Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Sure. History books.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Sure. History books.
Peace Seminole
Please provide a reference
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Everyone knows the rapid expansion of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries was do to military conquest. It is documented history, even Islamic history.
Yes, many conversions were due to the forceful personality of Muhammed, his wisdom and talents. But also with the lure of fortune for those who succeeded in conquest, for their own safety and the promise of salvation for those who died fighting for Islam. Caravan raids became full scale wars. Assasinations, beheadings, slavery, expulsions, ransoms, destruction of idols and 10,000 men armies all led to "conversion". I'm not making this up, it's out there for all to read. So what part do I (or recorded history) have wrong?
Peace again Seminole
Where is the reference again I ask ... simply saying history books is not good enough. To say that you have "disrespected" Islam by this post is not adequate ... you are disrespecting our intelligence.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Peace Seminole
This is a prime example of disrespecting our intelligence
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
It wasn't an attempt to insult anyone's intelligence, I honestly didn't realize that anything in my post was obscure enough to require a reference. I have read those things in more than one book. I have those books at my other house, but I can't get my hands on them until next week. I suppose I could google it, but I don't have time right now. I am off to a charity lunch.
Please correct me where I am wrong. If I am, I apologize. I am sure you have references.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
As a proud Hindu Brahmin that tries to live life honestly and doing as much good to others as I can, I relish thrive and celebrate the reassurance of morality that my religion provides me. This in spite of the different ways we are attacked by others who, whether they understand Sanathana Dharma or not, do not hesitate to latch on to the caste discrimination bandwagon. Little do they realize that most Brahmins are very poor, that they form less than 5% of the population and are systematically by law excluded from competing for somewhere between 40 to 90% of professional college seats, jobs, low-interest loans etc.
could it be that the lower casts are taking revenge?
[quote]
Anyway, I have always been curious about an aspect of Islam. How is it that there seems to be an almost even split between those muslims that think it is ok to co-exist and respect other religions and those who think that to be a 'good' muslim one has to try and discourage other religions; one group that thinks Allah is their God and it is ok for others to think of God in other terms such as Sri Rama, Sri Krishna...and the second group that think even acknowledging the others is incompatible for a muslim.
And then the final irony - how can half the muslim population accept the other half as muslims in spite of these fundamental differences but cannot extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population?
[/quote]
political correctness has had people come up with very weird concepts. The simple act of a person to follow one religion over others means they consider the one they follow to be the right one. If for example, a person follows religion A but also considers B, C and D to be equally or more truthful, then why should s/he be so insistent on following A and not others? If the person chooses A and is not willing to change it to B, C or D it clearly means they consider A to be the rightly guided one and B, C and D to be false.
As far as others' right to follow B, C or D is concerned, there is no argument but to say that B, C and D are also right is dishonest on the part of the person who knows in his/her heart that A is the only right one.
Now coming to the points you raised, I do not consider hinduism in its present form to be right just as you don't consider islam to be true. But i have no issues with you following your heart and practicing whatever you believe to be true. I believe that every person should have the right to follow whichever religion they feel comfortable with and nobody has any business telling them whether or how to follow their religion.
The muslims that, in your words, acknowledge other 'forms' of the same God are being dishonest. They either don't believe in islam or they are lying to you on your face. Its quite simple really. If I believe there is only one eternal God who doesn't take different forms and somone tells me He took a certain form at one time and another at a different time and those two forms were different and independent, i can not in all honesty agree with that person. So what comfort, if any, can you derive from a person's dishonesty.
There is an important distinction to be made here. I used the word 'forms' where you used 'terms'. I, as a muslim, believe all terms used for God in different parts of the world like, Bhagwaan, Yehova, Allah, Khuda etc. are the same entity so i have no quarrels with somone calling Him with a different name. However, i do not agree with giving His creations one of these titles and then considering that creation a part of His being.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Peace hypnotix-2000
And peace be with you brother. It's been a while.
The reason why someone is a Muslim is not about accepting the kafir in his kufr, rather it is about accepting the kafir in his humanity and rejecting the kufr.
If we accept the kufr then we are committing it too.
Depends on your understanding of Kufr. The word comes from KFR which refers to a farmer who hides a seed in the soil. Kufr in Quranic terms describes a person who hides the truth underneath his illconceived notions: idols. The more he tries to hide it, the more the truth comes out at him, like a plant sprouting from the soil. Kafir is a description of those who reject (not in Indo-Europen sense but in the real Semitic sense) something and try to hide the truth.
As for the Truth, the implication is that those who rejected the message knew what the Truth was, that their rituals and tradition was leading them into societal chaos and creating divisions such as the elite, the clergy, and the commoners, and yet they rejected the Truth by hiding it underneath their invented traditions. Sounds familliar to me...
The distinction that you mention in the Qur'an about the way the construct is worded is accurate and I applaud you in making that distinction. However, my point is not about tact, it is about what is required when we give dawah.
1) Best dawah is given by actions and conduct to others
2) When asked about beliefs we have to be accurate without stepping over egg-shells or else it would seem either we are apologetic about our beliefs or not convinced in them.
This I cannot disagree with since it is my own rhetoric... however, I am not sure about the agreement on the precise implementation on a day-to-day basis.
It is not considered forcing someone when we tell them what is in the Qur'an. That they aught to worship One God because it will save them. It is only considered forcing when we say this and then say 'we will make your life a misery if you don't accept that' in addition.
They ought to realize the truth, which calls for justice and equality for all humanity, and sacredness of all life, since it has the same source/origin (Rahmaan) and the same provider/sustainer (Raheem)
Respecting someones faith is by not ridiculing them to annoy, but you must agree that when Ibrahim (AS) destroyed the idols and placed the axe in the hands of the biggest ... that he was prompting them to think ... but some took offence to his manner. It was his (AS) intention that one should only dismantle anothers system if he provides a better one to go in it's place. Otherwise if he merely dismantles the system then this is as good as annoying for the purpose of annoying.
No argument there about the objective. Yet those who rejected considered their existing system better for their society; something familiar, yet again...
People should realise that if they are annoyed are they annoyed because we are making fun out of them or because there is some truth to what we are saying!
I would say we ought to do to others what we think ought to be done to us :)
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Hello
As a proud Hindu Brahmin that tries to live life honestly and doing as much good to others as I can, I relish thrive and celebrate the reassurance of morality that my religion provides me. This in spite of the different ways we are attacked by others who, whether they understand Sanathana Dharma or not, do not hesitate to latch on to the caste discrimination bandwagon. Little do they realize that most Brahmins are very poor, that they form less than 5% of the population and are systematically by law excluded from competing for somewhere between 40 to 90% of professional college seats, jobs, low-interest loans etc.
I will rather ignore this since this is not about comparing the two Islam and Hinduism. So lets move on to your real question.
Anyway, I have always been curious about an aspect of Islam. How is it that there seems to be an almost even split between those muslims that think it is ok to co-exist and respect other religions and those who think that to be a 'good' muslim one has to try and discourage other religions; one group that thinks Allah is their God and it is ok for others to think of God in other terms such as Sri Rama, Sri Krishna...and the second group that think even acknowledging the others is incompatible for a muslim.
Dear fellow, your first claim is that there is an even split which needs substantiated but I doubt there is evidence for this so we'll forget discussing this. The second point you made is presumptuous where you assume you know what muslims think or any individual muslim thinks. Please lets not propagate false information here or claims here. Perhaps these are questions ringing in your own head. Lets examine what you are thinking:
1 - Muslim people can find coexistence harmonious with people of other religions.
2 - Muslims respect other religions. You have interpreted this to mean that we accept that other religions preach a true message about God.
3 - Another type of muslim who finds it dutiful to discourage the acceptance of other religions.
4 - Acknowledging Gods being attributed as another name or accepting the message associated with the religion in which that name is used.
Is this correct, can we discuss further?
And then the final irony - how can half the muslim population accept the other half as muslims in spite of these fundamental differences but cannot extend the same courtesy to the rest of the population?
This is a foredrawn conclusion on your own assumption, so it has no basis for discussion until the points I have mentioned are cleared first. Your initial assumptions must be substantiated before we can validate the conclusions derived from them.
Are you willing to discuss further?
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Depends on your understanding of Kufr. The word comes from KFR which refers to a farmer who hides a seed in the soil. Kufr in Quranic terms describes a person who hides the truth underneath his illconceived notions: idols. The more he tries to hide it, the more the truth comes out at him, like a plant sprouting from the soil. Kafir is a description of those who reject (not in Indo-Europen sense but in the real Semitic sense) something and try to hide the truth.
As for the Truth, the implication is that those who rejected the message knew what the Truth was, that their rituals and tradition was leading them into societal chaos and creating divisions such as the elite, the clergy, and the commoners, and yet they rejected the Truth by hiding it underneath their invented traditions. Sounds familliar to me...
Nice explanation.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
That's not the whole story. While in his early years as prophet most converts came from preaching, the spread of Islam didn't really begin in earnest until less tolerant methods were used.
You mean when the Pagans and the Jews of Mecca united in an attempt to cleanse the land of the nescient Muslim population? Zero sum. Even Christ and his followers were not faced with such a proposition from the Romans.
That clearly violates PCG's criteria that others are minding their own business. The Pagans were doing anything but.
[quote]
Starting with the accumulation of wealth and power through the raiding of Meccan caravans and the expulsion and killing of the Jewish tribes of Medina.
[/quote]
The raiding of Meccan caravans did not start until the Meccans broke their treaty with the Muslims, effectively entering a defacto state of war. As for the Jews, they were allied with the Meccans. The Jews for the most part were expelled, with the exception of one tribe where all the men were caught in a subterfuge against the Muslims, which violated any sense of wartime protocol...and they were dealt with as per their own laws. So if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Jews...
Don't even speak of tolerance when such was the historical background for why the Muslims acted the way they did...unless, of course, you supported the Pagan and Jewish attempt at committing Genocide against the Muslims. And that's exactly what your reading of history does...it presumes that Muslims acted, and not reacted. It is the reaction that guides Muslims, to this day...not this revisionist bit of Muslims preemptively striking out against others once they were powerful enough.
There was a regression in relationships with Muslims and those who surrounded them...it is clear that the Pagans simply were not willing to coexist. The Muslims were...Muslims the world over are quite familiar with a Surah in the Quran that is a clear testament of their willingness to coexist in spite of the differences (Surah Kafiroon - 109).
However, as it turned out (and indeed, this history is all captured in the Quran itself) the Pagans had no interest in dealing with Muslims as an independent and distinct group...they had to compromise and essentially adopt Pagan practices (in particular, recognition of Pagan Gods), which of course the Muslims rejected.
As for the assertion that Islam was spread by the forcible conversion of the masses, there are ample proofs against that...from the existence of the Coptic minority, to the fact that Persia remained mostly Zoroastrian until well into the 10th century, to the rather calm dynamic between the early Muslims and the Chinese.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Peace Sister PyariCgudia
Does this mean we can't say La ilaha il Allah (There is none worthy of worship except Allah) ... any more?
Of course you can. But that statement does not imply anywhere that you are not TOLERATING anyone else believing differently. It is simply a declaration of what you believe.
For example. I can say, "I like the color red, and only the color red".
If I say this to you, am I telling you that you should also like the color red?
No.
But if I say "Anyone who doesn't like the color red is just wrong and that's unacceptable" - what does that statement tell you?
That tells you, that I don't think you should like any color BUT red.
Notice the difference?
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
So what part do I (or recorded history) have wrong?
The bit that correlates such common practices of the eara as a means of forcing people to Islam...that would be quite revisionist...
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Everyone knows the rapid expansion of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries was do to military conquest. It is documented history, even Islamic history.
Yes, many conversions were due to the forceful personality of Muhammed, his wisdom and talents. But also with the lure of fortune for those who succeeded in conquest, for their own safety and the promise of salvation for those who died fighting for Islam. Caravan raids became full scale wars. Assasinations, beheadings, slavery, expulsions, ransoms, destruction of idols and 10,000 men armies all led to "conversion". I'm not making this up, it's out there for all to read. So what part do I (or recorded history) have wrong?
Semi, people acknowledge the rapid spread of Islam yet pin up incorrect assumptions to it.
A conquest is a conquest irrespective of whether it was won in a defensive posture or offensive posture. You are implying the spread is implicated with an offensive posture. A war to defend oneself is war nonetheless and even a conquest if won, but you cannot benign it because it is a war. This is not fair.
The lure of fortune is blown out of proportion. The early wars were not fought by stated sanctioned soldiers or employeed soldiers but entirely by recruited militia's. This means they were not salaried soldiers of the state as it is the case today. Getting the spoils of war was not something muslims introduced or was against the norm of wars in those early centuries. Anyone who fought irrespective of the regime or empire they pledged allegience to, were alloted some share in the spoils of war. This was the way wars were fought back then. So if you intend to single out muslims for this, it is bias on your part for ignoring the other empires which collected the spoils of war similarly in their conquests. Infact during Umar RA he initiated the process where the state actually employed soldiers and the emphasis on gaining spoils of war was reduced. The property was left for the natives of the land. Please do read up history properly before making accusations and comment with just analysis on it. Things developed and evolved and norms changed.
Do you want to discuss the early history under its proper context, I will be glad to do so.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
I think we're all trying to say the same thing, which is why I say, this problem comes up in every religion.
The difference comes in regarding HOW you say it. If you are belittling people who don't believe the way you do, like Hareem did with her statement, then that is wrong and arrogant.
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Everyone knows the rapid expansion of Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries was do to military conquest. It is documented history, even Islamic history.
I'm not making this up, it's out there for all to read. So what part do I (or recorded history) have wrong?
***WRONG INDEED................ONE OF THE LARGEST MUSLIM COUNTRY IN THE WORLD......................
INDONESIA...................Only a few Sahabis went there..........the rest is History...same goes for China.........
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
Instead of saying "Its NOT OK for you to reject God"...why can you not say "I welcome anyone wanting to believe with open arms?"
I welcome anyone wanting to believe with open arms...But it's not OK to worship anyone besides the One True God...
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
So…All this happened when one man (Mohammed :saw: ) carried a sword against thousands and millions of unbelievers?
This alone is proof of the power of divine message…
And please, provide documented proofs of ‘Muslim conquests’…
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
I welcome anyone wanting to believe with open arms...But it's not OK to worship anyone besides the One True God...
It sounds better and nicer when you say that you're welcoming anyone who wants to believe with open arms. Why do you people persist in wanting to say things in a way that scares people away?
By you saying that its "Not OK for YOU to believe in anything other than Islam" - how have you peacefully invited someone to Islam? That's not a peaceful way to put it, and I dare you to say that to anyone's face. If you live abroad anywhere in the Western World, they will have you in jail or fine you for harassment. I hope you realize that.
2 Likes
Re: Respecting other religions - difference amongst muslims
It sounds better and nicer when you say that you're welcoming anyone who wants to believe with open arms. Why do you people persist in wanting to say things in a way that scares people away?
By you saying that its "Not OK for YOU to believe in anything other than Islam" - how have you peacefully invited someone to Islam? That's not a peaceful way to put it, and I dare you to say that to anyone's face. If you live abroad anywhere in the Western World, they will have you in jail or fine you for harassment. I hope you realize that.
Peace PyariCgudia
One day I was given a Christmas present not knowing what was in there from a previous employer. It was given to everyone. Inside I found a christmas pudding full of alcohol and a bottle of wine.
I didn't give the present back, I threw it away, yep in the dumpster. Somebody else could have consumed those haram things and something that is haram for us is haram for the whole of humanity. Islam was and is sent for the whole of humanity. It addresses the whole people as a unit. Ya ayyuhal insaan!
I do say all the time to people that it is our belief that this way called Islam has been preferred to us as humans to embody, however, with this I also say that salvation is in the Hands of God and He determines who is or is not going to go to heaven. This is what we believe and this is what I tell them.