Beautiful Response to a Statement "Islam is not Peaceful"

[FaujHistorian]

well it's sad that in New York or London or a secular Turkish Republic (with a Muslim majority who are hard working and great human beings) you can practice freely and openly but in some other countries just belonging to a certain "sect" (man-made bull shyt division) can get your head chopped off or get a holy place of worship blown up by a car bomb --- attacks which as i said, are to be blamed on a minority, but one which acts with impunity

so yes, i agree with you





p.s. Mr. Hassan here isn't 'barking' -- he is speaking with respect and not raising his voice; just reasoning

Well said.

Thank you.

 

[RAMPAGE]

@Jungibaaz did u delete the post of our atheist member ?

 

[shuntmaster]

@FaujHistorian .. I got a very simple question for you to answer in Yes/No. Do you believe that Islam's founder Mohammed was a peaceful man?

 

[Jungibaaz]

@Jungibaaz did u delete the post of our atheist member ?

That's right I did.

I have no problem with you folks discussing anything, nor do I have any problems at all with an atheist expressing their views.
But we must maintain civility at all times and try not to offend people.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian .. I got a very simple question for you to answer in Yes/No. Do you believe that Islam's founder Mohammed was a peaceful man?

Your question is incomplete. you have to rephrase it if you want a serious answer.



I am sure you are smart enough to realize that you are asking my view of history around Mohammed's life.


So you must update your question using specific time and geographical/culture reference, and for comparative study, tell me what standards are you using.


Thank you

 

[SQ8]

Is the question only for today's time? But if its religion then it can't be. And Muslims were the imperialist conquerors and used the practice of writing history the way they wanted for centuries and centuries.

Yet that history is not flattering, to be blunt. The massacres and destructions and slave taking and sikandar butshikans were not invented by today's popular media but by the muslim historians themselves. Qasim't history as recorded by muslims - to supposedly save a muslim woman's honor itself is not flattering, let alone the Persian historian who recorded it and showed qasim in horrible light. Nalanda destruction was not recorded by Fox news.

So if muslims care at all, they must discard their Islamic glasses first, do not expect non muslims to think like you, even one bit.

I've not said that very well, but I essentially agree with your post, if it means the onus is on muslims and not non muslims.

It goes both ways.. because non-Muslims have an obsession with Qasim.. and not Nizamuddin Auliya.

 

[shuntmaster]

Your question is incomplete. you have to rephrase it if you want a serious answer.



I am sure you are smart enough to realize that you are asking my view of history around Mohammed's life.


So you must update your question using specific time and geographical/culture reference, and for comparative study, tell me what standards are you using.


Thank you

I think you are just skirting the issue with stawman arguments. My question was straightforward and complete.
Mohammed came 6 centuries after Jesus and 10 centuries after Buddha. So, the concept of peace and non-violence was centuries old in this world even at Mohammed's time. Also, the teachings of Mohammed are, believed by Muslims, to be eternal and infallible over time. His life examples are not restricted to time or geography and Muslims are expected to emulate it all times and places.

 

[FaujHistorian]

I think you are just skirting the issue with stawman arguments. Mohammed came 6 centuries after Jesus and 10 centuries after Buddha. So, the concept of peace and non-violence was centuries old in this world even at Mohammed's time. Also, the teachings of Mohammed are, believed by Muslims, to be eternal and infallible over time. His life examples are not restricted to time or geography and Muslims are expected to emulate it all times and places.

Please do not talk like Islamists. I requested a simple thing. Provide me a context and I'll discuss.

But you want to drag this discussion to 5th grade children brawl. Sorry to say.

jesus was in Roman period, and Bhuddah was in a distant place and distant time.

Why are you mixing things with utter disregard for basic historical criteria.


peace

 

[SQ8]

I think you are just skirting the issue with stawman arguments. My question was straightforward and complete.
Mohammed came 6 centuries after Jesus and 10 centuries after Buddha. So, the concept of peace and non-violence was centuries old in this world even at Mohammed's time. Also, the teachings of Mohammed are, believed by Muslims, to be eternal and infallible over time. His life examples are not restricted to time or geography and Muslims are expected to emulate it all times and places.

Which tells you that God as been trying to get through to certain thickheads all over the world. His life examples are given to be adapted and practiced in time and place. Please do not try to be more Muslim than us. Now if all you are here to prove is to diss the prophet of Islam based on your own personal bias.. then you are out of here.

 

[RazPaK]

Too many kalaa engraz here.

Please show them the door. They can continue hating in their parent's basements.

 

[SQ8]

many many many Muslims believe in the same pagan principles and thus associate Mohammad to be a perfect personality in every which way possible.
As per Quran

Mohammad, Jesus, etc. were men. Just men. No sons of God, no direct physical relationship with God no nothing.

Then you too have interpreted the Quran incorrectly. Because, while it states that the Prophet was just a man.. then please explain as to why certain terms that are used in the Quran to address him are derived from those that god uses for himself.

Take the simple Rehmat-ullil-Alamein... If, the prophet was imperfect as you claim.. then you are implying that this title of Rehmat-ullil-Alameen is imperfect.. hence God's assertion that the Prophet is indeed the blessing for all the words.. is incorrect or imperfect..
ipso facto.. Anaozubillah.. God is imperfect.. ??

The problem with your approach to interpretation is that you assume yourself superior automatically to those pagans by virtue of being born in the 20th century.. and consider your time to be superior and hence use that time to judge those actions in the past without realizing that the actions were for THAT time. Hence, the example that the prophet sets is to tell you .. if in case you encounter a situation like so.. you may derive your action based on your time and place that suits you but follows the basic moral principle. It is not pagan worship but looking at an example of a man in the times he was set in to derive actions today.


As I said, there are two sides to these Islamic reactionaries..

More paranoid and vitriolic than the harshest of external critique's.. these "Born-again" Jannisaries are convinced that they have seen a better light in the exorcism of Islam. It starts with critique of Muslim countries, then re-interpretation of Islam in a very abstruse manner that baffles even the most accommodating of scholars and practicing muslims alike

And you have just demonstrated this right here.

Hence, if your assertion is to be taken.. then.. All the attributes by which he is called by in the Quran.. such as Shahid.. the witness.. Ya-Sin- The Purified.. cannot hold true because for these conditions to hold true by the weight at which god judges them.. are then imperfect. So either God is imperfect as he chose to betray his most beloved creation in Humans by sending them imperfect examples... Or something is seriously wrong in how you are looking at it... or are expressing your opinion if I am mistaken.

That being said, God chose what knowledge to reveal to the Prophet at times and what not. So If god chose not to make the Prophet aware of the timing of date ripening.. just as he did not reveal to him the passing of his Son ..that does not imply imperfection.. but simply qualities that God chose not to bestow. Hence, the condition of man was not there to stress him as an imperfect creature.. but rather to show that what is the best achievable within the bounds of the human condition and how one should react to such situations in life.

 

[FaujHistorian]

It goes both ways.. because non-Muslims have an obsession with Qasim.. and not Nizamuddin Auliya.

Bravo.

Well said.

Cherry picking history leads people to ignorance nay arrogance.

No wonder so many end up lost because they refuse to study history without proper context.


peace

 

[FaujHistorian]

Then you too have interpreted the Quran incorrectly. Because, while it states that the Prophet was just a man.. then please explain as to why certain terms that are used in the Quran to address him are derived from those that god uses for himself.

Take the simple Rehmat-ullil-Alamein... I.

off course I can be wrong.

However we must look at specific verses in their proper context.

Are you referring to Quran 21:107?

Peace

 

[RAMPAGE]

@Oscar paa ji ! tusi ziaada jazbaati nai horahay ? @FaujHistorian yaar tere peace peace nay mera dimagh ko pees dia hai ! stop writing peace at the end of every post before i terrorize somebody

 

[FaujHistorian]

@FaujHistorian yaar tere peace peace nay mera dimagh ko pees dia hai ! stop writing peace at the end of every post before i terrorize somebody

Sorry yaar.

didn't mean to annoy anyone, of all the people, you!


Peace is short translation of "Ma-Assalam".


cheerio