.

 

[Ringel05]

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

From their own lands that Islam has not controlled for hundreds of years?

Well no. From lands of ours in which they brutalize and oppress us. I'm referring to places like Chechnya and Xinjiang, not Spain.

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?
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?

 

[Kalam]

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.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

 

[Hister]

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.

Is it true that islam wants to rid the whole world of toilet paper and deodorant?

 

[Sky Dancer]

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?

There is no religion on earth you could look at in a positive light.

Why not?