| Author |
|
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7369
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 5:05pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I agree. A solid separation of church and state should have been made part of the new Iraqi constitution.
Iraq, for all its faults, was largely secularized in relation to its government under Saddam (he would not be likely to share any of his power with Shiite clerics, especially being of the Sunni minority himself.) I think the failure of the US government to insist on such a separation, like the rather shaky but necessary one in Turkey, was very much due to the contempt many on the religious right especially have for attempts to enforce and defend the separation of Church and State in the US.
All in all, I think the US government was too quick to throw the responsibility for framing the constitution and rebuilding the government into the hands of the iraqis. Some of whom were corrupt, others unprepared and yet others who had goals contrary to continued stability in the region.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bosch Fawstin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 141
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 5:24pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Correct, Iraq, relative to its neighbors, was one of the least Islamic governments in the region, It was a Socialist party, which I personally think played a part in Bush's decision to go after it instead of Iran, which is the prime target of a war on 'terror'/jihad, as it's the greatest state sponsor of jihad terrorism on the planet, next to Saudi Arabia. In Iraq, Bush went after the least Muslim government in the region, one that wouldn't be missed by its neighbors who Saddam threatened, and the perception could take hold that we didn't attack a real Muslim country, meaning 'religious' country, as Bush wouldn't dare attack another religion, even in words, as he's consistently lied to himself and us that 'Islam means peace' since 9/11.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Zaki Hasan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8101
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 6:45pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
As a purported Muslim who I assume knows his religion, do you
acknowledge that Mohammed had his critics killed, led armies in order
to spread Islam, and that Jihad is an open-ended, eternal call to all
Muslims to spread their faith by any means necessary until the entire
world is Islamized, irrespective if individual Muslims follow through
or not?
******
Honestly, what kind of answers are you expecting from me when you frame your questions like this?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Bosch Fawstin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 141
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 7:05pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Truthful ones.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Mike Murray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 7:31pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
If not by throwing footballs, how does Pigman hurt the Muslims? You don't need a pig-skin motif to just shoot people. Does he wrestle them, rubbing himself against them until they freak out and give up?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Christopher Alan Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 26 October 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2787
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 7:35pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Perhaps he throws frozen hams at them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Zaki Hasan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8101
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 7:38pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Truthful ones.
******
I'm sure.
The first two questions depend a great deal on specific historical context, so I'll wait for you to offer examples, and we can discuss them further from there.
In answer to your last question, absolutely not.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Mike Murray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 7:50pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Some of those big boars can be pretty violent, and they have tusks. Maybe Pigman could train a couple of those and put them on leashes and sic them on Muslims. If Muslims are pathologically afraid of regular pigs, wait till they see Pigman's boars running at them!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bosch Fawstin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 141
|
| Posted: 02 August 2008 at 9:45pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Zaki,
The critics that Mohammed assassinated for mocking him, for hurting his feelings, were poets named Abu 'Afak and Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf.
The battles are too many to name, with Mohammed said to have participated in 27 of them himself, but I'll name The Battle of Badr, which was the one that made Mohammed, the first Muslim and Jihadist, and his Muslims believe that with brute force, the world would be theirs, merely by willing to do what their opponents wouldn't.
Now, to my question that:
'..Jihad is an open-ended, eternal call to all Muslims to spread their faith by any means necessary until the entire world is Islamized, irrespective if individual Muslims follow through or not?
You respond with 'absolutely not'. For you, maybe, but according to Islam, you're a deviant regarding the intentions it has for the slaves of Allah, which a Muslim is seen as, incidentally. Every Muslim, each in their own way, must do their part to spread Islam, and that many Muslims don't do so doesn't change this call. Mohammed's status as the perfect model requires that Muslims emulate him, even if most Muslims are morally superior to their 'prophet'.
Here's some incredibly telling words about Muslims and Islam's intentions for them, from a Muslim:
‘At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. "We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way of peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurab (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it.
In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them.'
-Bassam Tibi
I'm also curious to know if you're aware of what the penalty for leaving Islam is. I do, but I'd like to hear it from you.
Edited by Bosch Fawstin on 02 August 2008 at 9:54pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Zaki Hasan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8101
|
| Posted: 03 August 2008 at 12:09am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
In reference to Abu Afak, there's a question as to the veracity of the account you reference, and ultimately there's no way to prove conclusively that Afak's death was at the order of Muhammad. Obviously if one is inclined to believe so, as you are, then you'll believe what you believe.
As far as Ka'ab ibn Ashraf, he was killed not because he "insulted" Muhammad, but rather because he had treatied with the Meccans to create an alliance and attack Medina. Now, whether such a killing was justified or not is certainly a conversation that's worth having, but let's be very clear that it wasn't for, as you put it, "hurting his feelings."
Moving on, the Battle of Badr. Here was a battle waged because the Quraysh (the denizens of Mecca), had seized the properties of those Muslims who had migrated to Medina and excommunicated them. Thus, what had been a plan on the part of the Muslims merely to seize back their possessions turned into a full-scale battle when word of their plan reached Mecca, and it turned into a full-scale rout thanks to their superior tactical maneuvering. And indeed, this led to several more military conflicts, as this was a feudal time.
As to the concept of Jihad, I won't deny that there is an aspect of the concept that ties to armed or military conflict, but the interpretation you're quoting chooses only the narrowest of views. The term jihad can best be summed up as "struggle," whether with external forces or internal (the soul). In this case, the internal struggle with oneself is considered the greater jihad, as it's the more difficult.
Now, as it pertains to the external jihad, the understanding by the majority of Islamic scholars is that its goal is not, as you mention, to kill and convert non-Muslims, but rather the defense of Muslim lives in Muslim lands. Further, the expectation is that, in addition to being primarily defensive, jihad will be carried out following the Islamic rules of warfare, which state quite explicitly that there will be no killing of women, children and non-combatants, as well as no damage to farmland or residential areas.
As you can see, this creates a very limited field that eliminates such actions as, for example, the events of September 11, from the traditional concept of jihad, no matter how much Bin Laden and his followers might wish it. Unfortunately, such people as he are able to exploit the desperation and ignorance of people to win them over to his misguided and politically-motivated goals.
Finally, regarding the punishment for apostacy, I'm assuming you're referring to the prevailing feeling among scholars that it should be punishable by execution. This is not something I agree with, and there are some scholars who interpret the ruling of execution to apply to those who politically betray the Muslim community as opposed to those who commit general apostasy. There are enough vagaries in this that there's room for discussion, but in all honesty I come down on the side of saying it should not be punished with death.
I'm not a scholar, nor do I consider myself any type of religious authority, but these are what I've come to through my own process of research.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Mike Murray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: 03 August 2008 at 1:01am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
If it doesn't reveal too much of the plot, I'm curious about the basic premise - does Pigman embark on his career and stay a Muslim in his personal life, or do the events of 9/11 turn him away from that religion entirely?
Edited by Mike Murray on 03 August 2008 at 1:15am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Lars Johansson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6113
|
| Posted: 03 August 2008 at 1:50am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Here was a battle waged because the Quraysh (the denizens of Mecca), had seized the properties of those Muslims who had migrated to Medina and excommunicated them.
Watching this movie, Zaki, I noticed that you have American nights in the Muslim world too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWw6BlEaQI&feature=relat ed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtEf3MAhLq4&feature=relat ed
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
