Muslims - can you sign up to this?

[jack_hawkins]

We know that there are genuinely moderate Muslims (eg Sufi) and indeed the Muslims who formulated this Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding.
Can our Muslim posters tell us if they sign up to the Charter or not, and which parts they disagree with?
Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding

 

[MelanieAnne]

I will be interested to see the responses.

 

[jack_hawkins]

When I have asked this on another forum not one of the Muslims (self-described as moderate) could sign up to everything in the charter.

 

[meedo]

Hello ,

I am a muslim. A religious one. I can tell you that this document would not be acceptable by any religion and not only islam . Right as we speak at this moment this document is enfringed by the USA from nearly most of its aspects. Especially the use of violence and threats.

So the US has no right to use violence against any factual threat ?!! the US invaded a whole country that was of absoloute no threat whatsoever.

I suggest that befpre asking muslims to follow this document that the proponents should ask their countries to fulfill it first.

salam

 

[exoflare]

I guess that’s a no.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Most of the time, I want to be understanding. Sometimes, I lose my patience and I wish that all the Muslims would just go back to the country of their origins and stay there. And for a time, we won’t go there and they can’t come here and when they emerge from their centuries of sectarian violence and their Medieval mindset and decide they want to be civilized, we’ll talk again.

Too many Muslims just don’t seem to get how profoundly wrong it is to kill to make a statement. And they kill their children. I’ve heard it said, and I believe it, that nothing will change until Muslims love their children more than they hate those they perceive to be their enemies. Why don’t the terrorist leaders offer themselves up as a suicide? Maybe if enough of them did, there would be fewer of them. But no, they send children. They’re so despicable there should probably be a new word for them because no word we have is bad enough.

I am no one’s enemy, but there is a faction within the Muslim world that has made me and all Americans their enemy. And their fellow so-called “moderate” Muslims will not condemn them and what they do. By their silence, they are showing support for those who kill in the name of Allah. So call me stubborn, but I will not change my mind about this: There is never never never never EVER a good excuse to kill to make a statement or to prove the seriousness of your grievances and anyone who does is EVIL.

I won’t even address the idea that the US invaded a country that wasn’t a threat, as anyone who believes that is not living in the real world. And they apparently excuse their fellow Muslims for murdering in the name of Allah, which makes them complicit in the crime.

One of the flaws of Islam is its fragmentation. There is no ultimate authority, no ultimate source to determine whether a member of their faith has crossed the line into behavior that is outside the bounds of what the faith can allow. There is no “Pope” or “Patriarch” or “Primate” in Islam. Perhaps if there were, these maniacs would suffer the Islamic equivalent of excommunication. But there isn’t, and so the insane Islamic fascists continue and the rest of the Muslim world keeps silent and the killing continues. It makes me sick.

 

[rtconstant]

Hello ,

I am a muslim. A religious one. I can tell you that this document would not be acceptable by any religion and not only islam . Right as we speak at this moment this document is enfringed by the USA from nearly most of its aspects. Especially the use of violence and threats.

So the US has no right to use violence against any factual threat ?!! the US invaded a whole country that was of absoloute no threat whatsoever.

I suggest that befpre asking muslims to follow this document that the proponents should ask their countries to fulfill it first.

salam

The US isn’t a religion Meedo. The US is a secular country. Most Christians though wouldn’t really have a problem with the document. So now that we’ve cleared that up are you saying that it is your belief that Islam should be able to resort to violence when it choses?

 

[meedo]

The US isn’t a religion Meedo. The US is a secular country. Most Christians though wouldn’t really have a problem with the document. So now that we’ve cleared that up are you saying that it is your belief that Islam should be able to resort to violence when it choses?

It is my belief that Justice should be served. Preferably by peace and reconciliation and clarification. If the opressor doesnt adher to the rules of Justice then there is the right to use force to implement Justice.

The US isnt a religion, Muslim individuals arent a religion either . Most of the troubles in the Muslim world today is because of Politics . religion is a principal that can be a drive force behind a political cause .

By all means , yet sadly, this document at the time of its presentation is not adhered by the countries of the people who presented it . It is hypocritical to ask others to adher to it . It doesnt mean that all that is in this document is false or bad or even not already implemented , but to simply bind a group of people by a document without binding every body by the same standard is hypocricy.

I just gave an example , only an example, the writers of this document ask Muslims to ban use of Violence against all grieviances weather fealt or actual .

what kind of idiot would apply this to himself ? If we paply tthis to Hitler the the french resistance is infringing this document . So all the allied soldiers in the world wars !!

There seem to be a superiority complex in teh western world that still is remnant from the colonial past which seems to think that other people has less dignity and they should take any cr*p thrown to them.

hope unbiased people get my point

salam

 

[jack_hawkins]

Hello ,

I am a muslim. A religious one. I can tell you that this document would not be acceptable by any religion and not only islam . Right as we speak at this moment this document is enfringed by the USA from nearly most of its aspects. Especially the use of violence and threats.

So the US has no right to use violence against any factual threat ?!! the US invaded a whole country that was of absoloute no threat whatsoever.

I suggest that befpre asking muslims to follow this document that the proponents should ask their countries to fulfill it first.

salam

Well I don’t know how you can say that no religion could accept that document. I think you have misunderstood the document. I didn’t ask for a tu quoque, just whether or not you could accept it and which bits you couldn’t.
I presume you object to this:

We will respect all other non-Muslim religions in word and deed
by issuing a clear fatwa with an immediate effect prohibiting:
a) The use of force and violence of any kind against the
followers of any1 or all non-Muslim religions
b) The issue of threats through any religious fatwa threatening
with violence against institutions or assassination of
individuals or groups and followers of other religions who
may be domiciled in the affected localities or any other
country be it a Muslim majority or a otherwise
c) The use of any force in any form for whatever grievances
felt or actual
d) Forbidding the killing or targeting of any civilian or civil
institutions in Islamic and non-Islamic countries as a way
and means of addressing any of our grievances

when you view the statement in its context it is clear it is talking about religious violence and not state policy
therefore foreign policy of democracies is not the issue at all, just violence committed in the name of Islam (or any other religion)
perhaps your reply simply shows how engrained violence is in Islam?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Most of the time, I want to be understanding. Sometimes, I lose my patience and I wish that all the Muslims would just go back to the country of their origins and stay there. And for a time, we won’t go there and they can’t come here and when they emerge from their centuries of sectarian violence and their Medieval mindset and decide they want to be civilized, we’ll talk again.

I can relate to this so much. When I look at the recent problems we have in the UK with Muslim terrorism, I wish sometimes that Muslims would stay in Muslim countries rather than live in a country they profess to hate and want to destroy effectively.

 

[Delta2]

There is no way to understand muslims ( moderated ones ) unless you talk to them in interfaith discussions board

But you must be careful because any offense to their super-super-super-sacred book or prophet is a reason to be banned

The approach way is to be just like Jesus…humble, it is by Jesus humbleness that you can deny all what they say

See this forum :

islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9257&PN=1

They are brainwashed, true blinds, they even ignore Mecca History and their 360 pagan gods…being Allah one of them…the Chief Deity

You have the full story of Allah here :

islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9171&PN=1

 

[meedo]

Well I don’t know how you can say that no religion could accept that document. I think you have misunderstood the document. I didn’t ask for a tu quoque, just whether or not you could accept it and which bits you couldn’t.
I presume you object to this:
when you view the statement in its context it is clear it is talking about religious violence and not state policy
therefore foreign policy of democracies is not the issue at all, just violence committed in the name of Islam (or any other religion)
perhaps your reply simply shows how engrained violence is in Islam?

There is little violence that is solely religious. It is always mixed with somthing other reason . Occupation, stealing of resources , colonialism , poverty , corruption etc…

Religion is the force that gives the person the will to do what he originally wants to do on his own .

Lets take believing christian allied soldier who wore a cross in ww2 and fought to liberate europe… You can interpret it that he is killing in the name of Jesus or you can say that he is invoking a devine help to aid him to rid the continent of evil .

The first interpretation seems very evil whil ethe second seems very noble . Its the same action , while the first is directly linking the religion to violence the second is more explanative . Its showing the relationship between faith , struggle for freedom and the sad reality of the necessity of the use of violence in some circumstances.

I cant prevent any body from demonizing islam or muslims. But by oversimplification of the realities of struggles in this world you are not gaining anybody who thinks fairly on your side.

I would tell you that not any single muslims would agree to this document literally as a whole . Specially when the peopel who drafted it are not showing any signs of abiding by it themselves .

salam

 

[rtconstant]

There is little violence that is solely religious. It is always mixed with somthing other reason . Occupation, stealing of resources , colonialism , poverty , corruption etc…

Religion is the force that gives the person the will to do what he originally wants to do on his own .

Lets take believing christian allied soldier who wore a cross in ww2 and fought to liberate europe… You can interpret it that he is killing in the name of Jesus or you can say that he is invoking a devine help to aid him to rid the continent of evil .

The first interpretation seems very evil whil ethe second seems very noble . Its the same action , while the first is directly linking the religion to violence the second is more explanative . Its showing the relationship between faith , struggle for freedom and the sad reality of the necessity of the use of violence in some circumstances.

I cant prevent any body from demonizing islam or muslims. But by oversimplification of the realities of struggles in this world you are not gaining anybody who thinks fairly on your side.

I would tell you that not any single muslims would agree to this document literally as a whole . Specially when the peopel who drafted it are not showing any signs of abiding by it themselves .

salam

I think this is where we’re having our breakdown. But hope is not lost we are at least discussing it. The soldier in WWII was not fighting for Jesus he was fighting for his country and his allies. Now certainly the soldier took his faith with him to give him strength during the hardships of battle and no doubt hoped that God so his side as the just one. But ultimately WWII was a political war. So again it was not the same as religious leaders calling for war and immoral behavior.

National leaders call for war and immoral actions all the time. All men suffer under that dark cloud. That isn’t the point of the document. The document is asking for religious leaders to restrain themselves as pundants for violence especially pro-active violence. This is an completley reasonable request. I would hope any religious leader would feel comfortable with that. If not then I would say they don’t really deserve to be a religious leader.

 

[jack_hawkins]

. Specially when the peopel who drafted it are not showing any signs of abiding by it themselves salam

…and who exactly are you saying drafted it meedo?

There is little violence that is solely religious

not with Islam anyway
I completely understand why you can’t sign up to it - you have to abide by the nature of “Muhammad” who was violent also
we already know this - it would just be nice to be proven wrong