Comment on No to Honor Killing -2 by Nayzak
Islam needs that. especially since it has a long list of people it oppressed in its 1400 year history; Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians, Hindus, Catholics, gays
I am afraid I don't agree with you here. we don't change Islam to fit our desires. followers of other religions are free to change their religion if they want. but for us, the word of the God should never be changed by man. therefore, we don't need Vatican II or Vatican III.
Islam is already perfect as it is.
and you are making a Mistake there. Islam didn't oppress anybody. if an oppressor happens to be a Muslim but he is acting against Islamic teachings, Islam shouldn't take the blame.
Islam, like any other religion, had its tolerance phases and oppressive phases in history.
wrong again. we need to make a clear distinction between "the religious teachings" and "the behavior of ignorant followers of a faith". Islam as a religion is tolerant and doesn't support any kinds of injustice, persecution or oppression. Muslims are people, and like any other humans, there are the good ones among them and there are the bad ones. there are those who follow their religious teachings and there are those who don't follow them but use religion in ways to justify their corrupted actions. we can't blame Islam for what Muslims do if it's against what Islam teaches.
for example, Islam is against honor killing. we can't say "since some Muslims do Honor Killing, then Islam has to change." this doesn't make any sense. but you'll be absolutely right if you said "since some Muslims do honor killing, and since this practice is forbidden in Islam, those Muslims have to learn their religion better."
Peace be to you.
I am afraid I don't agree with you here. we don't change Islam to fit our desires. followers of other religions are free to change their religion if they want. but for us, the word of the God should never be changed by man. therefore, we don't need Vatican II or Vatican III.
Islam is already perfect as it is. and you are making a Mistake there. Islam didn't oppress anybody. if an oppressor happens to be a Muslim but he is acting against Islamic teachings, Islam shouldn't take the blame.
Islam, like any other religion, had its tolerance phases and oppressive phases in history.
wrong again. we need to make a clear distinction between "the religious teachings" and "the behavior of ignorant followers of a faith". Islam as a religion is tolerant and doesn't support any kinds of injustice, persecution or oppression. Muslims are people, and like any other humans, there are the good ones among them and there are the bad ones. there are those who follow their religious teachings and there are those who don't follow them but use religion in ways to justify their corrupted actions. we can't blame Islam for what Muslims do if it's against what Islam teaches.
for example, Islam is against honor killing. we can't say "since some Muslims do Honor Killing, then Islam has to change." this doesn't make any sense. but you'll be absolutely right if you said "since some Muslims do honor killing, and since this practice is forbidden in Islam, those Muslims have to learn their religion better."
Peace be to you.
What I was saying is that the tolerant Muslims should tighten the noose and fight against the intolerant Muslims even harder. Because from the perspective of the Copts, the Hindus, and the Greek Orthodox, Islam was the aggressor. Islam destroyed their empires, remember. Muslims of today need to stretch out their goodwill. The Vatican didn't change Catholicism during Vatican II, they just changed the way it was taught to make it more open to all. Muslims should do the same.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Because from the perspective of the Copts, the Hindus, and the Greek Orthodox, Islam was the aggressor. Islam destroyed their empires, remember.
I am afraid you still don't get what I said. if Islam was the cause of the oppression, then you wouldn't find any Christian Coptic today, you wouldn't find any Hindu. look, Islam ruled in Egypt for over a thousand of years, and look today, you still find Coptic Christians. if Islam wanted to erase them, do you think they would be existing today? Islam ruled in India for hundreds of years. and look today, you find countless various religious groups. if Islam wanted to wipe them all, you would find India today as a Muslim country with no minorities. Islam ruled Spain for hundreds of years. if Islam wanted to wipe out the Christians from the land, Spain would have remained a Muslim country today.
the point is, Islam supports freedom of religion and tolerance. it's true, there were some intolerant Muslims throughout history, there were/are bad Muslims. but we need to make a clear distinction. what a bad Muslim does doesn't always reflect Islam. and Islam doesn't take the responsibility and blame for the un-Islamic actions of its followers.
I agree with you when you say "tolerant Muslims should fight against intolerant ones" but when you say "Islam was the aggressor", that doesn't hold any truth in it. Islam, as a religion, didn't oppress anybody. the Muslims who followed Islam didn't oppress anybody. the Muslims who didn't follow Islam did oppress and persecute. we would be unfair to blame Islam for the behavior of these Muslims.
here, I am trying to fight the 'bad Muslim' with knowledge and true Islam. I believe Muslims and non-Muslims would be able to learn and like this, the bad elements will be spotted easily and it'll be easy to spot the un-Islamic behaviors of the bad or ignorant Muslims.
peace be to you.
I am afraid you still don't get what I said. if Islam was the cause of the oppression, then you wouldn't find any Christian Coptic today, you wouldn't find any Hindu. look, Islam ruled in Egypt for over a thousand of years, and look today, you still find Coptic Christians. if Islam wanted to erase them, do you think they would be existing today? Islam ruled in India for hundreds of years. and look today, you find countless various religious groups. if Islam wanted to wipe them all, you would find India today as a Muslim country with no minorities. Islam ruled Spain for hundreds of years. if Islam wanted to wipe out the Christians from the land, Spain would have remained a Muslim country today.
the point is, Islam supports freedom of religion and tolerance. it's true, there were some intolerant Muslims throughout history, there were/are bad Muslims. but we need to make a clear distinction. what a bad Muslim does doesn't always reflect Islam. and Islam doesn't take the responsibility and blame for the un-Islamic actions of its followers.
I agree with you when you say "tolerant Muslims should fight against intolerant ones" but when you say "Islam was the aggressor", that doesn't hold any truth in it. Islam, as a religion, didn't oppress anybody. the Muslims who followed Islam didn't oppress anybody. the Muslims who didn't follow Islam did oppress and persecute. we would be unfair to blame Islam for the behavior of these Muslims.
here, I am trying to fight the 'bad Muslim' with knowledge and true Islam. I believe Muslims and non-Muslims would be able to learn and like this, the bad elements will be spotted easily and it'll be easy to spot the un-Islamic behaviors of the bad or ignorant Muslims.
peace be to you.
They didn't erase them because they needed a slave populace. They needed someone to feed their Janissary machines and to be the ones the outlaws and the law both picked on. IE. the Copts in Egypt. Mubarak prosecuted them, the Muslim brotherhood persecuted them, both sides treated them as Dhimmis-second-class citizens, according to their religious rites, and Muslims did that for centuries. When both the law-abiding Muslims and the bandit outlaw Muslims attack the Copts, and nobody from the Muslim community did anything about it, then it is Islam since nobody from the Muslims dare lifted a finger, and if one did, he or she is persecuted for standing up for the Dhimmis. Even when the Spanish Inquisition persecuted the Muslims and Jews of its day, they at least ALLOWED the Jews and Muslims to leave first, and even in those days, the pope himself condemned the Inquisition, which was hijacked by the Spanish monarchy, and he showed his displeasure by opening the gates of Rome to refugees escaping the Inquisition. But for the Orthodox Christians in Greece during the days of the Ottomans, the Armenians and the Copts and even the Iraqi Catholics who suffer today from persecutions and kidnappings, there were no Muslims who stood up for them. Not amongst the Muslims, anyhow. The problem is that the "enlightened" Muslims do nothing while the backwards hicks Muslims are the ones who are allowed to do whatever they want. Apathy is a sin of omission. A sin of doing nothing while people whom they could easily save suffer. Apathy is death. It is worse than death, since at the very least, the dead feed the maggots and the crows.
Even during the earliest days of the Crusades and the Inquisition, to the days of its height of power during the Renaissance, there were people in Christendom who fought against them. Roger Bacon, an influential Franciscan and the inventor of the Modern scientific theory, condemned the Crusades saying that the victims will just be hardened against the Cross. During the Inquisition, local bishops and their lackeys protested and resisted this papal or monarchial intrusion in a matter that they themselves should handle; the reason why Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer wrote the guide to hunting witches and tried to institutionalize witch-hunts was because of the fact that he was pissed off that the local churches thwarted his witch-hunting attempts and sided with the defendants whom he accused of witchcraft, and even later, his fellow Inquisitors threw away the book and it was used later on, ironically, by the enemies of the Inquisition such as the Protestants when "hunting witches" - an activity the Renaissance and Reformation Inquisition vehemently opposed.
If Medieval Christians (and Muslims) can outdo modern Muslims in standing up for minorities, then something is wrong.
Even during the earliest days of the Crusades and the Inquisition, to the days of its height of power during the Renaissance, there were people in Christendom who fought against them. Roger Bacon, an influential Franciscan and the inventor of the Modern scientific theory, condemned the Crusades saying that the victims will just be hardened against the Cross. During the Inquisition, local bishops and their lackeys protested and resisted this papal or monarchial intrusion in a matter that they themselves should handle; the reason why Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer wrote the guide to hunting witches and tried to institutionalize witch-hunts was because of the fact that he was pissed off that the local churches thwarted his witch-hunting attempts and sided with the defendants whom he accused of witchcraft, and even later, his fellow Inquisitors threw away the book and it was used later on, ironically, by the enemies of the Inquisition such as the Protestants when "hunting witches" - an activity the Renaissance and Reformation Inquisition vehemently opposed.
If Medieval Christians (and Muslims) can outdo modern Muslims in standing up for minorities, then something is wrong.
I am afraid you are misinformed in Islamic history. you are trying to present falsehood as facts to mislead the ignorant ones.
first, I'd like to mention that you don't seem to understand when someone tries to correct your mistakes. I repeated many times that there is a difference between Islamic teachings and what bad Muslims do. and you keep insisting to push that Islam is to blame for what bad Muslims do. I really don't care if you want to believe Islam is bad. but I am afraid I am not interested to keep repeating the same thing over and over.
second, the Muslims didn't keep the Copts for enslavement. you don't even know how Islam deals with slavery which makes your claim obviously false. Islam reached many lands. following the religion was an offer that any citizen could accept or reject. political occupation was separated from religious spreading. many Coptic people chose to follow Islam (mainly those who knew that Mohammed was the prophet prophecized by Jesus and those who found that Islam is the truth). but others chose to remain Christians. Islam allowed them to live peacefully under a just and fair law. they were never harmed. and you calling Dhimmi a 'second class citizen' shows your ignorance of the meaning of the word 'Dhimmi'. this word simply means a non-Muslim living in a Muslim land. and through the history of Islamic civilization, non-Muslims living in Muslim land got more freedom than any Muslim living in non-Muslim land. The Jews, for example, lived peacefully with the Muslims and the Christians in Andalusia until the Reconquista when they were persecuted by the Christians. and telling me that the Muslims and Jews were allowed to leave is a funny joke. they were persecuted and put to death. and the Spaniards tried their best to keep them from leaving. thankfully the Ottomans were able to help save many of them and take them to North Africa.
another example is when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they spread the love of their faith by butchering the Jews and the Muslims there without mercy. it was thanks to great rulers such as Salahuddin, that Justice was achieved in the Holy land. when he got back Jerusalem, he allowed the Christians safe trip to return to their lands. but of course, you will only want to believe what 'suits' you. you are free to do that.
In the time of the last prophet of the God, Mohammed -peace and blessings be upon him-, he welcomed a delegation of over 60 Christian from the town of Najran. they went to Madinah to debate and discuss religion with the prophet. he allowed them to stay, eat, talk, sleep and even pray in the Mosque. what tolerance is greater than that. the prophet made a treaty to the St Catherin Monastery in Sinai, which is still available until today. in that treaty, you can read how Islam offers great freedom to non-Muslim citizens in Muslim land.
What you are doing here is just what many missionaries do: bring a bad example from Islam in one side. and a good example from Christianity in another side. and then conclude that Christianity is the truth. this approach is already outdated. it doesn't work on knowledgeable Muslims. especially if they know Christianity well.
I see this discussion is going nowhere. let's just admit that we agreed to disagree. now I close this discussion peacefully.
peace be to you.
first, I'd like to mention that you don't seem to understand when someone tries to correct your mistakes. I repeated many times that there is a difference between Islamic teachings and what bad Muslims do. and you keep insisting to push that Islam is to blame for what bad Muslims do. I really don't care if you want to believe Islam is bad. but I am afraid I am not interested to keep repeating the same thing over and over.
second, the Muslims didn't keep the Copts for enslavement. you don't even know how Islam deals with slavery which makes your claim obviously false. Islam reached many lands. following the religion was an offer that any citizen could accept or reject. political occupation was separated from religious spreading. many Coptic people chose to follow Islam (mainly those who knew that Mohammed was the prophet prophecized by Jesus and those who found that Islam is the truth). but others chose to remain Christians. Islam allowed them to live peacefully under a just and fair law. they were never harmed. and you calling Dhimmi a 'second class citizen' shows your ignorance of the meaning of the word 'Dhimmi'. this word simply means a non-Muslim living in a Muslim land. and through the history of Islamic civilization, non-Muslims living in Muslim land got more freedom than any Muslim living in non-Muslim land. The Jews, for example, lived peacefully with the Muslims and the Christians in Andalusia until the Reconquista when they were persecuted by the Christians. and telling me that the Muslims and Jews were allowed to leave is a funny joke. they were persecuted and put to death. and the Spaniards tried their best to keep them from leaving. thankfully the Ottomans were able to help save many of them and take them to North Africa.
another example is when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they spread the love of their faith by butchering the Jews and the Muslims there without mercy. it was thanks to great rulers such as Salahuddin, that Justice was achieved in the Holy land. when he got back Jerusalem, he allowed the Christians safe trip to return to their lands. but of course, you will only want to believe what 'suits' you. you are free to do that.
In the time of the last prophet of the God, Mohammed -peace and blessings be upon him-, he welcomed a delegation of over 60 Christian from the town of Najran. they went to Madinah to debate and discuss religion with the prophet. he allowed them to stay, eat, talk, sleep and even pray in the Mosque. what tolerance is greater than that. the prophet made a treaty to the St Catherin Monastery in Sinai, which is still available until today. in that treaty, you can read how Islam offers great freedom to non-Muslim citizens in Muslim land.
What you are doing here is just what many missionaries do: bring a bad example from Islam in one side. and a good example from Christianity in another side. and then conclude that Christianity is the truth. this approach is already outdated. it doesn't work on knowledgeable Muslims. especially if they know Christianity well.
I see this discussion is going nowhere. let's just admit that we agreed to disagree. now I close this discussion peacefully.
peace be to you.
Comment Flagged as Spam
what are you trying to achieve by pushing your opinions in my page? I noticed this kind of sickness among many people of your faith. when they see a peaceful and tolerant Muslim, they think they can take advantage and attack Islam on his own page. you want to spread hate and falsehood, why don't you do it in your own page?
your comment is to be flagged as spam. I am not gonna waste my time reading it. nobody will read your Christian propaganda in my page.
and I am giving you a first warning.
if you want to spread your opinions, your page can do the job.
if you want to learn about Islam, or express peaceful opinions, you are welcome in my page. but if you come here trying to look knowledgeable while spreading lies and falsehood to attack Islam, then I am afraid, my page is not for Christian propaganda.
peace be on those who follow right guidance.
your comment is to be flagged as spam. I am not gonna waste my time reading it. nobody will read your Christian propaganda in my page.
and I am giving you a first warning.
if you want to spread your opinions, your page can do the job.
if you want to learn about Islam, or express peaceful opinions, you are welcome in my page. but if you come here trying to look knowledgeable while spreading lies and falsehood to attack Islam, then I am afraid, my page is not for Christian propaganda.
peace be on those who follow right guidance.
Both sides do propaganda honey, it's their way of expressing themselves.
Peace be with you.
Peace be with you.
View all replies