Post Reply
Page 76 of 82  •  Prev 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 ... 82 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Islamism - an ideology not about Islam
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 10:21AM #751
IDBC
Posts: 4,556

 


Feb 27, 2012 -- 10:03PM, Miraj wrote:

"Islamism" is a term intended to be an insult to Muslims.  We don't have to accept it, we don't have to use it.  I educate people about this each time it's used.  If they don't like it, tough.


Feb 28, 2012 -- 9:58AM, IDBC wrote:

Islamism is a term that is intended to describe political Islam.



Feb 28, 2012 -- 2:52PM, Ibn wrote:

As has been said many times, there is only one Islam. There is no such thing or religion called "political Islam" or "religious Islam" or "secular Islam" or Arabian Islam" or "Christian Islam" or Atheist Islam" or even "Neutral Islam".



Feb 28, 2012 -- 9:58AM, IDBC wrote:

It can and is used in a perjoritive and insulting way to insult Muslims or it can be used to describe political Islam.  It is a neutral term.


Feb 28, 2012 -- 2:52PM, Ibn wrote:

It is a term used by people who are ignorant of Islam.



Feb 28, 2012 -- 4:08PM, browbeaten wrote:


At best, it is a term used to describe Muslim who are ignorant of Islam.  Otherwise, it is descibing fanatical Muslims.




I knew it was a term used by people who are ignorant of Islam. Your statement has just proven my point to be spot on.



"At best, it is a term used to describe Muslim who are ignorant of Islam.  Otherwise, it is descib ing fanatical Muslims."


That  is not "my" statement   That is Browbeaten's statement. 


My statement is that Islamism is the political branch of the Islamic tree.  My statement is that some of the "fruit" is radical, and some of the "fruit" is moderate, and some of the "fruit" is liberal.    But is is all "fruit" of the same tree.  



Feb 28, 2012 -- 9:58AM, IDBC wrote:

You and other Muslims do not have to accept, but other Muslims do accept it.


Feb 28, 2012 -- 2:52PM, Ibn wrote:

They don't accept it but use it in ignorance.



Feb 28, 2012 -- 4:08PM, browbeaten wrote:


I've come to realize that on this board we have several Muslims who purport to speak for all Muslims in regards to Islam.  I find it rather peculiar how SO MANY more Muslims disagree with your "version" of Islam. 



I've come to realize that on this board we have several Muslims, like yourself  and others who purport to speak for ALL Muslims with regards to Islam.   I find it rather pecular how you and others on this board claim to speak for ALL Muslims and try to "educate" us on what is "true" Islam when there are so many verisions of Islam and not ALL Muslims agree on what is "true" Islam.  


I have come to realize that on this board we have several Muslims, like yourself who purport that any Muslim who does use the word Islamism is "ignorant"  of "true" Islam.


 

Feb 28, 2012 -- 4:08PM, browbeaten wrote:


 I've come to realize that in the world we have too many non-Muslims who purport to speak for Islam.  I find it rather peculiar how SO MANY non-Muslims claim to be experts in Islam and also know how many Muslims disagree with me but have no clue  as to how many agree with me.





I've come to realize that in the world we have too many Monotheists  who purport to speak for Allah. 



 



 

Feb 28, 2012 -- 4:08PM, browbeaten wrote:


I find it rather peculiar how SO MANY non-Muslims claim to be experts in Islam and also know how many Muslims disagree with me but have no clue  as to how many agree with me.[/quote]


I do know that there are MANY Muslims who disagree with you, but I don't know wether or not they are  "ignorant" of "true" Islam. 




 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 2:15PM #752
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

IDBC, you are very creative with formatting.  ???

Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 2:32PM #753
Ibn
Posts: 4,931

Mar 1, 2012 -- 2:15PM, Miraj wrote:


IDBC, you are very creative with formatting.  ???



That is the direct result of trying too hard in Islamic creation from Islam to Islamism and trying to justify it at the same time.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 1:31PM #754
IDBC
Posts: 4,556

 


Howdy Miraj


 


Mar 1, 2012 -- 2:15PM, Miraj wrote:


IDBC, you are very creative with formatting.  ???




I am not sure what you mean?  


Are you making a statement or asking a question?  


If you are making a statment that I am good a "formatting" is that a compliement?  



 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 4:36PM #755
Miraj
Posts: 5,021

Your posts look like no one else's, hon.  They are art pieces, colorful, modern and unique, but sometimes very hard to follow.  If I can correct the formating, I do, but the last one was a doozy and I have no clue how it got that way lol.


They make you look, that's for sure :-)


Mar 2, 2012 -- 1:31PM, IDBC wrote:


Howdy Miraj


Mar 1, 2012 -- 2:15PM, Miraj wrote:


IDBC, you are very creative with formatting.  ???




I am not sure what you mean?  


Are you making a statement or asking a question?  


If you are making a statment that I am good a "formatting" is that a compliement?  




Disclaimer: The opinions of this member are not primarily informed by western ethnocentric paradigms, stereotypes rooted in anti-Muslim/Islam hysteria, "Israel can do no wrong" intransigence, or the perceived need to protect the Judeo-Christian world from invading foreign religions and legal concepts.  By expressing such views, no inherent attempt is being made to derail or hijack threads, but that may be the result.  The result is not the responsibility of this member.


PhotobucketPhotobucket
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 02, 2012 - 7:06PM #756
IDBC
Posts: 4,556

 


Howdy Miraj


Mar 2, 2012 -- 4:36PM, Miraj wrote:


Your posts look like no one else's, hon.  They are art pieces, colorful, modern and unique, but sometimes very hard to follow.  If I can correct the formating, I do, but the last one was a doozy and I have no clue how it got that way lol.


They make you look, that's for sure :-)



I tried to be as clear as I could as why I make my claims.   I gave reasons to support my claims. 


The only responses I got was "we don't have to believe it if we don't want too."   


The response that I got for the fact that other Muslim's in the Middle East use the term Islamist is that they are ignorant about Islam.     


It is my understanding that Muslims like to use analogies.    I gave an analogical explanation for Islamist-political idealogy.   


Now if they make you think I consider that to be a good thing.   


 


I am not sure what you mean?  


Are you making a statement or asking a question?  


If you are making a statment that I am good a "formatting" is that a compliement?  








HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 months ago  ::  Aug 28, 2014 - 8:37PM #757
JRoadrunner
Posts: 4,802

The Islamic State Has Nothing to Do With Islam?


Whatever they may disagree about, Western leaders are in complete agreement about one thing: the new self-styled caliphate, the Islamic State, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. It's a comforting, reassuring vision for Western non-Muslims facing a massive influx of Muslim immigrants and jittery about the prospect of Islamic terrorism, except for just one problem: it's entirely false.
...

The British opposition... Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that Islamic State "extremists are beheading people and parading their heads on spikes, subjugating women and girls, killing Muslims, Christians and anyone who gets in their way. This is no liberation movement -- only a perverted, oppressive ideology that bears no relation to Islam."

Cooper's statement was a bit more specific than most others of its kind, and shows up the weakness of all of them. For every Islamic State atrocity she enumerated, there is Qur'anic sanction:

Beheading people: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks..." (Qur'an 47:4).

Subjugating women and girls: "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them" (Qur'an 4:34).

Killing Muslims: "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad SAW). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them" (Qur'an 4:89).

Killing Christians: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Even if the Islamic State is misinterpreting or misunderstanding these verses, it is doing so in a way that accords with their obvious literal meaning. Yet this denial from Western leaders is nothing new. Obama, for his part, excuses and apologizes for Islam every time a jihadist atrocity affects the U.S. in some way. 
...

Barack Obama and David Cameron would do far better to confront the Islamic State's Islamic justifications for its actions and call on Muslims in the U.S., the U.K. and elsewhere to teach against these understandings of Islam that they ostensibly reject.

But they never do that, and apparently have no interest in doing it. Instead, they foster complacency among the people of the U.S. and Britain. For doing so, they may never pay a price, but their people will almost certainly have to pay, and pay dearly.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 months ago  ::  Aug 29, 2014 - 4:58PM #758
Ibn
Posts: 4,931

Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:


The Islamic State Has Nothing to Do With Islam?


Whatever they may disagree about, Western leaders are in complete agreement about one thing: the new self-styled caliphate, the Islamic State, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. It's a comforting, reassuring vision for Western non-Muslims facing a massive influx of Muslim immigrants and jittery about the prospect of Islamic terrorism, except for just one problem: it's entirely false.
...

The British opposition... Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that Islamic State "extremists are beheading people and parading their heads on spikes, subjugating women and girls, killing Muslims, Christians and anyone who gets in their way. This is no liberation movement -- only a perverted, oppressive ideology that bears no relation to Islam."


Cooper's statement was a bit more specific than most others of its kind, and shows up the weakness of all of them. For every Islamic State atrocity she enumerated, there is Qur'anic sanction:

Beheading people: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks..." (Qur'an 47:4).


Cooper’s statement is correct. I will explain here why it is correct. The brief part quoted above of a much longer verse, which is about war and rules of engagement in war, and as to when hostilities must stop after war has been inflicted on Muslims. Here is a fuller part of the verse:


No beheading people:[47.4] So when you meet (in war) those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war ends.


"Smite their necks" in this verse does not mean "behead" but make the stiff-necked become humbled through defeat. The rest of the part of this verse illustrates it so. Only an idiot or Islam hater will say that it is "beheading people". It has nothing to do with beheading any unbeliever or even making them prisoners after beheading them during the war. One only makes them prisoners when captured alive. After the war they could be freed either as a favor or if they pay ransom to free themselves. Where is beheading?  

Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:

Subjugating women and girls: "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them" (Qur'an 4:34).


Here is the same verse about one's wife in context:
 [4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and (even) strike them (as a last resort); then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
[4.35] And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.


Harmony between them is not subjugating them. And the verse below is also from the same Surah:


No subjugating women and girls: [4.19] O you who believe! It is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will...


Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:

Killing Muslims: "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad SAW). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them" (Qur'an 4:89).


[4.88] What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned? Do you wish to guide him whom Allah has caused to err? And whomsoever Allah causes to err, you shall by no means find a way for him.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.


In context, the verse is not about Muslims but hypocrites fighting against Muslims. When they stop, Muslims should also stop fighting.


No killing Muslims: [4.29] O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah is Merciful to you.

Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:

Killing Christians: "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).


No killing Christians because they do believe in God and the religion of truth. In this verse, "the People of the Book" are meant to be Jews in Madina, who had sided with idolatoers, rather than Christians.

Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:

Even if the Islamic State is misinterpreting or misunderstanding these verses, it is doing so in a way that accords with their obvious literal meaning.


I have explained the "obvious" literal meanings understood by the vast majority of Muslims just like me in the West as well as in the East and Middle East.


Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:

Yet this denial from Western leaders is nothing new. Obama, for his part, excuses and apologizes for Islam every time a jihadist atrocity affects the U.S. in some way.


It's because Obama and the western leaders have many Muslims with them who can explain the "obvious" literal meanings. Perhaps they should have you as interpreter of these verses. LOL! 
...

Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:

Barack Obama and David Cameron would do far better to confront the Islamic State's Islamic justifications for its actions and call on Muslims in the U.S., the U.K. and elsewhere to teach against these understandings of Islam that they ostensibly reject.


This is why I have always argued against calling these people "Islamists". Those who misinterpret these Islamic verses cannot be called "Islamists". If you call them "Islamists" you are just as bad as them when it comes to "obvious" literal meanings.

Aug 28, 2014 -- 8:37PM, JRoadrunner wrote:

But they never do that, and apparently have no interest in doing it. Instead, they foster complacency among the people of the U.S. and Britain. For doing so, they may never pay a price, but their people will almost certainly have to pay, and pay dearly.


If the Muslims in U.S. and Britain do not want to go to the Islamic State to teach these people the true meanings of the above verses, you should go and teach them in the Islamic State. This is why I have just taught you the obviously true meanings.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 months ago  ::  Aug 29, 2014 - 6:14PM #759
TRUECHRISTIAN
Posts: 1,194

Hey guys, I have an idea. 


Could we get back on "track" and discuss wether or not" Islamism" is an "idealogy"? s


I think it is a "religous"  idealogy.   


An idealogogy is:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology


"An ideology is a set of conscious and/or unconscious ideas which constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive normative vision, a way of looking at things, as argued in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), and/or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization), as suggested in some Marxist and Critical theory accounts. While the concept of "ideology" describes a set of ideas broad in its normative reach, an ideology is less encompassing than as expressed in concepts such as worldview, imaginary and ontology."


Islamism is: 



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism


"Islamism (Islam + -ism) or political Islam (Arabic: إسلام سياسيIslām siyāsī; or الإسلامية al-Islāmīyah) is a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life".[1] "Islamism" is a controversial neologism whose definition sometimes varies (see next section). Islamists can have varying interpretations on various Quranic suras and ayahs. Islamist views emphasize the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law); of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the selective removal of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world that they believe to be incompatible with Islam.  "


What is....problematic is that "political Islam" can't be discussed because it ism "political". 


Saying that Islamism can't be discussed in this forum is like saying that Zionism can't be discussed in Jewish forums.






I could be wrong.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 months ago  ::  Aug 30, 2014 - 5:19AM #760
Ibn
Posts: 4,931

Islam is not Islamism nor is Islamism Islam. Ignorant people, on any side, can try as much like they are never going to turn Islam into Islamism. Islam is going to stay and be known as "Islam".

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 76 of 82  •  Prev 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 ... 82 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook