The danger of radical Islam

[33865_1494798762]

[Zenshiite]

People with closed minds cannot have dialogues, nor can they objectively review anything into which they enter with preconceptions. How can you approach the Qur'an if your mind is made up that it is "vile" and "murderous?" How can you review the life of Muhammad if you've already clearly made up your mind that he was some kind of tyrant? In complete contradiction with the recorded histories, in fact! Your assumptions are in complete contradiction with his known character before and after he was tasked with delivering the Message of the Qur'an. Furthermore, you keep obfuscating the situation by attempting to say that the early Muslim community wasn't oppressed and didn't have violence done against them. In fact, they signed treaties with their Meccan foes and when those treaties were violated(which is what the entire passage of Qur'an that I quoted was talking about) they fought in defense of themselves and their property and their innate rights.

 

I supposed you hold the Huianan Tzu in disgust as well? How about the Yellow Turban Taoists? Warfare is an inevitability in human life, and ALL spiritual schools have formulated rules of warfare and codes of conduct on the battlefield. I was struck the first time I read excerpts from Huianan Tzu by how much the guidelines for warfare and governance resembled the guidelines of warfare and governance laid out by Muhammad and 'Ali. Moved, in fact. It is, in fact, a pretty large part of Taoism that sage-kings of the past used their mystical unveiling to guide their societies. Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and the Wen Tzu are always referring back to eras of the past shrouded in the mists of legend.

 

If you're interested in true knowledge of the Islamic jurisprudence of warfare, here is a nice article. Jihad and the Islamic Law of War

[vsaluki]

Goldisheavy,

I am bit surprised that someone who usually seems so rational and objective falls for all this Islamophobia.

 

I'm curious about why you choose to use this lable. I can see three possible reasons.

 

A. You believe that it somehow informs that discussion and tells us something about the character of the participants that we would not otherwise know.

 

B. You want to use it to intimidate people into silence.

 

C. You feel a certain affinity with other people who use the term and so you use it without thinking about how sensible it is.

 

Let's go with A for the moment and see where it takes us. To have a phobia means to have an irrational fear of some sort. So to be an Islamophobe would be to have an irrational fear of the religion of Islam. And by implication it would mean that the person having the fear is somehow backwards and ignorant. It would also mean that the person making the accusation has an intimate knowledge of the emotional reactions of the person that they are accusing. I'm not sure how they acquired such knowledge. Maybe you can tell me.

 

I can assure you that I have no fear at all of Islam. My emotional reaction to the religion is one of revulsion. Oddly enough, this was not my first reaction, since my first introduction came through Rumi. Later, as a result of things that were happening in Chechnya, I did a much more complete review of the religion. I could hardly believe how bad this religion was at it's very core.

 

So, let's move on from the phobia part to the rationality part. I would content that revulsion is in fact the rational reaction to this religion. And I can assure you that I am 100% capable of defending the position that revulsion is the right reaction. I have given some of the reasons for why Islam is revulsive to me in my posts above. And believe me, those posts are only scratching the surface. Now, you can take a Tao point of view and question that revulsion is the correct response to anything. But all that aside, most of us are revulsed by certain things. Let me ask you, what are your feelings about slavery in the old American South. I'm going to guess that you have a certain amount of revulsion to it. And I think that you would be justified in having it. Does that mean that we could call you a slaveryphobe, or that we could consider you as being backward or ignorant for your reaction? I don't think that you would agree to that.

 

Then let me ask you, do you know that the prophet Mohammed was a slave trader and that he owned 28 slaves? Now does that give you a feeling of revulsion towards the prophet Mohammed? Or perhaps you live by a code that says that you must pander to minorities. Therefore you must rationalize away any travesties that were committed by Mohammed while at the same time allowing yourself to feel revulsion to the actions of the slave owners of the American South.

 

So tell me, did you use the term Islamophobia for reasons A, B, or C. And if you used it for reason A, exactly how did you feel that it would shed light on our discussion? Of course I may have missed the reason - so enlighten me.

 

No religion is 'nice' in the way you suggest - certainly none of the religions of the book, any period of history will bear this out. Even different Tibetan Buddhist sects slaughtered each other in times past.

 

This is certainly true. Religions seldom resemble the intent of their founder. And most religions have devolved to being either worthless or even harmful. But you need to remember two things. First, the travesties of other religions do not excuse the travesties of Islam. Second, one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater by painting all religions in the same light. As for me, I'm more interested in the teachings and the intention of the founder than in the corruption of the religion that followed. And I can absolutely assure you that there is no similarity between people like Buddha, Lao Tze, and Jesus on the one hand and Mohammed on the other. In the case of Islam, Mohammed built a completely corrupt religion from day one. The man was every bit as bad as the worst Muslim terrorists. He murdered, he lied, he stole, he raped, he waged war, he was a bigot, he approved attacks on innocents, had sex with a nine year old girl, owned slaves, was a slave trader, etc. etc. And he made no spiritual contribution at all.

 

For instance before the creation of the state of Israel, Christians, Muslims and Jews lived happily next to each other in the Middle East.

 

Yes, Muslims always make this claim. And it is a completely false claim. But it's a big subject, so I will deal with it in another post.

[vsaluki]

[Apech]

 

If you understand that, then why would you defend a religion that was invented specifically for socio-political control?

 

Vsaluki,

 

I'm not actually defending Islam at all. What I am commenting on is the disproportionate attack on Islam which is being made. I have read your post and whilst I respect the historian you quote I don't see that the acts of the Muslims in the 10th Century or when ever are any more bloody than those of Attila the Hun, the 1st - 3rd Cruscades, even Alexander the Great or even the British in India (certainly after the Indian Mutiny) - I think it is cultural bias which causes them to be singled out.

 

I have it on good authority from those I know from the Middle East (Iran, Egypt, Libya etc.) that there was indeed peaceful co-existence of Muslims, Jews and Christians up till more recent times. This is supported by what I have read and seen on BBC documentaries on this subject. So this is what I believe.

 

What I am in favour of is individuals being able to think and feel as they choose, based on their own experience and understanding. What I am against is having opinions and ideas shoved down my throat by those who either have power or seek to gain it. These people like to stress differences between 'us' and 'them'. They like it if we hate people who look, dress, speak or have customs that are different to ours. This is because it gives them more power and gives us, through manipulation of ideas and images, less power, or less freedom.

 

Currently in the world the forces of political economic power are shifting and are in tension. Many countries which hold natural resources (especially oil) are Muslim and because of the desire to gain and maintain power, it is in the interest of western governments to alienate us from the these places. So for instance, Iran is turned into some kind of ogre which is ready to threaten us in various ways. While we conveniently forget the level of meddling and interference by Britain and America over many decades which has actually contributed to the current state of affairs.

 

You quote some Islamic texts but I am sure I could find very similar ideas and so on in the Old Testament if I wanted. I am always struck how fond Christian fundamentalists are of the Old Testament and that they hardly ever quote from Jesus himself - I suppose that the 'love they neighbour' and 'love your enemy' stuff is a bit difficult for them and they prefer blood thirsty vengeance.

 

I realise we are not going to agree over this - and its not really what I come to Taobums for anyway - but I just thought I would make my position clear.

 

A.

Edited September 19, 2009 by apepch7

[~jK~]

The belief system of religions is the most dangerous single path of any peoples.

[Zenshiite]

Pact of Umar? There is a great deal of question regarding the validity of that attribution... though there is no doubt it was used by Muslims after the 8th century and attributed to Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Sunni Caliph, despite it being in direct conflict with many many more reports of his good treatment of Christians and their places of worship, esp upon the conquest of Jerusalem. Here's a quick analysis of the pact, and it also points to other people who have likewise analyzed it in more detail: A Critical Study of the Pact of Umar Here's some additional commentary to that document: Comments on "A Critical Study of the Pact of Umar"

 

Here is a wiki page regarding the treaty that Umar made with the Christians of Jerusalem: The Umari Treaty

 

I must say, it's a strange thing for me to be exonerating Umar ibn al-Khattab of this accusation, as a Shi'a I consider him to have been the second of three usurpers of Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib's right to leadership of the Muslim community.

 

Here is Imam 'Ali's letter to Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr when he appointed him governor of Egypt(which was largely Coptic Christian at the time): Nahj al-Balaghah Letter 27

 

Peace.

[markern]

If you believe that there is a problem with radicalism within Islam at this particualt time but that this problem is not inherent in Islam then supporting the spread of sufism would reduce this radicalism and promote great human development amongst more people. If you think there is a problem with radicalism in Islam now and think it is inherent to Islam and so will always be problematic, suporting the spread of sufism would still help because sufis generaly do not care so much about the strict rules but rather that wich is within and would rather cultivate (which is why they are often not liked by the mainstream). If you believe that there is no problem with radical Islam today or just not any more problem with radical Islam then other radical movements then still suporting the spread of sufism would help because I think we can all agree that the Sufi aproach leads to focus on the important things and atcual development of the heart and other spiritualy beneficial qualities. Even the CIA has understood that Sufism is an antiodote to radical Islam and is considering suporting it in Pakistan to counter extreemism there if they have not begun already.

 

So for all practical purposes lets do what we can individualy to suport the spread of sufism. That can be talking positively about sufism to anyone but especialy muslims of course, it could mean donating a RUmi book or a book about Sufi practices to your library or it could mean talking up sufism on a webforum.

[Zenshiite]

If you believe that there is a problem with radicalism within Islam at this particualt time but that this problem is not inherent in Islam then supporting the spread of sufism would reduce this radicalism and promote great human development amongst more people. If you think there is a problem with radicalism in Islam now and think it is inherent to Islam and so will always be problematic, suporting the spread of sufism would still help because sufis generaly do not care so much about the strict rules but rather that wich is within and would rather cultivate (which is why they are often not liked by the mainstream). If you believe that there is no problem with radical Islam today or just not any more problem with radical Islam then other radical movements then still suporting the spread of sufism would help because I think we can all agree that the Sufi aproach leads to focus on the important things and atcual development of the heart and other spiritualy beneficial qualities. Even the CIA has understood that Sufism is an antiodote to radical Islam and is considering suporting it in Pakistan to counter extreemism there if they have not begun already.

 

So for all practical purposes lets do what we can individualy to suport the spread of sufism. That can be talking positively about sufism to anyone but especialy muslims of course, it could mean donating a RUmi book or a book about Sufi practices to your library or it could mean talking up sufism on a webforum.

 

It doesn't even have to be Sufism or the science of 'Irfan(gnosis), though I'm a huge supporter of their spread or promotion based simply on the fact that it is gnosis('irfan or ma'arifah) that is the basis of any authentic spirituality and it is in gnosis that are the origins of Muhammad's spirituality and eventual task as Prophet and Messenger of God. Where I disagree is this notion that Sufis aren't concerned with strict rules, nothing could be further from the truth. Authentic Sufi masters and Sufi Orders, with respected intiatic chains of transmission, all hold that the very foundations of the inner spiritual path lie in conformity with the outer behaviors and disciplines. The traditional Sufi levels of attainment are first Shariat, Tariqat, Haqqiqah and Ma'arifat. What the Sufis do vis-a-vis the Shariah, and the examples they take from are Muhammad and especially Imam 'Ali, is temper justice with compassion. Just as God's Justice is tempered with His Compassion or Mercy.

 

At any rate, there is nothing but positives to be gained for the entire world to remind Muslims that they need to turn their eye inward and examine their own faults before pointing out the faults of others. However, the same principle should be held for those that find themselves on the receiving end of radicalisms reactionary wrath and hatred... the West truly needs to turn their eyes inward and seek out there faults and come to a knowledge about what they(we, actually since I'm a convert and am just as much Western as I am a Muslim) have done or allowed to be done in their names that has sparked such wrath. The initial reaction is not "their religion is different from mine" but "they have done a grave injustice to me or my people" and that eventually becomes "they have done grave injustice to me and mine because their religion is different from mine."

 

Muslims need to be reminded about traditional Islamic jurisprudence, and the compassion that has always accompanied the law. We also need not shy away from criticizing Muslim rulers of the past. Many of whom openly flouted the norms of Islamic behavior in both their personal lives, and their political lives. Unfortunately, in their political lives they attempted to justify their deviant political behavior via Islam, despite the fact that in many eras the ulama(scholars, clergy) openly disapproved of what they were doing. Let us not forget that in the past, as well as today, it was fellow Muslims that often faced much harsher tyranny and oppression than non-Muslims even in eras when non-Muslims were treated extremely well, holding high ministerial positions in the courts of Sultans and Caliphs and becoming quite wealthy. Any and all forms of Shi'ite and Sufi, and even philosophers, were oppressed by the ruling class in particular(even more so than most of the religious scholars, who at times were mere tools of the rulers) because their ideas were construed as challenging their authority. This began as early as a mere 20 years after Muhammad's death in the form of Mu'awiya's opposition to the caliphate of Imam 'Ali and the ritual cursing of 'Ali from the pulpits in mosques located in the territories Mu'awiya controlled. It's highly probable that Mu'awiya, after forcing him to abdicate his claim to the caliphate, bribed one of Hasan ibn 'Ali's(one of the beloved grandsons of the Prophet) wives to poison him. Mu'awiya's son Yazid continued this tradition when he attempted to force Hasan's brother Husayn to pledge allegiance to him, which eventually led to his murder(and 72 of his close companions, including all but one of his sons and nephews) on the plain of Karbala. An event that is still commemorated by Shi'ites all over the world on the 10th of Muharram. This oppression against the descendents of Muhammad continued with the rest of the lineage of Shi'a Imams, through 2 seperate dynasties.

 

Wahhabi/Salafi sectarians are the legacy of Mu'awiya, founder of the Ummayyad dynasty, and the Abbasid dynasty. It should be no surprise the overwhelming majority of their victims are Muslims rather than non-Muslims.

[~jK~]

Edited September 22, 2009 by ~jK~

[vsaluki]

Where I disagree is this notion that Sufis aren't concerned with strict rules, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Sorry, you are wrong again. Here are some pieces of poetry from the Sufi Poet Sachal Sarmast:

 

"Neither did I roll rosary, nor did I ponder and pray,

I went to no mosque or temple, nor bow in adoration any,

Sachal is lucky everyday, love is all around him.

 

The kalma did not, make me a Muslim

Nor did the prophet send faith from Arabia

Sachoo*, is himself divine, if humans think him human.

 

Truth this way you will attain not, Oh Sachoo!

By just reading and studying the Books.

 

Some say one thing, some say another,

I am, who I am.

Some say I am an infidel, some say I am a believer,

I am, who I am.

 

Yogis assemble here, they came and they passed by,

They roused our hearts, they played their merry flutes,

The company of those yogis, I will not forget though I die.

 

You by yourself, know what is in your form!

Why chant 'Allah Allah'? Find Allah within you.

You listen, you see, Allah's word is witness,

There is no doubt, O Sachal! that the Lord is One!

 

To remain silent

Is to be an accomplice

To speak out is to be an infidel

 

And here is a piece from Rumi. From "Signs of the Unseen" page 106.

 

The Divine Law is a fountainhead, a watering place. It is like a king's court, where the king's commands and prohibitions are many, where his dispensations of justice for the elite and common alike is limitless and beyond reckoning. It is extremely good and beneficial. The stability of the world rests on his orders. On the other hand, the state of dervishes and mendicants is one of close conversation with the king and knowledge of the ruler's own knowledge. What is it to know the science of legislation in comparison with knowing the legislator's own knowledge and having converse with the king.

 

This is Rumi's subtle and politic way of saying, "We Sufi's don't need the laws of Quran, Ahadith, and Sharia."

 

And I still have yet to see your evidence that the banal, repetitive, incoherent Quran is in any way spiritual. It is about laws, politics, barbarity, superstition, inhumanity and rituals. Nothing else. You can see Mohammed damning and threatening unbelievers with hell on virtually every page. It goes on ad nauseum. But real spirituality is simply not there. I don't understand how anyone can read it and not have their stomach turned.

Edited September 22, 2009 by vsaluki

[Zenshiite]

You've confused ecstatic poetry with the life and practice of both men, and thus of all authentic Sufi masters. You are, in a word, mistaken. Rumi, in his Mathnawi, has numerous poems devoted to the necessity of the Shariah and the punishments mandated for certain crimes as well as his ecstatic utterances.

 

You, sir, are remarkably ignorant about that which you profess to have knowledge of.

[TianXian]

Radical Islam & Wahbi is definitely not REAL ISLAM.

 

I believe the True Islam lays in the heart of the Sufi.

 

 

 

Salams

 

Santiago Dobles

 

 

I would like to add a few sticks to the fire.

 

There are a few things for which I really don't like Islam.

 

And I am not speaking here about Radical Islam, but most moderate too. Part of those things which I don't like are also in some Christianity.

 

I am not speaking about violence. Yes, I don't think it is ok for people to bomb themselves. Especially next to other people. But this is not what worries me. I think there is something in Islam that is not ok. That is a serious threat for our society. Something few people speak about, partially because few people see, and partially because many that see, are tied too much to be able to speak up. What I am speaking about, is less disgusting than clitoridectomia, but much, much more dangerous.

 

I am speaking about:

a.) desire to live in a Sharia state.

b.) The concept that someone who is Muslim, who decides that Islam is not his religion, will when dead inhabit the worse hell.

 

 

Muslim are the number 1 growing religion in many western countries (all?, I am not sure, most? probably),

the fact that they do not permit to people to leave their religion,

the fact that 65% (according to a recent statistics, the data are available ) of Muslims in Britain would rather live under Sharia,

makes it a real danger in my eyes.

 

 

Muslim around the world are not generally known to have girls education very high in their priority list.

 

 

Muslim who believe that you can leave Islam any time, who do not want to live under Sharia, who do not practice clitoridectomia, and who are not trying to have more than 3 kids, are my friends.

 

Salom to them

Pietro

 

 

I tried to help you : )

 

You are the one that made posts about Islam and said you had some idea about Sufi. How can you reallyknow about Shariat & Other Islamic things with out having a real transmission to its esoteric sides?

 

Other wise you are stuck in what you can only see in the stage that you are at which is what you stated which was:

 

Islam = Negative

 

Quran = Bad

 

Muhammad = Child rapist

 

Shariat = Negative

 

But when you have a real understanding you have a different view and also you have a different realization of things. But that can ONLY be experienced when you have an actual transmission that goes straight from Muhammad/Al Anur to his disciples/Sheiks to you.

 

Do not KID your self man NO BOOK has it no matter which one you think you have that has Gold nuggets for words.

 

There is no way you will know Unless you meet a real Sheik that can give you a transmission.

 

 

There are HUGE reasons why things have been kept secret tradition. Its not for the Malefic reasons you think it is either.

 

 

 

I have nothing against you nor care to have anything against you. I actually invite you with open arms and a smile.

 

Best wishes & Salams,

 

Santiago

 

 

Not really. What you have tried to do is to discredit me, to lower the value of my identity, to disempower me by removing my internalized authority and replacing it with an externalized one. You haven't tried to actually help me, because in order to help me, you need to know where I am going.

 

For example.

 

If I am going to Florida, and I am in NYC, to help me, you have to tell me to go south. However, if I am going to Boston, you must tell me to go north. If, without fully understanding my intention, that is to say, without fully understanding where I am going, you tell me "Go south" (because that's where you went and all the "cool" people you know also went there), you are not helping me at all!

 

But to admit that you're here to help yourself you need real humility and wisdom, instead of your enormous hubris, oh rainbow handed Guru Santi ball of love.

 

You don't value me as a person, and that's fine, just don't pretend. You only value me as a potential follower of your little secret club. Keep dreaming. I am done with secret clubs. I have stepped on a wide open path of openness and I don't need people like you to help me. In fact, depending on how aggressively you make it obvious that you have some secrets in the form of some information that could potentially help me, and that is not available openly and freely to all, but that I must pay for and promise secrecy and accept various conditions for, I may even dislike you and frown on your methods and lifestyle. I believe you have some degree of freedom to be that way, but certainly don't expect praise and support from me. You'll have to go it alone with that attitude of yours.

 

 

 

Very simple. Because if the knowledge that's available openly about Shariat is wrong, and if the only correct knowledge available about Shariat is SECRET (esoteric!), then the right solution is to make the correct knowledge OPEN. However, if you keep the correct knowledge secret, while the incorrect knowledge is open to all, you are the one that's being a moron and not me for failing to seek some secret correct way to understand it.

 

All of us can see the UGLINESS OF SHARIA IN PLAIN VIEW. It is ugly. It is barbaric. Actions are louder than words. We see actions of Sharia. We have videos. It's widely available. Now if I need to go chase down some SECRET to be able to digest this garbage safely, that's fucked up. Plain and simple. If you refuse to make your life-saving secrets public, you are hostile to human life. The ugliness of Sharia is public. In fact, I cannot imagine any information that would make it beautiful. It's barbaric garbage that's going to the toilet of history.

 

 

i think its a bit impossible to be a Muslim and a Buddhist at the same time. not that I want to get into a pissing contest between which religion is better, but the two are diametrically opposed to each other.

 

 

The belief system of religions is the most dangerous single path of any peoples.

 

 

My friends, people today even many people that say are muslims have many wrong! They don't know what really Islam means, there is not such thing as real or not real Islam, and for answers many of your questions that i had quote and others i invite you to see and hear this video:

 

 

 

God Bless

[TianXian]

The man fro the video:

 

Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri i a Islamic Scholar and student of Tahir Allauddin Al Qadri Al Gillani that is guess what: a Sufi Saint!

 

from wikipedia

[Oleg Galkin]

"Radical" is the keyword here. Every radical religious movement is dangerous. It doesn't matter either it is Islam or Christianity or anything else.

[brawnypandora0]

http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant/dp/1596985283/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1336653415&sr=8-3