It doesn't have anything to do with the exact dates of the date it was founded. You said 'And Islam does not predate Muhamed, does it?' You weren't even sure if Muhammad founded the f*cking religion, yet you feel confident enough to make brash comments about it. Go figure.
The reason I don't know whether he founded it or not, or when it was founded is because I consider it silly, and a complete fabrication based upon erroneous mythological religions that came before it. And since when is it important to know when something was founded or by whom to talk about the issues of the day. Get a grip man, you are losing it. DD
He is listed in various places as having been a humble merchent & also is thought of as a warrior. I don't remember Jesus picking up a sword. Of course, Jesus' history between like 12-30 is pretty vague, though there were testimonials written about it that the people writing the bible left out for political reasons. DD
What does 'picking up a sword' have to do with anything, DaDa? Muhammad wasn't Ghandi, if that's your point. And there is nothing wrong with being a 'warrior' as long as it's in self-defense.
Very true. tigermisson's post strikes me as extremely strange, after reading it a second time. The last thing the world needs is more weapons in the hands of people like Hezbollah, Iran, or Syria. That's exactly the self-pitying attitude that the "evil neocolonialists" are the source of the struggles of the "Muslim world", even though you say They are not going to get respect by becoming "stronger" or more "united" militarily. They lack a common understanding of how to deal with the extremist and intolerant elements within their own religion. No, they need to cleanse themselves from extremist elements. It's not about "building up more power" so that the "Muslim world" can compete better against the rest of the world or even fight the rest of the world better. It's about getting their house cleaned so that they can regain the respect of the rest of the world. The sad thing is that so many Muslims are in complete denial of this. Again, what they have to do first and foremost is not "pursuing their own interests" (in opposition to the rest of the world) but to show - to the extremist elements within their own religion and to the rest of the world - that they are a religion of peace, not of war, violence, and "death to all infidels". I understand that the majority of Muslims is peaceful, but as long as they don't manage to root out the extremists among their own, by isolating them within their religion and stopping them from soiling the whole religion with their actions, they don't do enough. As long as they keep trying to redirect blame, like some Muslim posters here do, as long as they keep making up justifications for inexcusable actions, or if they don't excuse them, at least relativize those actions, they have not understood anything, and they are to a certain extent guilty by association. Islamic fascism is the world's biggest threat in this century. And I am not so naive to think that this will easily be solved...or that it could be solved with traditional warfare. The solution can only come from within the "Muslim World". And the first step is realizing the problem, and understanding that solely redirecting blame and trying to play down will never ever lead to a solution. I have all the respect in the world for moderate Muslims who dare to forcefully distance themselves not only from those who abuse their religion, but also from those who allow this to happen. Those, to me, are good people, and intelligent people, and people who have understood the peaceful essence of the Muslim religion. Those who think they need to justify, redirect blame, point fingers at "the evil neo-colonialists" or call for Muslims to to unite against the rest of the world [have not understood anything. What guys like thacabbage and tigermission1 and some others ought to do is to read the outstanding works of their fellow Muslim Prof. Bassam Tibi. The following article is by Bassam Tibi, a German scholar on international relations concerning Islam, the Cornell University A.D. White Professor at Large during 2005- 2006. Jihadism's roots in political Islam By Bassam Tibi International Herald Tribune TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2005 GÖTTINGEN, Germany After any terrorist attack by jihadists - from the Sept. 11 attacks to those in Bali in 2002, Madrid in 2004 and London in July - two contradictory views are usually heard. Some people claim that such religiously legitimated terror has its roots in Islam; others, principally Muslims and politically correct Westerners, say such terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. The truth can only be reached by putting aside both extreme views and by recognizing the difference between Islam, the religion, and Islamism, the religious-political ideology. Although jihadism may not be Islamic, it is based on the ideology of Islamism, which has emerged from the politicization of Islam in the current war of ideas. It is difficult to overstate the importance of recognizing this truth. Jihadism will continue to be with us for decades to come, as long as the movement related to it within Islamic civilization continues to thrive and to disseminate its deadly ideas. Jihadists see themselves as non-state actors waging an irregular war against "kafirun," or unbelievers. They see their struggle as a just war legitimated by a religious, political and military interpretation of the Islamic concept of jihad. Jihadism's relation to Islamism can be stated in a nutshell: Jihadists read the classical doctrine of jihad in a new mind while reinventing Islamic tradition. Separation of Church and State in Europe – Rebecca Glatter 17 Although the Koran allows Muslims to resort to "qital" (physical fighting) for the benefit of Islam, this is clearly for reasons other than terrorism, because the Koran allows qital only under strict rules, while terrorism, by definition, is a war without rules. The new interpretation of jihad adds an "ism" to it, jihad becoming jihadism (jihadiyya), an irregular war that is a variety of modern terrorism. It is wrong and even deceitful to argue that jihadism has nothing to do with Islam, because the jihadists believe that they are acting as "true Islamic believers" and learn the Islamist mind-set in mosques and Islamic schools, including those of the Islamic diaspora in Europe. It follows that the debate over whether these terrorists are "Islamic" or "un-Islamic" is meaningless. The fact is that jihadism is a new direction in Islamic civilization, an expression of the contemporary "revolt against the West" that enjoys tremendous popularity in the ongoing war of ideas. In order to combat the deadly idea of jihadism successfully, it is necessary to seek Muslim cooperation to determine who the jihadists are, rather than engaging in empty arguments. The jihadists are followers of the ideas of Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, who laid the foundations of Islamism as a political and military interpretation of Islam. Islamism aims not only to purify Islam but also to establish the "Nizam Islami," or Islamic order. After the Sept. 11 attacks, some commentators said that jihadists were now targeting the West because they were "fighting somebody else's war." This is utterly wrong. The intellectual father of jihadist Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, who was executed in Cairo in 1966, made the message crystal clear: Jihadism is a "permanent Islamic world revolution" aimed at decentering the West in order to establish "Hakimiyyat Allah," or God's rule, on a global scale. Early Islamists honored Qutb's distinction between two steps, the local and the global, in the jihadist strategy: First topple secular regimes at home, and then move on to global jihad. What Al Qaeda has done is not to fight somebody else's war, but rather to confuse the two steps in the jihadist strategy. This confusion continued to manifest itself in the terrorist attacks in Madrid and in London, because of the existence of a Muslim diaspora in Europe that has its own problems. What can be done to counter jihadism? As a Muslim immigrant living in Europe, I wholeheartedly reject the idea of a "clash of civilizations." But it would be naïve to overlook the reality of an ongoing "war of ideas" - a struggle between global jihad and democratic peace as competing directions for the 21st century. Instead of giving in to talk of a "clash of civilizations," what is needed is an alliance between Western supporters of democracy and enlightened Muslims against jihadist Islamists. http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/euro...s.pdf#search=""bassam tibi" article download"
So what? His life is an example of how one should live. Anyone can take something from his life and implement it in their own life. Be it a political leader, neighbor, husband, etc. And he had to pick up a sowrd, not because he wanted to, but because he was a political leader. Unlike Jesus, who was more of just a phrophet, didn't really get much power during his life.
Well, the reality under which he and his followers lived dictated otherwise. It was either that or he and his followers would have been wiped out altogether.
Not all religions see tings that way. "Dictated" is definitely the wrong word to use. "Chose" would be more accurate. Could you possibly imagaine Jesus or Buddha as a warrior? "Victory creates hatred. Defeat creates suffering. The wise ones desire neither victory nor defeat... Anger creates anger... He who kills will be killed. He who wins will be defeated... Revenge can only be overcome by abandoning revenge... The wise seek neither victory nor defeat." ~ Buddha
I just had to get back to these extremely ignorant statements, which are so typical of the defensive mindset we witness here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafa_Sultan She is "full of ****"? She has "an agenda against Islam"? You, tigermission1, are the one who should question himself. This lady is speaking the truth.
Yeah, an example of how to live in the fricken desert 1300 years ago and how not to eat pork and to treat women as 2nd class citizens etc.... I don't need an example from 1000s of years ago to teach me how to live my life, that is what parents are for...... Do you honestly believe that following some book written by man to control the ignorant masses some 1300 year or more ago makes you enlightened. I mean...REALLY???? DD
So I am guessing you and I are more 'enlightened' than Socrates or Jesus or Buddha? I mean, they lived thousands of years ago, there is no way anything they did or wrote about could be of any value to humanity, since we live in much more 'enlightened' times and so much more technologically advanced that we can't possibly learn anything from them...right? DaDa, I have no idea why I even debate you about politics, religion, and the such when you continually exhibit an astonishing degree of ignorance, not to mention your hallmark 'holier than thou' attitude. I am not sure if you ever think enough about what you say before you say it.
I have said many times that the books are valuable to read for a good understanding of morality etc. The difference in authors like Socrates & Plato etc is that they were not talking about religion and telling people how to live their lives, in many cases they were exploring things like philosophy and science. Jesus never wrote his story down, it was written more than 100 years after he lived, how can anyone think it is even CLOSE to accurate. That is not to say there are not valuable morality lessons in the Bible, the Torah, or the Quran etc, there clearly are, they should be read and studied in the same light as texts about Roman Gods or Greek Gods etc, mythos that helped guide the people of that time. And I am not "Holier than thou" I just have an opinion about religion that doesn't seem to mesh with yours. Clearly I do not think any of the faiths have it right, and the fact that all this fighting about "WHO IS MORE RIGHT" is maddening to me. I will say it again, I DO BELIEVE IN GOD !! I just do not believe in religion. As for enlightenment and who is the more enlightened, heck...I have no idea, but for me, I find it very hard to blindly follow some moldy old scrolls found in a cave in the desert, or written as a lifestyle guide during turbulent times or that certain foods are considered taboo, when clearly they have proven to be healthy. Politics shaped the Quran, the Bible, the Torah etc, thus I find them all interestingly flawed pieces of fiction. DD
No actually, 'dictate' is the right word to use. Let's recount again: Muhammad and his followers in Mecca face horrible persecution due to their religious beliefs. What does Muhammad do? He first takes the pacifist 'turn the other cheek' approach and instructs his followers to leave behind their homes, families, and communities and migrate to another town to seek 'shelter', where they can escape the injustices done against them. However, the Meccans decide that wasn't good enough, and they decide to go after the Muslims in an all-out ethnic cleansing campaign. Now, at that moment, what was Muhammad and his followers supposed to do? Volunteer to stand in line, kneel down and get beheaded man after the other? Is that what Buddhism preaches, that you can't preserve your own life and those of your family and friends if you must use violence to do so? Is violence ever an 'option' in Buddhism? Is there such a thing as a "right to self-defense" in Buddhism? Under certain circumstances, yes. As for Jesus, don't Christians believe that he was meant to be crucified? Wasn't the crucifixion his 'destiny', one he was fully aware of? I don't think Muhammad was seeking "victory" nor "defeat" in Yathreb, he and his followers were seeking to preserve the lives of their families and their own; the objective was to survive.
I agree with you. I have to say that I actually think Tiger posts are logical and fair...but in this instance, I don't.
Non-violence is at the heart of Buddhist thinking and behaviour. The first of the five precepts that all Buddhists should follow is "Avoid killing, or harming any living thing." Buddhism is essentially a peaceful tradition. Nothing in Buddhist scripture gives any support to the use of violence as a way to resolve conflict. In times of war Give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion, Helping living beings Abandon the will to fight. One of Buddha's sermons puts this very clearly with a powerful example that stresses the need to love your enemy no matter how cruelly he treats you: Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching. Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya I ~ 28-29 Figures like the Dalai Lama (who won the Nobel Peace Prize) demonstrate in word and deed Buddhism's commitment to peace. "Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone. This is the ancient law." Many Buddhists have refused to take up arms under any circumstances, even knowing that they would be killed as a result. The Buddhist code that governs the life of monks permits them to defend themselves, but it forbids them to kill, even in self-defence. For Buddhist countries this poses the difficult dilemma of how to protect the rights and lives of their citizens without breaking the principle of nonviolence. The pure Buddhist attitude is shown in this story: "A Vietnam veteran was overheard rebuking the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, about his unswerving dedication to non-violence. 'You're a fool' said the veteran 'what if someone had wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and you were the last one left. Would you not try to kill the person who was trying to kill you, and in doing so save Buddhism?!' Thich Nhat Hanh answered patiently 'It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it. 'In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.'" http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/buddhism.shtml
LOL! Did you actually read what you linked? The link itself says that she does have an agenda against Islam, which is that she 'hates it'...you're such a doofus. Furthermore, it really highlights how shallow a human being she is. So she has indicted the entire faith (Islam) and all of its followers (Muslims) based on the actions of a group of extremists? Does that make sense to you? Should I judge the entire religion of Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism based on the actions of a fraction of its followers or the history of its people? Are all Americans a bunch of rapists and murderers because some of our soldiers in Iraq have committed horrible crimes? That's a ridiculous approach to take, it's extremely simple-minded and indicative of a simplistic human being. Unlike the lady in the video (and yourself), I do; I am in the business of 'questioning' myself and everything around me. I am sure she is, bigtexxx...errr...SJC. LOL! You humor me, SJC. I understand that your whole mission in the D&D is to rile up as many people as you can, and hope to get on everyone's nerves, all the while offering little to no substance or adding anything worthwhile to any discussion.
So you're saying under no circumstance could a Buddhist be allowed to defend his own life? You do understand that we're not talking about 'senseless violence' here, right? You're saying that as a Buddhist, you have no right to kill someone first if he is about to fire a bullet into your head, that committing to non-violence overrides the immediate need of preserving a life? I can understand the whole philosophical side of non-violence and "loving your enemy" as a strategy for resolving conflicts. But how does Buddhism address the fundamental and instinctive need to preserve one's own life against an immediate threat?
