Sunday, April 9, 2017

Warriors of Al-Islam: Sharing Peace by Vanquishing the Oppressor



David R. Carpenter - Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism, so why is the Quran not a pacifist text?

If war and murder are not holy, why does the Qur'an permit state-sanctioned killing in limited contexts?

Muhammad Rasheed - The Qur'an isn't a pacifist text because the One God of Abraham sees no value in extreme pacifism.

In the Qur'an, Allah says that killing is indeed wrong, but it is MORE wrong to allow oppression and evil to run a muck. If the dedicated wrong doer refuses to listen to reason, then physical violence is a viable option in order to force an environment where people can live peacefully and free of oppression.



Roham Jackson - It depends what you mean or understand by “religion of peace”.

If the understanding is - to bring about a state of peace amongst mankind (which is my understanding), then it may be that engaging in non-pacifist activities are required at times. It wouldn't contradict the statement.

Not that the aforementioned exoresssion is an explicit doctrine or text within Islam.

Muhammad Rasheed
- I considered the Qur'an verses I quoted to be that very "explicit doctrine." God clearly does NOT want the righteous to stand by and watch evil be inflicted upon innocents, and God is the Author of ethics/morality on earth, Determiner of the difference between good and evil for our guidance.

David R. Carpenter - why is the Quran not a pacifist text?

Muhammad Rasheed - Because the One God of Abraham sees no value in extreme pacifism, per the verses quoted above.

David R. Carpenter - Well, you would think that a religion that proclaims itself to be the “Religion of Peace” would in my opinion be a passive text. (live and let live) .

Muhammad Rasheed - No, I wouldn't think that. I would see the matter from the viewpoint of the Author of that religion. The idea of "live and let live" while being oppressed by a savage wealth & power hoarding conqueror, or watching others be subjugated and exploited by the same, is not being "peaceful." It's being cowardly, and actually aids the conqueror. There's nothing "peaceful" in standing impotently to the side and allowing evil to infest the land.

Adherents to the Religion of Peace destroy the oppressor, and allow all to be at Peace. They do not crawl in a ball somewhere and plug their ears to keep out the screams of the suffering.

David R. Carpenter - Muhammad wrote: "The idea of 'live and let live' while being oppressed by a savage wealth & power hoarding conqueror, or watching others be subjugated and exploited by the same, is not being 'peaceful.' It's being cowardly, and actually aids the conqueror."

But isn’t this what Muhammad did during the battles of Badr, The Battle of Trench?

Muhammad Rasheed - How would that be? The Muslims were the ones under attack, and actively engaged in the battles against the pagans for their lives and faith.

David R. Carpenter - AHHH, I believe you should really study the history of Islam rather than rely just on the faith.

The truth sounds like hate to those who hate to know the truth.

Muslims believe that Muhammad was morally perfect, and that an examination of his life will prove that he was a prophet. The evidence, however, shows that Muhammad was far from morally perfect, and that there’s no good reason to believe that he was sent by god(Allah). There is a world of difference, then, between the Muhammad of history and the Muhammad of faith.

The true history of Muhammad is a huge problem for Islam.

Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. In fact, Muslims have been so persistent in ignoring the facts about their prophet that the Muhammad now proclaimed by Islam bears little resemblance to the man who preached in Arabia more than thirteen centuries ago.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world’s best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Dave, I'm less interested in your slanderous rant, and instead look forward to you explaining why you believe the Badr/Trench battles represented the Muslims behaving cowardly. Or do you somehow think it was the powerful pagans that were the ones standing to the side watching a small band of Muslims do all the oppressing?

David R. Carpenter - I never stated that the Muslims were” less cowardly” you made that assertion. If you do the research you will find that the Muslims were the aggressors .

And I am not interested in your apologist rant. So this discussion ends. Thank you for commenting Good day.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, I did provide two options based on my interpretation of your vague original comment. If the "behaving cowardly" option didn't fit, how about address the other?

Since you cut and ran, I'm forced to interpret your line "you should really study the history of Islam" to actually mean: "You should hang out on atheist anti-Islam websites and be indoctrinated into foolishness." This much is now clear. lol Dave, "If you should attempt to prove me wrong, you better make damn sure your facts and evidence are straight and true." Thank you.

David R. Carpenter - But you can’t and didn’t prove me wrong.

Let me try and explain, most of what we know of Muhammad are taken from Islamic sources. There is virtually no other accounts that exist from other sources that explain the exploits and life of Muhammad. So what we do have is a biased Islamic account.

I personally view history like a coin, most people see it from front and back. One side tells it from one side while the other side of the coin tells it from the opposing view, but what we have in the case of Muhammad is only one side of the coin if you will.

I personally like to view history from a side of the coin very few people even consider, that is the “edge of the coin” To me that is where the truth is.

But in the case of the history of Muhammad, we only have one side…The Islamic side which in my opinion is a “two headed coin”.

Muhammad Rasheed - I suppose I can never prove you wrong if you continue your tradition of question ducking and fleeing from battle, hm? I was using your own bio quote against you. :)

Since Muhammad is the prophet of Islam, I reckon all literature sources that reference him would be Islamic by default. This is not inherently bad I would think, even from a cock-eyed atheist position, but I can't pretend to know the atheist mind. lol Do you believe your interpretation of Al-Islam is somehow not biased, Dave? Atheists are biased against the possibility of spirit, and therefore, lack objectivity. Islam is a spiritual system, you know?

Anyway, you admit that everything we know about the prophet is contained within the appropriately named "Islamic literature," but you take the stance that all of that info about Muhammad must be 100% wrong, and only by turning it on its head and painting Muhammad as a monster will we have arrived at the truth. This nonsense is the impression that you've left on me thus far (after question ducking and cutting & running first mind).

If this isn't your position, and the one you really have actually makes sense in this universe, then please do a better job of holding up your end of the argument. En garde.

David R. Carpenter - Muhammad wrote: "but you take the stance that all of that info about Muhammad must be 100% wrong, and only by turning it on its head and painting Muhammad as a monster will we have arrived at the truth."

I am not implying anything of the kind. If you read my profile correctly, it also states that I am a seeker of truth. We in all honesty do NOT KNOW the truth as it relates to Muhammad only what is BELIEVED to be the truth .based on Islamic sources.

Muslims believe that Muhammad was morally perfect, and that an examination of his life will prove that he was a prophet. The evidence, however, shows that Muhammad was far from morally perfect, and that there’s no good reason to believe that he was sent by god(Allah). There is a world of difference, then, between the Muhammad of history and the Muhammad of faith.

The true history of Muhammad is a huge problem for Islam.

Tragically, examining the evidence is something that most Muslims seem unwilling to do. In fact, Muslims have been so persistent in ignoring the facts about their prophet that the Muhammad now proclaimed by Islam bears little resemblance to the man who preached in Arabia more than thirteen centuries ago.

The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world’s best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed

Again, my opinion.

Muhammad Rasheed - You're repeating your rant from earlier, despite me explaining that I have no interest in your unsupported anti-Islam soapbox. And yes, you may consider my use of "unsupported" to be a challenge. Do it, if you're able. Throw down your rod.

I'll understand if you're NOT able, of course. Hot air isn't exactly scarce from the atheist crowd.

David R. Carpenter - But you also cannot do it from the theist crowd either.

You want the last word you may have it, I have no interest in your unsupported anti-Islam soapbox. But you cannot dispute the facts I disclosed.

Thanks for the discussion, it was very informative.

Good-day.

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure you can do it from the theist crowd; that's the side with the open mind capable of contemplating the immaterial spirit concept without rolling their eyes. Need I remind you that's the side that built civilization as we know it?

What facts did you disclose? That everything we know about Muhammad has the "Made in Islam" label on it? Okay, I'll give you that one. And? What else do you have? How about go back and answer my questions from earlier so we can have a real duel of ideas? Hurry! My rapier blade aches to warm itself in your hollowly pretentious atheist belly.

If you keep giving me comedy material how am I NOT going to give the illusion of looking for the last word? lol

No comments:

Post a Comment