Islam under attack? Or under a debate?

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

In a different thread, the following quote came up…

… So, I have to ask…what are these stories really about? Are they about respect for women, or is “muslim” the key ingredient?

I guess it is a valid point. Is Islam under attack?

I don’t think so. I think Islam is just under an informal and unofficial, but global, social debate. Everybody wants to learn more about Islam nowadays. World peace may depend upon it.

Awful or bad Christians don’t become hot topic, because Christianity is not under any social debates. We know Christianity… and we know what it stands for. Debate closed.

We don’t even talk about Ku-Klux-Klan any more. Nor do we talk about Nazism and skin-heads. We don’t even talk about Communism anymore. We know all about these agendas, and the debates are closed.

But Islam is under debate. We don’t know Allah, and we know even less about Mohammed. When we talk about Islamic terrorists, peaceful muslims will argue that they don’t represent true Islam. When we talk about radical clerics, peaceful muslims will argue that they don’t represent “us”.

Who has authority is Islam? I mean, who is somebody that can truely represent the masses of muslims?

And how can we learn about Islam?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In a different thread, the following quote came up…

I guess it is a valid point. Is Islam under attack?

I don’t think so. I think Islam is just under an informal and unofficial, but global, social debate. Everybody wants to learn more about Islam nowadays. World peace may depend upon it.

Awful or bad Christians don’t become hot topic, because Christianity is not under any social debates. We know Christianity… and we know what it stands for. Debate closed.

We don’t even talk about Ku-Klux-Klan any more. Nor do we talk about Nazism and skin-heads. We don’t even talk about Communism anymore. We know all about these agendas, and the debates are closed.

But Islam is under debate. We don’t know Allah, and we know even less about Mohammed. When we talk about Islamic terrorists, peaceful muslims will argue that they don’t represent true Islam. When we talk about radical clerics, peaceful muslims will argue that they don’t represent “us”.

Who has authority is Islam? I mean, who is somebody that can truely represent the masses of muslims?

And how can we learn about Islam?

Honestly?

I think Islam is headed for a terrible and bloody implosion that will spill out into other nations. We really do need to pray for them.

 

[dosdog]

Honestly?

I think Islam is headed for a terrible and bloody implosion that will spill out into other nations. We really do need to pray for them.

Who are the Sunnis?
Sunnis are Muslims who are considered the more “orthodox” believers. Sunnis follow all of the most traditional beliefs and actions.

Who are the Shi’ites?
The term Shi’a is a shortened form of Shi’at Ali, which means “the party of Ali” - and at the time of Ali’s death in 661, that is probably all it was: a party or tendency of people who supported Ali’s claims to the caliphate. Over time, they became the largest non-Sunni sect in Islam.

Who are the Sufis?
Sufism is important to the development of Islam because it is in this tradition that the more spiritual and mystical aspects were preserved. This stands in contrast to the mainstream of Islam which, through its first centuries, was more concerned with the expansion and organization of the general community.

Who are the Kahrijites?
In Arabic, their label means “to go out” - they were, in effect, the first Mulism dissidents and rebels, being present almost from the dawn of Islam. Like later dissidents, they chose to separate themselves from the main body of believers, feeling that the majority of Muslims had lost the “true path.”

Who are the Wahhabis?
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab could be considered the first modern Islamic fundamentalist. He made the central point of his reform movement the idea that absolutely every idea added to Islam after the third century of the Mulsim era was false and should be eliminated.

Who are the Ismailis?
An early Shi’a sect which split from the main group because of a dispute over who should be considered the next Imam.

Who are the Zaidis?
Formed by Zaid, a grandson of Husain, the Zaidis have believed that the true Imam must publicly assert his claim to the title and seek to overthrow the corrupt regime run by unacceptable rulers.

Who are the Fatimids?
The Fatimids are a successor movement to the Isma’ilis and are descendants of Fatima and Ali through the line of Isma’il. In the tenth century, those descendants asserted themselves as caliphs in North Africa, and ruled Egypt from 969 to 1171.

Who are the Nizari?
This sect is actually very well known around the world, but under a different name: the Assassins.

Who are the Alawis?
Also known as Nusayris, the Alawis are a branch of Isma’ilism which has gone so far along its own path that many Muslims no longer even regard it as a form of Islam. The term Alawis actually just means “followers of Ali,” which is used in some countries to refer to all Shi’a in general. Some think that they worship Ali as God, but that isn’t entirely accurate.

Who are the Druze?
The Druze comprise another sect which is not widely regarded as being “truly” Muslim. This group diverged from mainstream Islam in the eleventh century when some Isma’ilis started to believe that God became manifest in the personality of a prophet or imam.

Who are the Baha’i?
Baha’i is another movement which is descended from Islam, but which most Muslims today no longer regard as authentically Islamic.

 

[ssejllenrad]

Who are the Sunnis?
Sunnis are Muslims who are considered the more “orthodox” believers. Sunnis follow all of the most traditional beliefs and actions.

Who are the Shi’ites?
The term Shi’a is a shortened form of Shi’at Ali, which means “the party of Ali” - and at the time of Ali’s death in 661, that is probably all it was: a party or tendency of people who supported Ali’s claims to the caliphate. Over time, they became the largest non-Sunni sect in Islam.

Who are the Sufis?
Sufism is important to the development of Islam because it is in this tradition that the more spiritual and mystical aspects were preserved. This stands in contrast to the mainstream of Islam which, through its first centuries, was more concerned with the expansion and organization of the general community.

Who are the Kahrijites?
In Arabic, their label means “to go out” - they were, in effect, the first Mulism dissidents and rebels, being present almost from the dawn of Islam. Like later dissidents, they chose to separate themselves from the main body of believers, feeling that the majority of Muslims had lost the “true path.”

Who are the Wahhabis?
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab could be considered the first modern Islamic fundamentalist. He made the central point of his reform movement the idea that absolutely every idea added to Islam after the third century of the Mulsim era was false and should be eliminated.

Who are the Ismailis?
An early Shi’a sect which split from the main group because of a dispute over who should be considered the next Imam.

Who are the Zaidis?
Formed by Zaid, a grandson of Husain, the Zaidis have believed that the true Imam must publicly assert his claim to the title and seek to overthrow the corrupt regime run by unacceptable rulers.

Who are the Fatimids?
The Fatimids are a successor movement to the Isma’ilis and are descendants of Fatima and Ali through the line of Isma’il. In the tenth century, those descendants asserted themselves as caliphs in North Africa, and ruled Egypt from 969 to 1171.

Who are the Nizari?
This sect is actually very well known around the world, but under a different name: the Assassins.

Who are the Alawis?
Also known as Nusayris, the Alawis are a branch of Isma’ilism which has gone so far along its own path that many Muslims no longer even regard it as a form of Islam. The term Alawis actually just means “followers of Ali,” which is used in some countries to refer to all Shi’a in general. Some think that they worship Ali as God, but that isn’t entirely accurate.

Who are the Druze?
The Druze comprise another sect which is not widely regarded as being “truly” Muslim. This group diverged from mainstream Islam in the eleventh century when some Isma’ilis started to believe that God became manifest in the personality of a prophet or imam.

Who are the Baha’i?
Baha’i is another movement which is descended from Islam, but which most Muslims today no longer regard as authentically Islamic.

Wow! I never thought there are so many divisions… This info is really great!

 

[pro_universal]

Debate is one thing, and it’s a worthy goal.

The problem is that on many of the threads here, and in media outlets, there isn’t a debate. Any evidence offered to support a moderate view of Islam is labelled one of the following:

1. Lies
2. Un-Islamic revisionism
3. Liberal bleeding heart “multiculturalism”
4. Ignorance

Etc etc etc.

When a religion is being debated, one would assume that the words of practicing members would be taken seriously. When they’re written off as lies by people who read anti-islamic tracts on the internet, that is about bashing the religion, not debating it.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

What would you say when some Muslims claim Islam is the religion of peace and you can see in the Quran that Muhammad ordered his followers to convert and/or subjugate by the sword, when you can read in the sahih hadiths that Muhammad ordered his followers to convert by the sword, and you can read the Islamic historians who proudly admit their religion was spread by the sword?

Would you say those Muslims who claim Islam is the religion of peace to be either ignorant or liars? It is a black and white situation - someone is lying and I don’t think it was Muhammad bin Abdallah.

 

[Montalban]

Debate is one thing, and it’s a worthy goal.

Lip-service!

The problem is that on many of the threads here, and in media outlets, there isn’t a debate. Any evidence offered to support a moderate view of Islam is labelled one of the following:

1. Lies
2. Un-Islamic revisionism
3. Liberal bleeding heart “multiculturalism”
4. Ignorance

Etc etc etc.

When a religion is being debated, one would assume that the words of practicing members would be taken seriously. When they’re written off as lies by people who read anti-islamic tracts on the internet, that is about bashing the religion, not debating it.

But you’ve yet to prove that on many threads. Instead you just say it is, then you get in a huff if people ask for evidence.

Further, rather than deal with actual debate on topic, you try to divert the discussion to another topic. In short you are advertising poorly for your religion.

 

[pro_universal]

Would you say those Muslims who claim Islam is the religion of peace to be either ignorant or liars? It is a black and white situation - someone is lying and I don’t think it was Muhammad bin Abdallah.

No. I would say that people who use answering-islam to form their entire opinion of Muslim history and theology are bigoted and narrow minded.

Calling every single Muslim a liar (since you won’t find a single one, even bin laden, who agrees that unrestrained killing is sanctioned by the religion) amounts to accusing Islam of a billion man conspiracy theory. It is lunacy at its most dangerous-the same kind of lunacy that led people to believe the garbage they used to believe about Jews.

 

[pro_universal]

Lip-service!

But you’ve yet to prove that on many threads. Instead you just say it is, then you get in a huff if people ask for evidence.

You don’t accept any evidence besides that which confirms your bigoted views. That’s why you don’t ever see “proof” that Islam is this or that, and won’t ever will.

I posted comments by a Sheikh on violence, you did a google survey of Islamic religious texts and claimed you knew better. I posted articles where Muslims denounced the Sydney cleric, you posted snippeted texts and claimed you knew better.

As long as you’re convinced that you know what Islam is more than Muslims do, you’re never going to get proof of anything beyond “proof” of your bigoted views.

Further, rather than deal with actual debate on topic, you try to divert the discussion to another topic. In short you are advertising poorly for your religion.

This is definitely the topic of this thread. And it’s not my religion, though seeing that it is the object of a hate campaign by narrow-minded people draws me even closer to it. I’m convinced (perhaps by an upbringing in christianity) that the more true and good something is, the more people will work to insult and destroy it.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Pro Unerversal,

Could you clarify? Are you seeking to leave Christ and His Church?

CDL

 

[Montalban]

You don’t accept any evidence besides that which confirms your bigoted views. That’s why you don’t ever see “proof” that Islam is this or that, and won’t ever will.

You can continue to make such claims but you’re the one who
a) cited evidence that has a conclusion that refutes you (pretending that it doesn’t, doesn’t help your credibility)
and
b) pretended that the same site was two different sources, and made out one to be from Victoria (to ‘differentiate it’ from the ‘other’ site from the Commonwealth)

I posted comments by a Sheikh on violence, you did a google survey of Islamic religious texts and claimed you knew better. I posted articles where Muslims denounced the Sydney cleric, you posted snippeted texts and claimed you knew better.

If you’re talking about the “Moslem leader speaks on Women” thread, then no you didn’t. You simply said that all the clerics on the site I cited (not you) disagreed with him. And I pointed out that they may well do, but he’s still in his position of power. You posted no ‘articles’ by Moslems denouncing him at all! You simply said that there were some.

As long as you’re convinced that you know what Islam is more than Muslims do, you’re never going to get proof of anything beyond “proof” of your bigoted views.

I cite Islamic evidence. You choose to ignore this, except to misrepresent it as anti-Islamic!

This is definitely the topic of this thread. And it’s not my religion, though seeing that it is the object of a hate campaign by narrow-minded people draws me even closer to it. I’m convinced (perhaps by an upbringing in Christianity) that the more true and good something is, the more people will work to insult and destroy it.

I amazed you’ve so convinced yourself of these things. Come up with some evidence that supports your position, that’s relevant to the topic at hand.

I’m amazed you can press on with such a catalogue of errors and misrepresentations, then have the temerity to cry foul!’

 

[Montalban]

No. I would say that people who use answering-islam to form their entire opinion of Muslim history and theology are bigoted and narrow minded.

Do you disagree with the Hadith he cites, and why?

 

[pro_universal]

You can continue to make such claims but you’re the one who
a) cited evidence that has a conclusion that refutes you (pretending that it doesn’t, doesn’t help your credibility)
and
b) pretended that the same site was two different sources, and made out one to be from Victoria (to ‘differentiate it’ from the ‘other’ site from the Commonwealth)

a) That was about Australian law, not Islamic teaching

b) The VLRC was a paper citation; ie, it wasn’t linked because I looked at a printed copy and told you which section to check out. If you can’t get it in hard copy, I don’t know where it is online.

You simply said that all the clerics on the site I cited (not you) disagreed with him. And I pointed out that they may well do, but he’s still in his position of power. You posted no ‘articles’ by Moslems denouncing him at all! You simply said that there were some.

Okay, but the fact that no Muslims support the comments is good evidence that Islamic teaching doesn’t support it either, is it not?

Or are you more qualified to comment on Islam than the other Muslims?

I’m amazed you can press on with such a catalogue of errors and misrepresentations, then have the temerity to cry foul!’

You are incapable of grasping the point.

 

[pro_universal]

Do you disagree with the Hadith he cites, and why?

I’m not a Muslim or a hadith scholar. Hence, I can only go with what the reaction has been in the Muslim community: that comments were wrong.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

No. I would say that people who use answering-islam to form their entire opinion of Muslim history and theology are bigoted and narrow minded.

No Muslim has ever shown answering-islam to be untruthful, in the main. So all you have is venom against AI for showing Islam for the evil that it is. Thanks for showing everyone you have nothing to argue with except ad hominems. But that’s typical of you, isn’t it?

pro:

Calling every single Muslim a liar (since you won’t find a single one, even bin laden, who agrees that unrestrained killing is sanctioned by the religion) amounts to accusing Islam of a billion man conspiracy theory. It is lunacy at its most dangerous-the same kind of lunacy that led people to believe the garbage they used to believe about Jews.

Did anyone mention conspiracy theory? Not I.

I have lived in several Islamic countries and have Muslim relatives and friends so I can tell you from personal experience that what the ‘Westernized’ Muslims say about how Islam is so wonderful is not mirrored by the Muslims in Islamic countries.

Explain to us how Muhammad and his supporters spread islam by conquest. Explain to us surah 9 where he commanded Muslims to kill (yes kill) those who do not believe in Allah and (for the People of the Book - do not want to live in subjugation).

Now, then after you show us ‘qatiloo’ does not mean kill then you may presume to tell us those Westernized Muslim apologists are right and I am wrong.

The fact is that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. There is no conspiracy among Muslims to hide this. Muslims in Islamic countries are generally horrible people because they almost invariably persecute religious minorities. They are violent and hateful. Every single Muslim hate Jews to the death, even if there is no Jew in their entire country for centuries. You tell me how many Jews there are in Indonesia - then tell us why those Muslims in Indonesia hate Jews when they have never even met a single one.

Tell us how the Muslims blow up at the slightest ‘provocation’ or imagined slight. Then tell us how some Muslims can threaten the Pope with conversion or death after his lecture - and how many people got killed because of some cartoons (yes - cartoons) and how there are no reciprocal counter-acts from those ‘peaceloving’ Muslims you seem to think exist.

There is no conspiracy. I have never suggested any and it’s just a straw man that you put up to deflect from the clear evidence from Islamic theological sources that Islam is a dangerous cult.

 

[Darrel]

Pro Unerversal,

Could you clarify? Are you seeking to leave Christ and His Church?

CDL

He has already left the Church. He should contact the admin about a name change. I find it offensive.

-D

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Who are the Sunnis?
Sunnis are Muslims who are considered the more “orthodox” believers. Sunnis follow all of the most traditional beliefs and actions.

Who are the Shi’ites?
The term Shi’a is a shortened form of Shi’at Ali, which means “the party of Ali” - and at the time of Ali’s death in 661, that is probably all it was: a party or tendency of people who supported Ali’s claims to the caliphate. Over time, they became the largest non-Sunni sect in Islam.

Who are the Sufis?
Sufism is important to the development of Islam because it is in this tradition that the more spiritual and mystical aspects were preserved. This stands in contrast to the mainstream of Islam which, through its first centuries, was more concerned with the expansion and organization of the general community.

Who are the Kahrijites?
In Arabic, their label means “to go out” - they were, in effect, the first Mulism dissidents and rebels, being present almost from the dawn of Islam. Like later dissidents, they chose to separate themselves from the main body of believers, feeling that the majority of Muslims had lost the “true path.”

Who are the Wahhabis?
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab could be considered the first modern Islamic fundamentalist. He made the central point of his reform movement the idea that absolutely every idea added to Islam after the third century of the Mulsim era was false and should be eliminated.

Who are the Ismailis?
An early Shi’a sect which split from the main group because of a dispute over who should be considered the next Imam.

Who are the Zaidis?
Formed by Zaid, a grandson of Husain, the Zaidis have believed that the true Imam must publicly assert his claim to the title and seek to overthrow the corrupt regime run by unacceptable rulers.

Who are the Fatimids?
The Fatimids are a successor movement to the Isma’ilis and are descendants of Fatima and Ali through the line of Isma’il. In the tenth century, those descendants asserted themselves as caliphs in North Africa, and ruled Egypt from 969 to 1171.

Who are the Nizari?
This sect is actually very well known around the world, but under a different name: the Assassins.

Who are the Alawis?
Also known as Nusayris, the Alawis are a branch of Isma’ilism which has gone so far along its own path that many Muslims no longer even regard it as a form of Islam. The term Alawis actually just means “followers of Ali,” which is used in some countries to refer to all Shi’a in general. Some think that they worship Ali as God, but that isn’t entirely accurate.

Who are the Druze?
The Druze comprise another sect which is not widely regarded as being “truly” Muslim. This group diverged from mainstream Islam in the eleventh century when some Isma’ilis started to believe that God became manifest in the personality of a prophet or imam.

Who are the Baha’i?
Baha’i is another movement which is descended from Islam, but which most Muslims today no longer regard as authentically Islamic.

Excellent post!

Ergo: I think Islam is headed for a terrible and bloody implosion that will spill out into other nations.

We really do need to pray for them.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… When a religion is being debated, one would assume that the words of practicing members would be taken seriously.

Hi pro_universal,

i) Ku Klux Klan is a religion. Should we take the words of their practicing members seriously?

ii) Terrorists take their religion seriously… to the point of sacrifice and death. ii-i) What religion do they follow? ii-ii) Should we take their words seriously?

 

[Sixtus]

Terrorists take their religion seriously… to the point of sacrifice and death. ii-i) What religion do they follow? ii-ii) Should we take their words seriously?

Terrorist and Religion are in the main mutually exclusive.

Most terrorism is based not on religion but politics. I have never heard of a terrorist who was motivated by religion. They are happy to ‘use’ religion as an excuse, but they are usually not religious.

Terrorism in the main is also the consequence of a problem not its cause. Poverty, in justice, racial hatred and desperation are usually the ingredients which make a very good terrorist.

This thread poses an interesting question. I would suggest the answer is that Islam is under attack.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Poverty is not a cause of terrorism. If it were then we should see African terrorists, South American terrorists, and Indian untouchable terrorists. Terrorism is solely political and/or religious. In fact, terrorism costs money and resources - the perpetrators of 9/11 were educated and middle-class. OBL is the son of a billionaire. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician from a middle class family.