Hot Button Topic: Islam and Peace
- Thread starter Polycarp
- Start date
A moving story.
And yet if the man were holding a sword and Ali had striken him, it would have been considered a blow against falsehood.
This is a dangerous path to follow; the one where you are arrogant enough to assume you comprehend the truth and others need to be shown it.
This is the problem with the 'war' between Christianity and Islam. Each thinks they hold the truth and everyone else 'lacks wisdom'. No wonder the middle east has been at war for centuries.
Furthermore, a connection is made between fighting and dispelling ignorance. It doesn't work like that.
Be careful not to get caught up in the romanticism of a story.
And yet if the man were holding a sword and Ali had striken him, it would have been considered a blow against falsehood.
This is a dangerous path to follow; the one where you are arrogant enough to assume you comprehend the truth and others need to be shown it.
This is the problem with the 'war' between Christianity and Islam. Each thinks they hold the truth and everyone else 'lacks wisdom'. No wonder the middle east has been at war for centuries.
Furthermore, a connection is made between fighting and dispelling ignorance. It doesn't work like that.
Be careful not to get caught up in the romanticism of a story.
Or romanticism in general. 
But allegory and metaphor are good ways to present issues in a simpler and more illustrative context, rather than force an essay on an audience. I guess that's a particular reason why the New Testament has Jesus so often speaking in parables.
But allegory and metaphor are good ways to present issues in a simpler and more illustrative context, rather than force an essay on an audience. I guess that's a particular reason why the New Testament has Jesus so often speaking in parables.
The minds of peoples who lived 2000 years ago were very much different from our own. Abstraction and critical anaylsis were difficult for them. The best way to keep peoples attention and get your point through is by story telling. The strength of modern man is in his ability to differentiate between the story, the principle and real life. However for the simple mind, the success of the story and the feelings that it evokes are seen as synonymous with the validity of the point it tries to make.
I wouldn't suggest forcing anything on the audience, nor do I recommend that the simpleton interest himself in the details of religions without first developing insight and discrimination.
It is with stories like the one above that people are manipulated in mass through their feelings.
Religions should be simple and straighforward without cultural attachments.
I would venture that the reason Islam is so successful is because of it's simplicity and lack of logic.
People don't want to wade through principles and use their mind. They want the answer handed to them on a plate, especially when survival is their number one (as it most often is in the Middle East).
If you wanted to manipulate people, why wouldn't you use religion?
I wouldn't suggest forcing anything on the audience, nor do I recommend that the simpleton interest himself in the details of religions without first developing insight and discrimination.
It is with stories like the one above that people are manipulated in mass through their feelings.
Religions should be simple and straighforward without cultural attachments.
I would venture that the reason Islam is so successful is because of it's simplicity and lack of logic.
People don't want to wade through principles and use their mind. They want the answer handed to them on a plate, especially when survival is their number one (as it most often is in the Middle East).
If you wanted to manipulate people, why wouldn't you use religion?
samabudhi said:
Well, your making up the 'others need to be shown it' bit:
"And say: 'The truth is from your Lord.". Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve" (18:28).
I think I speak on behalf of all the monothestic religions when I say that there is no compulsion in religion. If you wanna follow any other way, thats your choice, you wont forcibly be shown anything. Of course, if you want to be aggressive and to initiate aggression against the believers, then we hold the right to defence.
Actaully, the conflicts in the middle east have more to do with politics and less with religion. Neither Christianity nor Islam allows for aggressive wars or terrorism, the both teach love, respect and tolerance: so I do see how people and come up and blame them for any such conflicts.
samabudhi said:
Islam's lack of logic?? Would you be so kind as to more specificially point out the illogical teachings/propositions that Islam puts forth?
I dont think religion has anything special to it that allows manipulation. Its not like being secular makes you any less likely to be manipulated. Ignorance is the what allows for ppl to be manipulated. Those in power can use something as simple as nationalism to manipulate thier ppl (as is done in wartime).
Ozz^E said:
So what is the Muslim fighting for if not for truth? He is fighting to show the ignorant the truth, albeit by the sword.
Ozz^E said:
It was common place to impose a tax on the people of an Islamic country who chose to follow another religion. Don't know if that's still the case, but economic pressure doesn't sound like free choice to me.
Social isolation is also a method used by Abrahamic religions.
I know this from personal experience living with a large Muslim community and coming from a Christian one. They're friendly, but that's where it ends. Jews just flat out don't let you join. How's that for tolerance.
Ozz^E said:
There's no such thing as politics over here and religion over there. They are inextricably linked. Aways have been.
That there is a God. That'll do for now.Ozz^E said:
Peer pressure isn't reserved for teenagers. It's a phenomenon that effects all people. The need to fit into a group. Anyone who's done a bit of psychology knows this. We're social animals. We need to fit in.Ozz^E said:
Most people will give up their freedom if it means being accepted. Like sheep.
Agree with the ignorance and nationalism part though. Nationalism and religions are both social structures. How would social structures survive if people didn't behave the same way? Therefore, they only survive if they exert a force on their members, ergo manipulation.
We chose which social structure we want to belong to (hopefully), and thus chose who we are influenced by. If we are independent with few insecurities, we don't care who we're with. If we know we're easily persuaded, we are most intolerant.
Most of the time this behaviour isn't contrived. It simply happens without our noticing it. We're unaware hence our problems.
At the risk of sounding like a complete heathen missionary, have a look at this site: http://www.faithfreedom.org/
No-one know the flaws of a religion better than those who practise it.
No-one know the flaws of a religion better than those who practise it.
arthra
Baha'i
Samabudhi,
I had a few comments to make in response to some of your points:
If we study the life of Imam Ali I think you will find there is more truth to the story cited than mere sentimentalism or romanticism... Imam Ali was well known for his acts of kindness and charity.
Regarding Jihad:
Rather than seeing "fighting" connected with "dispelling ignorance" try using the word "struggle" because that is closer to the meaning of the word "Jihad".
A few things about Islam that I think should be understood...especially early Islam.... that Jihad was only used as a defensive measure when the community and the Faith were under threat of attack.
Regarding "Jizyah":
Also, the tax or "Jizyah" was levied only on Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians who were under the protection of Moslem rulers. They were exempt from having to defend themselves in wartime and were allowed to keep their religion(s) and religious buildings such as churches or synagogues.
The tax was also graduated according to ability to pay...so poor people were taxed less than the wealthy. Monks, hermits or slaves were exempt.
When Islam came to the areas of the former Byzantine Empire many Christians preferred the fairness of the "Jizyah" tax to the onerous taxation of the Byzantine Court.
In light of the historical circumstances of the time, I think the above is evidence that the foundations of Islamic civilization were not cruel or arbitrary but rather were progessive.
Consider the treatment of Moslems and Jews in Spain during Inquisition where three choices were permitted: conversion, death or exile.... and even those who converted were mistreated and under suspicion.
In addition in response to the question:
Would you be so kind as to more specificially point out the illogical teachings/propositions that Islam puts forth?
You responded with:
"That there is a God. That'll do for now."
Reading your words conveys a hostility here which I think is out of place.... People can have many reasons why they believe in God and philosophically there have been proofs and logical evidences presented, but that you feel a belief in God is illogical is based on your own assumptions and should not affect an appraisal of a religion in my opinion.
I think there is hope that Christians, Moslems and Jews can work together to build a lasting peace in the world...There have been evidences of this but they are not covered in the news media as much as bombs and targeted assassinations...which in turn inflames greater passions and hostilities.
- Art
I had a few comments to make in response to some of your points:
If we study the life of Imam Ali I think you will find there is more truth to the story cited than mere sentimentalism or romanticism... Imam Ali was well known for his acts of kindness and charity.
Regarding Jihad:
Rather than seeing "fighting" connected with "dispelling ignorance" try using the word "struggle" because that is closer to the meaning of the word "Jihad".
A few things about Islam that I think should be understood...especially early Islam.... that Jihad was only used as a defensive measure when the community and the Faith were under threat of attack.
Regarding "Jizyah":
Also, the tax or "Jizyah" was levied only on Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians who were under the protection of Moslem rulers. They were exempt from having to defend themselves in wartime and were allowed to keep their religion(s) and religious buildings such as churches or synagogues.
The tax was also graduated according to ability to pay...so poor people were taxed less than the wealthy. Monks, hermits or slaves were exempt.
When Islam came to the areas of the former Byzantine Empire many Christians preferred the fairness of the "Jizyah" tax to the onerous taxation of the Byzantine Court.
In light of the historical circumstances of the time, I think the above is evidence that the foundations of Islamic civilization were not cruel or arbitrary but rather were progessive.
Consider the treatment of Moslems and Jews in Spain during Inquisition where three choices were permitted: conversion, death or exile.... and even those who converted were mistreated and under suspicion.
In addition in response to the question:
Would you be so kind as to more specificially point out the illogical teachings/propositions that Islam puts forth?
You responded with:
"That there is a God. That'll do for now."
Reading your words conveys a hostility here which I think is out of place.... People can have many reasons why they believe in God and philosophically there have been proofs and logical evidences presented, but that you feel a belief in God is illogical is based on your own assumptions and should not affect an appraisal of a religion in my opinion.
I think there is hope that Christians, Moslems and Jews can work together to build a lasting peace in the world...There have been evidences of this but they are not covered in the news media as much as bombs and targeted assassinations...which in turn inflames greater passions and hostilities.
- Art
Then lets hear it. Forget about Imam Ali for the moment. I'd like to hear what the story's message is if it's not just about sentimentalism and romanticism.
Euphemisms are used by those who can't handle the truth or who are trying to hide something. Call it what it is for crying out loud. This is a classic technique used by politicians and warmongers who try to make the truth more palatable for the general population.
I took the following article from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29441-2003Mar25
which well describes my view on euphemisms.
You're listing rights not privileges. I don't see anything left balancing the tax.
We can go on listing examples of the immorality of mankind, but that doesn't justify the choices of the governments in question. It only makes them look good 'cause they're not at the bottom of the list.
1. I apologise if I came across as hostile. I thought I was just being sarcastic at worst.
2. I fear you overlook the meaning of philosophy. A philosophical proof is a classic oxymoron.
3. I had no intention of starting a whole new argument about the existence of God. I simply wanted to answer Ozz^E's question. In order to avoid turning this thread into a plethora of disconnected arguments, but at the same time convey my feeling that their is much which is illogical in Islam, I simply said 'That'll do for now.'
I sincerely hope you consider that peace in the world would include more than just the three main Abrahamic religions.
arthra
Baha'i
Samabudhi wrote:
"I sincerely hope you consider that peace in the world would include more than just the three main Abrahamic religions."
Comment:
I was directing my attention primarily to the Middle East and the Holy Land when I mentioned Jews, Christians and Moslems getting along....We could include Sikhs, Hindus and Moslems if we're considering Kashmir and the Punjab or Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems in Nepal and Moslems and Hindus in India and so on.
The way I think to lessen tensions is to encourage communication between the various sides as Vinobe Bhave some years ago did when armed fighters of several factions in the Kashmir turned in their weapons and efforts are needed on both sides as is happening currently between India and Pakistan.
Attacking a religion such as Islam as "illogical" because of belief in God is not productive.
Two things though I would suggest for this discussion:
First of all needed is a historical perspective on religions which seems lacking in the comments of people when they are addressing issues especially in the Middle East and
secondly a deference to the cultural background of Arabic language when discussing these issues...
For instance, it's not a euphemism if I stress that Jihad means "struggle" rather than "fighting" as the actual meaning of the word "Jihad" is "An effort or a striving".
Also, to understand the concept of Jihad one has to see the historical context in order to understand it's developement over time, hence my remarks earlier about early Islam... The same is true of the "Jizyah" tax.... You won't have any understanding of this without knowing how this concept developed and where it came from....
- Art
"I sincerely hope you consider that peace in the world would include more than just the three main Abrahamic religions."
Comment:
I was directing my attention primarily to the Middle East and the Holy Land when I mentioned Jews, Christians and Moslems getting along....We could include Sikhs, Hindus and Moslems if we're considering Kashmir and the Punjab or Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems in Nepal and Moslems and Hindus in India and so on.
The way I think to lessen tensions is to encourage communication between the various sides as Vinobe Bhave some years ago did when armed fighters of several factions in the Kashmir turned in their weapons and efforts are needed on both sides as is happening currently between India and Pakistan.
Attacking a religion such as Islam as "illogical" because of belief in God is not productive.
Two things though I would suggest for this discussion:
First of all needed is a historical perspective on religions which seems lacking in the comments of people when they are addressing issues especially in the Middle East and
secondly a deference to the cultural background of Arabic language when discussing these issues...
For instance, it's not a euphemism if I stress that Jihad means "struggle" rather than "fighting" as the actual meaning of the word "Jihad" is "An effort or a striving".
Also, to understand the concept of Jihad one has to see the historical context in order to understand it's developement over time, hence my remarks earlier about early Islam... The same is true of the "Jizyah" tax.... You won't have any understanding of this without knowing how this concept developed and where it came from....
- Art
arthra said:
Absolutely. It's like any relationship. If there's no communication, there's no relationship.
Once again I agree, but it's up to the reader to decide whether they consider that hostile or not. However I wouldn't use the word attacking,(no I'm not going to offer a euphemism). When I crit a religion, I treat it like any other idea. Not as a person which is offended, but as an ideaology which should be able to take criticism. If it is the truth, then there's nothing to worry about. It's the adherents who identify with the religion who take offence. But there's nothing I can do about that.
Here's another problem I find in religions. The identification of the self with the religion. Another time perhaps.
Smooth. HA!
If this means what I think it does, then it doesn't match up with suggestion number 1. Remember that history is the root of culture. Language is bound to culture. Just like the word 'Jihad'.
We're totally getting off the subject here. Forget about terms and personages and please explain the story you quoted. If the non-muslim in the story was so easily converted, tell me what I'm missing. What don't I see that he does.
OK, but now that we've had the history lesson, argue the point. That's what we're here for. (Perhaps we can just keep to Imam Ali's story.)
------------
Please. Treat me like a computer. I take in information, I give out my opinion. I live thousands of miles away. If I don't seem to know what I'm talking about, then you have nothing to be offended by. The attachment to the self is man's greatest obstacle to happiness.
Could we *PLEASE* stick to the subject.
I am argueing about the story. THE STORY.
And I quote:
And if it doesn't go against the teaching, then we should discuss it !?
You have to be careful on these forums. Once you've put something down in writing, it stays.
It has been brought to my attention that my posts have been coming across as confrontational and attacking to others.
Unfortunately this is a prickly subject by it's very nature with thorny people and itchy views. If we're to get to the bottom of any subject without losing ourselves in niceties or totally going off the subject, we have to be Frank. I mean frank.
I could sandwich in cliches like 'The truth hurts' or 'If you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen', but that would be tactless.
Personally I can't see how you can talk about such a volatile issue without offending people's delicate sensitivities.
Nevertheless, I'll pay more attention to what I say and how I say it.
I just ask that people stick to the subject and let minor opinions pass without getting their knickers in a knot.
Unfortunately this is a prickly subject by it's very nature with thorny people and itchy views. If we're to get to the bottom of any subject without losing ourselves in niceties or totally going off the subject, we have to be Frank. I mean frank.
I could sandwich in cliches like 'The truth hurts' or 'If you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen', but that would be tactless.
Personally I can't see how you can talk about such a volatile issue without offending people's delicate sensitivities.
Nevertheless, I'll pay more attention to what I say and how I say it.
I just ask that people stick to the subject and let minor opinions pass without getting their knickers in a knot.
arthra
Baha'i
Ozz^E wrote:
"The Jizya tax is taken for the privileges the State provides. The person who pays the tax (the amount of which wouldnt even go close to anything that could be labelled economic exploitation), is gauranteed protection by the muslim army and is given equal rights on par by any muslim in the state. The state even provides for their religious/worship needs. Indeed, there have been incidnet sin Islamic history where on realising that protection of its citizens was something that couldnt be reasonably gauranteed, the Caliph of the time has ordered the collect tax to be given back to those who paid it.
And as to now, there is no Islamic state in the world. But when it does return, the jizya tax shall be again reinstated until the return of Jesus (peace be upon him) who will abolish the tax."
My comment:
Good points Ozz^e.....
I was also reading in "A Dictionary of Islam" by TPH Hughes that Jizyah could be established voluntarily or be enforced.... and was usually one dinar for every male.....women and children were exempt.
I also did a little research in "The Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an" by Abdul Mannan Omar on the word "Jihad" which is "Jahada" on p. 106
"There is nothing in the word to indicate that this striving is to be effected by the sword (Razi). According to Raghib "Jihad" is a struggle against a visible enemy... Jihad is, therefore far from synonymous with war. Its meaning as war undertaken for the propagation of religion is unknown to Arablc language and Islam."
- Art
"The Jizya tax is taken for the privileges the State provides. The person who pays the tax (the amount of which wouldnt even go close to anything that could be labelled economic exploitation), is gauranteed protection by the muslim army and is given equal rights on par by any muslim in the state. The state even provides for their religious/worship needs. Indeed, there have been incidnet sin Islamic history where on realising that protection of its citizens was something that couldnt be reasonably gauranteed, the Caliph of the time has ordered the collect tax to be given back to those who paid it.
And as to now, there is no Islamic state in the world. But when it does return, the jizya tax shall be again reinstated until the return of Jesus (peace be upon him) who will abolish the tax."
My comment:
Good points Ozz^e.....
I was also reading in "A Dictionary of Islam" by TPH Hughes that Jizyah could be established voluntarily or be enforced.... and was usually one dinar for every male.....women and children were exempt.
I also did a little research in "The Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an" by Abdul Mannan Omar on the word "Jihad" which is "Jahada" on p. 106
"There is nothing in the word to indicate that this striving is to be effected by the sword (Razi). According to Raghib "Jihad" is a struggle against a visible enemy... Jihad is, therefore far from synonymous with war. Its meaning as war undertaken for the propagation of religion is unknown to Arablc language and Islam."
- Art
A
arielmessenger
Guest
God as territory
One of these days, Abrahamic religionists will stop trying to make the Kingdom of God into a territorial religious state and then there might be a chance of peace in the world.
How Abrahamic religionists can hold the illogical gods they worship as One, (ha ha) and still maintain God stands for peace when whenever these religionists gain political power they promptly use God to start taking the basic human rights away from everyone. Not content to stop there, they historically start killing people who don't toe the religious Party Line. Muslims should be twice convicted in their hearts as "Islam" means not just "surrender to the will of God" but "surrender to God as Peace". Where is God as peace when God says kill unbelievers?
One of these days, Abrahamic religionists will stop trying to make the Kingdom of God into a territorial religious state and then there might be a chance of peace in the world.
How Abrahamic religionists can hold the illogical gods they worship as One, (ha ha) and still maintain God stands for peace when whenever these religionists gain political power they promptly use God to start taking the basic human rights away from everyone. Not content to stop there, they historically start killing people who don't toe the religious Party Line. Muslims should be twice convicted in their hearts as "Islam" means not just "surrender to the will of God" but "surrender to God as Peace". Where is God as peace when God says kill unbelievers?