West Should Respect Muslims: Rabbi

[badakbusuk]

MOSCOW — Israel's most famous Orthodox rabbi believes that the disrespect of the Muslim world by westerners and Jews is the root cause of stalled peace between Israelis and the Palestinians.

"There's no peace in the Holy Land because West doesn't respect East and Muslim world," Menahem Froman told the Russian weekly magazine Expert in an interview cited by Interfax news agency on Tuesday, May 20.

"Arrogance, haughtiness, loftiness of Americans and Jews as well are unacceptable for me and for Muslims."

The rabbi believes that breaking the ignorance barrier and showing respect to the Muslim world is the only way to bridge the Muslim-West gap and make peace in the Middle East.

"To achieve peace, we should understand Muslims."

Froman, 63, suggests that "representatives of US foreign administration should better take a one-year leave and study Qur'an and Hadith."

He says Westerners would find a lot of peculiarities in understanding Islam and the Muslim world culture.

"Islam is a spiritual empire and there are things to learn from it."

Muslim-West relations have badly deteriorated in recent years.

Last January, the Gallup Muslim-West Dialogue Index conducted for the World Economic Forum (WEF) found that most people in Muslim-majority countries believe the West does not respect them.

World Capital

Rabbi Froman, who met several times with late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, believes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs a "less political and more spiritual" solution.

He sees the need for new peace formulas in the holy land.

A maverick political activist often called the Jewish religious peacemaker, Froman wants Al-Quds to become the religious capital of all three monotheistic faiths.

"I met with Sheikh Ahmed Yasin and we concluded that supreme authority in the Holy Land belongs to the Almighty," he told the Russian weekly, referring to Hamas spiritual leader who was assassinated by Israel in 2004.

"I think we can consider Jerusalem's status the same way. Why don't give Jerusalem a status of world's capital!"

Froman, who has long campaigned a peaceful solution for the conflict, is organizing a group of Israeli rabbis and Palestinian scholars to work out a religious agreement concerning the holy city.

Al-Quds is home to Al-Haram Al-Sharif, which includes Islam's third holiest shrine, Al-Aqsa Mosque, and represents the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel captured the holy city in the six-day 1967 war and later annexed it in a move not recognized by the world community or the UN.

Since the annexation, Israel has been seeking to "Judaize" Al-Quds through a series of restrictions and arbitrary moves.

Palestinians want the city to be the capital of their future independent state.

source : West Should Respect Muslims: Rabbi (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357752305&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout)

[Keile]

I don't necessarily care about this article.

Jerusalem is just some city. Like Lagos. Like NYC. Like Chicago.

I'm not giving it any special precedence nor will I study anything I don't feel the need too.

I can respect someone without having to study every aspect of what they believe in. If I percieve you to be worthy of my respect, then you will have it. If not, then, there it is. You don't. Perhaps, if we spend more time together, we'll become friends. If not, then so be it.

Being a Muslim is neither here nor there.

[Pilaf]

Muslims should respect women's rights, science and freedom of speech - West.

[badakbusuk]

Muslims should respect women's rights, science and freedom of speech - West.

can you explain how Muslims disrespect women, science and freedom of speech? You have to understand why Muslims punish their wives because in Islam, Muslim wives are not allowed to disobey their husband and disobeying your husband for woman is a big sin. That is why the husband can punish their wife IF their wife disobey them. Muslims need to respect freedom of speech? if other people insult your religion which you hold high faith on it, will you allow them to continue insulting your religion? ofcourse not. freedom of speech is acceptable but the freedom of speech has its limit aswell.

[Pilaf]

can you explain how Muslims disrespect women, science and freedom of speech? You have to understand why Muslims need to punish their wives because in Islam, wives are not allowed to disobey their husband and disobeying your husband for woman is a big sin. That is why the husband can punish their wife IF their wife disobey them.

No belief system over rides basic human rights. No woman deserves to be beaten.


Muslims need to respect freedom of speech? if other people insult your religion which you hold high faith on it, will you allow them to continue insulting your religion? ofcourse not. freedom of speech is acceptable but the freedom of speech has its limit aswell.

I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

Would I allow people to insult what I believe in? Yes. I would. I put up with it every day. The things I stand for are strong enough to stand up to verbal attack.

[maj1n]

can you explain how Muslims disrespect women, science and freedom of speech? You have to understand why Muslims punish their wives because in Islam, Muslim wives are not allowed to disobey their husband and disobeying your husband for woman is a big sin. That is why the husband can punish their wife IF their wife disobey them. Muslims need to respect freedom of speech? if other people insult your religion which you hold high faith on it, will you allow them to continue insulting your religion? ofcourse not. freedom of speech is acceptable but the freedom of speech has its limit aswell.
I think you made a stupidly clear error here.

You equate disobeyment, with an insult, disobeying someone is not necessarily an insult (though yes in Islam, disobeying a husband is considered an insult).

How can you say Islam 'respects' women if a woman cannot disobey their husband? and this is a sin? that is not respect for you are treating them as inferior to you.

That would be like saying white slavers whom advocated blacks not disobey them, were 'respecting' blacks, clearly i think your idea of respect and the Wests idea of respect is far far different.

The West is better.

[badakbusuk]

No belief system over rides basic human rights. No woman deserves to be beaten.

it is how things work in Islam, what makes you think you can change it? We Muslims also have right to follow our beliefs and beating your wife is for a reason, not on purpose. that certain woman won't be punished if she obeys her husband's order, so, why disobey your husband?



I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself.

Would I allow people to insult what I believe in? Yes. I would. I put up with it every day. The things I stand for are strong enough to stand up to verbal attack.

then what do you mean by Muslims need to respect freedom of speech? the speech itself insults the Muslims' belief and Muslims itself, why can't Muslims speak for themselves?

[badakbusuk]

I think you made a stupidly clear error here.

You equate disobeyment, with an insult, disobeying someone is not necessarily an insult (though yes in Islam, disobeying a husband is considered an insult).

How can you say Islam 'respects' women if a woman cannot disobey their husband? and this is a sin? that is not respect for you are treating them as inferior to you.

That would be like saying white slavers whom advocated blacks not disobey them, were 'respecting' blacks, clearly i think your idea of respect and the Wests idea of respect is far far different.

The West is better.

Are you trying to say that a woman disobeying his husband's order is not a sin? ORDER does not mean any orders. what I'm saying is the husband's order for her own goodness, not for his goodness. however the husband cannot treat the woman like a slave like you have just said. a person doesnt order a slave for the slave's goodness, but for the person's goodness. and did you know thousands of years ago, Islam's Prophet Muhammad pbuh is the one who saved woman from slavery? Women were slaves for man and man treat women like prostitutes and slaves. how can you still say Islam does not respect women?

[Pilaf]

it is how things work in Islam, what makes you think you can change it? We Muslims also have right to follow our beliefs and beating your wife is for a reason, not on purpose. that certain woman won't be punished if she obeys her husband's order, so, why disobey your husband?

Did most of those Islamic women in the middle east choose to be Muslim?

Hell no...they were born into a Muslim system, and in many of those countries converting away from Islam is punishable by death. It's a form of slavery..they chose nothing and have these barbaric anti values forced on them.







then what do you mean by Muslims need to respect freedom of speech? the speech itself insults the Muslims' belief and Muslims itself, why can't Muslims speak for themselves?

Threatening violence over a difference of opinion is not necessary.

[badakbusuk]

Did most of those Islamic women in the middle east choose to be Muslim?

Hell no...they were born into a Muslim system, and in many of those countries converting away from Islam is punishable by death. It's a form of slavery..they chose nothing and have these barbaric anti values forced on them.

Islam's belief is if you have faith in Islam and practise its belief you will be awarded with Heaven in the afterlife world.
In other words, we are trying to save these people from being thrown in Hell in the afterlife. Why dont they want to be saved? And these people arent only women, but also men. Why are you only focusing on the women? so that
you can say that Islam disrespects woman?

Threatening violence over a difference of opinion is not necessary.

in Islam, beating your wife does not mean you can beat her until she bleeds or until she is badly injured or very hurt. And Muslims who use violence to solve problems are not real Muslims who follow their Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Just like communists in China. There are communists in China but not all China are communists. Please dont be stereotype

[Ennoea]

Islam is based around a patricarchal society so yeah it sucks for Women but its only the case in Saudi Arabia, in most other Muslim countries its nothing like that.

Muslims should respect women's rights, science and freedom of speech

Really do your research before you say that.

[Inuhanyou]

Muslims should respect other people's values and opinions other then their own, and take care to not create riots and destruction over things they take too seriously - West (talking to you, radicals)

[Ennoea]

Muslims should respect other people's values and opinions other then their own, and take care to not create riots and destruction over things they take too seriously

I agree with this, tho most of the time these riots are caused by Imams who are on a power trip. Most of them are so obsessed with hate that they'd rather die than actually teach their followers about peace and co-existence.

[Dionysus]

Haha. What's this? For this all problems in the Middle East to be resolved, the West must respect Muslims? That's all, hm? I'm sure that makes sense. I mean... Muslims obviously have a perfect understanding of Western cultures and are perfectly willing to respect them. If only the other side was so thoughtful...

I sense a great amount of stubborn pride. :del

[Pilaf]

This guy is actually trying to justify beating women by saying it's okay according to Islam, and he says we should respect Islam.

What a joke this is. Basic human rights always over ride individual religions. At the exact moment someone is hurt because of your beliefs, that person's rights mean more than your beliefs. That is the way of the West, and that is why we do not have to nor will ever embrace fundamental Islam as a valid human system.

[Aldrick]

Let's respect the people who think we're filthy infidels.

[Outlandish]

Lol Maj1n you hate Islam with a passion, but don't diss Islam when it comes to science do you know how much sicentific knowlege they had for that century ? it's freaking amazing!

But why don't you guys take this discussion to the Islam Discussion thread, and maj1n why do you troll every Islam/Muslim thread ? sheesh.

Pilaf don't confuse culture with Islam most of the Middle east cultures treat the women badly, in places like Malaysia, Pakistan, India the women are treated a lot better.

This guy is actually trying to justify beating women by saying it's okay according to Islam, and he says we should respect Islam.

They are trying to save there women from committing a sin ? can you understand that you small minded moron. It might be a violation of human rights but they are doing it out of goodness, stop judging things from your perception only be a little more open minded.

What a joke this is. Basic human rights always over ride individual religions. At the exact moment someone is hurt because of your beliefs, that person's rights mean more than your beliefs. That is the way of the West, and that is why we do not have to nor will ever embrace fundamental Islam as a valid human system.

Man do you know how many people actually hit there wives ?! i know a lot of married Muslims and i know that they would never hit there wife even if they did something wrong, trust me a lot of the girls would hit back :canttouchthis. Even if they do hit there women how many women do you think get hit ? i bet the rates are 10 times lower than domestic violence in most western countries.

and that is why we do not have to nor will ever embrace fundamental Islam as a valid human system.

Please don't speak for your country, you make a terrible stereotype, and FYI Islam is accepted world wide there is a reason that it's the most practiced and fastest growing religion in the world.

[Pilaf]

This thread is about Islam.

I have no love or respect for how Hindus treat women and "lower classes" either but that's a whole other thread.

[Outlandish]

This thread is about Islam.

I have no love or respect for how Hindus treat women and "lower classes" either but that's a whole other thread.

No, this thread is about the "West Respecting Islam." There is a difference, I'm sorry we don't have your respect oh great icon of human race, now please take any other unnecessary bashing/flame bait to the discussion thread.
No it wasn't, their knowledge came from the Greeks, because the Arab's translated Greek works.

Islam's incorrect idea of embryology, is a direct copy of Galen's, Islam's idea that women shoot sperm, also comes from the Greeks.

What ever man it's still amazing for a illiterate person who had to knowlege of the outside world in general to write that in a cave :LOS

You should take your own advice, don't confuse those cultures with Islam either.[/QUOTE]

Okay.

[batanga]

Islam has not earned my respect yet, and probably never will.

[Sarutobi sasuke]

I don't respect Islam (or any religion for that matter).

I have one reason for this and one reason alone. It teaches that faith is a virtue and that the more you hold on to your faith in the light of evidence to the contrary the more virtuous you are.
This is a poisonous teaching that undermines knowledge, the very foundation of our civilisation. Every other issue of critique leveled at Islam in this thread has it's roots in that one sickening teaching.

[Toby]

Guys, you have a thread for discussing Islam. As most of what you posted does not pertain to the article, I will just move it to the respective thread where it ought to be.

Stay on-topic.


EDIT:

Whilst I do think that recently there have been a lot of misunderstandings between the two religious groups, I doubt that they are misunderstandings which are key to reconciliating our differences. Culture has an overall larger gap between Western nations and Middle-Eastern nations, and both religions are rooted in more than just these two parts of the world.

[sadated_peon]

The first thing that flashed into my mind when I read the article was
“Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”

Something about a Israeli rabbi telling people to learn about Muslims and all I can think of is the art of war.

-

I don't think I can respect anyone who believes that their wife is inferior to them and must obey them. (even if the commands are mundane)

I don't think I can respect anyone who believes that blasphemy against their religion is a crime, yet blasphemy against other religions is truth.

I don't think I can respect anyone who lies about and misconstrues scientific facts to match their own beliefs.

Not all Mulsims fit this mold, so generalizations don't fit.

[Lezard Valeth]

No belief system over rides basic human rights. No woman deserves to be beaten.

Leave the Women rights in "muslim countries" to muslim women, they are perfectly able to think by themselves and defend their rights, which they do effectively in many "muslim countries".

Trying to lecture them about their own fate is not only vain, it's a mark of neo-colonialism and stupidity.

Like you, I am an Atheist, but I do not believe lecturing other countries while sitting on my chair is going to help, it only throws oil on fire. So please do something smart for once by shutting your mouth up.

On topic, I do not believe that's the cause of the troubles between Palestinians and Israel. The real cause is within Israel.

[Jin-E]

That guy is really naive.

Its simply an attempt to try to manipulate the west into believing that it is the "West's" own fault that the divide between them and the Islamic world exist. The main reason for the sorry state within the Islamic world rests almost solely on their own internal policies. By breaking fundamental human rights, treating 50% of their population as 2 class citizens, discrimination against minorites, rampant poverty and unemployment due to failed economic policies, discouraging private free press/speech and stamping out any attempt at consolidating a Democracy is just some of the key words.
Dealing with these subjects, rather than blaiming all their problems on the West and Israel, is the way forward. Basically, Muslims should complain to Cairo and Riyadh, not Washington or Tel Aviv.

Rather than letting the Islamic world sort out its own problems, this guy comes with the easy solution and blames the west, thus downplaying the painful chances the Islamic world must go through if they really want to be considered as parts of an modern civilized society. Its as if this guy dehumanize the Islamic world and is trying to put them into a perceived victim mentality where everyone is at fault but themself.

If the Western decison makers should read the Quran, then the Islamists should damn well pick up a copy of John Stuart Mill.

[Pilaf]

Leave the Women rights in "muslim countries" to muslim women, they are perfectly able to think by themselves and defend their rights, which they do effectively in many "muslim countries".

Trying to lecture them about their own fate is not only vain, it's a mark of neo-colonialism and stupidity.

Like you, I am an Atheist, but I do not believe lecturing other countries while sitting on my chair is going to help, it only throws oil on fire. So please do something smart for once by shutting your mouth up.

I didn't start this thread. I'm not lecturing either.

I'm defending the position of the West, while the West still exists. Because of the ultra liberal PC position that some people here take, the vermin may take over and topple the constitutions and values we hold from within someday.

I'd rather be stupid than silent.

[maj1n]

Rather than letting the Islamic world sort out its own problems, this guy comes with the easy solution and blames the west, thus downplaying the painful chances the Islamic world must go through if they really want to be considered as parts of an modern civilized society. Its as if this guy dehumanize the Islamic world and is trying to put them into a perceived victim mentality where everyone is at fault but themself.

I agree, one of my pet peeves is people painting themselves as a victim just so they don't try to solve their own problems.

[Pilaf]

What the fuck is the matter with you people?

I dare say I never painted myself as any fucking thing in this thread.

I made a very specific comment about those unfortunate women born into barbaric caste systems in Islam and other religions, where they have no hope of ever leading any other kind of life.

I say this because I feel deeply for their suffering. And I'm not about to respect anyone for enforcing such morality.

[Jin-E]

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/2748/fdfsfm8.jpg

I really fail to see how my post can be considered "Vermin appeasing":oh

[amazingfunksta]

They are trying to save there women from committing a sin ? can you understand that you small minded moron. It might be a violation of human rights but they are doing it out of goodness, stop judging things from your perception only be a little more open minded.



Man do you know how many people actually hit there wives ?! i know a lot of married Muslims and i know that they would never hit there wife even if they did something wrong, trust me a lot of the girls would hit back :canttouchthis. Even if they do hit there women how many women do you think get hit ? i bet the rates are 10 times lower than domestic violence in most western countries.


I say it's only fair that if they are trying to save each other from sin, that the woman should be able to hit the man when he commits sins. That way it's a partnership and not so one-sided. Are women not capable of determining what is right and what is wrong?!?!

Also, from what I understand, Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion. It's merely radicalist Muslims that translate the Qur'an to fit their own agenda. And To be honest, Muslims, Jews, and Christians technically believe in the same God... So if anything, they're cousins and should work on trying to respect each other more... On ALL sides.

I agree that the beating of a woman is an invasion of her inherent rights. While it's true that women probably don't get beaten much, Islam shouldn't be used as a means to justify the action when it does occur.

[maximilyan]

I respect them anyways.

Though does he think just because he's a rahbi his words bare more than anyone else?

[amazingfunksta]

What the fuck is the matter with you people?

I dare say I never painted myself as any fucking thing in this thread.

I made a very specific comment about those unfortunate women born into barbaric caste systems in Islam and other religions, where they have no hope of ever leading any other kind of life.

I say this because I feel deeply for their suffering. And I'm not about to respect anyone for enforcing such morality.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The way in which women are generally treated is the one thing that I dislike about the Islamic "culture". I would have to say that I don't have a bad overall impression on its people though. I know plenty of people of Muslim descent who are some of the nicest people I have ever met in my life, and I completely respect the way they choose to live their life. A lot of the Muslims I know would completely agree with you that the way in which women are treated in the culture is wrong, but, it may very well be because they are somewhat Americanized. It's probably the reason why their parents left their countries of origin in the first place.

America is the land of opportunity. But, for the world's sake, I say that we learn to respect them. The only problem is, that no matter how much we respect them, they're always going to hate us because of our culture since it collides with their beliefs <-- at least in the eyes of radicals. If they were to get leaders who respected us and our interests and tried their best to eliminate the radicalist threat, then I'm sure we'd all get along much better. We'll respect you, but only in the case that you return the favor.

[Outlandish]

amazingfunkstar check the islam discussion thread im taking your post there.

[Neophius]

Christians do not stand with Muslims because they do not worship the same God; you cannot deny the deity and supremacy of Christ and claim to worship the same God (meaning you're willing to disavow the entire New Testament).

Our relationship to Judaism is more complex, but still has the same problem of the denial of the Messiah.

Having said that, it isn't the crux of the problem.

The Middle East as a political entity wants us under Islamic rule. The West doesn't want to be.

The West wants the Middle East to be some form of representative democracy driven by humanitarian/free-thinking goals. The Middle East doesn't want to be.

This isn't a judgment upon which is better, but this is the primary political climate. Frankly, this issue began way back at the divergence of Abraham's bloodline: Isaac versus Ishmael, it has been thousands of years and still going strong.

[Verdius]

I could never respect something so disgusting. Not so long as the majority of it's followers still act like jackasses from less enlightened times and even then they would have to actually do some sort of good or some act to get my respect. You don't get respect just because of what you are.

I could tolerate it, that's much more likely to happen.

[Cirus]

As an American I feel sad. In order to gain more info and knoledge on that religion I studied it for about 4 month. What I found out were things I didn't like. All of which are known, and have been talked about. I understand the religion, but do not respect it, and I do not respect anything about it. Just as though there are people who do not respect anything about American culture or the catholic faith.

[Tokoyami]

it is how things work in Islam, what makes you think you can change it? We Muslims also have right to follow our beliefs and beating your wife is for a reason, not on purpose. that certain woman won't be punished if she obeys her husband's order, so, why disobey your husband?Simple.

There human beings as well and have every damn right to be able to say NO to someone. What your doing is not only assaulting someone but taking away something of what it is to be a person. As for doing something about it damn right someones going to.





then what do you mean by Muslims need to respect freedom of speech? the speech itself insults the Muslims' belief and Muslims itself, why can't Muslims speak for themselves?Awwwwwwww.

Learn to deal with it like the rest of the damn world has you baby.

[Pilaf]

Finally..another sane voice in the sea of apologetics.

Epic post, Tokoyami.

[LiveFire]

I could really care less about them. They keep jacking our gas prices up :pek

[Aokiji]

Muslims should respect women's rights, science and freedom of speech - West.

WTF are women's rights? Seriously, aren't the human rights enough? And freedom of speech isn't limitless - I wouldn't want it to be, even if it was for me.

Also, nice generalization here. Newsflash - poor countries disrespect science, FoS, etc. Islam isn't worse than other religions in that regard. It's just that christianity and Judaists and countries have been secularized more.

Voltaire, your idol, claimed that muslims are awesome and peaceful. Nuff said.

[hcheng02]

That guy is really naive.

Its simply an attempt to try to manipulate the west into believing that it is the "West's" own fault that the divide between them and the Islamic world exist. The main reason for the sorry state within the Islamic world rests almost solely on their own internal policies. By breaking fundamental human rights, treating 50% of their population as 2 class citizens, discrimination against minorites, rampant poverty and unemployment due to failed economic policies, discouraging private free press/speech and stamping out any attempt at consolidating a Democracy is just some of the key words.
Dealing with these subjects, rather than blaiming all their problems on the West and Israel, is the way forward. Basically, Muslims should complain to Cairo and Riyadh, not Washington or Tel Aviv.

Rather than letting the Islamic world sort out its own problems, this guy comes with the easy solution and blames the west, thus downplaying the painful chances the Islamic world must go through if they really want to be considered as parts of an modern civilized society. Its as if this guy dehumanize the Islamic world and is trying to put them into a perceived victim mentality where everyone is at fault but themself.

If the Western decison makers should read the Quran, then the Islamists should damn well pick up a copy of John Stuart Mill.

I agree. The Arab countries should basically get its act together rather than keep blaming that the Man is keeping them down. Seriously, China went through colonization and communism too and its getting its fucking act together. Now it is becoming a world power. There are a ton of problems in China but its not like it keeps blaming the West for everything. Its even made overtures with Japan, which has treated China way worse than anything Israel has ever done to the other Arab states.

[mislead]

I agree. The Arab countries should basically get its act together rather than keep blaming that the Man is keeping them down. Seriously, China went through colonization and communism too and its getting its fucking act together. Now it is becoming a world power. There are a ton of problems in China but its not like it keeps blaming the West for everything. Its even made overtures with Japan, which has treated China way worse than anything Israel has ever done to the other Arab states.

I blame the oil.

Seriously, it's probably the most important reason for the general impotence of the Middle East at the moment.

[Black Wraith]

What about people like me who are Western Muslims? Is he implying that we don't respect our selves?

[fghj]

Did most of those Islamic women in the middle east choose to be Muslim?

Hell no...they were born into a Muslim system, and in many of those countries converting away from Islam is punishable by death. It's a form of slavery..they chose nothing and have these barbaric anti values forced on them.









Threatening violence over a difference of opinion is not necessary.


Did anyone ask the women what they want?

[Verdius]

What about people like me who are Western Muslims? Is he implying that we don't respect our selves?

You're obviously a traitor for being in the west in the first place:pek

[hcheng02]

I blame the oil.

Seriously, it's probably the most important reason for the general impotence of the Middle East at the moment.

That makes sense actually. I've heard economists say that rich endowments of natural resources may actually be a detriment to development. All the Mideast countries that have oil don't try to develop manufacturing and trade industries that will help them out in the long run.

Not to mention that most of those countries have pretty corrupt and incompetent governments that can't provide social services and infrastructure like education. The Arab educational system is a fucking joke, and thats why parents send their kids to religious school which is almost as bad. In the end they grow up barely learning anything and can't get jobs. The Muslim countries have one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world. But I'm sure they'll say that the West is behind this somehow.

[mislead]

That makes sense actually. I've heard economists say that rich endowments of natural resources may actually be a detriment to development. All the Mideast countries that have oil don't try to develop manufacturing and trade industries that will help them out in the long run.

Not to mention that most of those countries have pretty corrupt and incompetent governments that can't provide social services and infrastructure like education. The Arab educational system is a fucking joke, and thats why parents send their kids to religious school which is almost as bad. In the end they grow up barely learning anything and can't get jobs. The Muslim countries have one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world. But I'm sure they'll say that the West is behind this somehow.

The West buys their oil, thus perpetuating the economic and political pathology. It's all the fault of those evil Americans, and their gas-chugging SUVs. :zaru

[Dionysus]

The West buys their oil, thus perpetuating the economic and political pathology. It's all the fault of those evil Americans, and their gas-chugging SUVs. :zaru
I can't wait till I see anti-Chinese and anti-Indian protests in the Middle East. :zaru They're both buying more and more oil and have Muslim populations. (One screams that it's repressed and wants independence, but no one seems to really care... And the other has a larger one with a long history is hate already.)

[the box]

wrong if a woman in islam is cheating on her husban

in christianity: ok um dont do it again here half my cash

in islam: bitch this chiken is cold!

and im amuslim

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

When Islam spread insanely 1000 years ago a "muslim" meant an educated, cultured man with tons of ethics. The islamic state back then was seen as the most advanced state socially and culturally. Now when people think about muslims they think of Bin Laden, or some crazy barbaric parson suicide bombing himself or someone else with other retarded habits. When people think about Islamic states they think about corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything .

I am a Muslim, and yes we deserve what is happening to us, it's God punishment because we abandoned all the islamic principles and ethics. Ok not all of us did, but we are all in the same ship and we are all responsible in a way or another of what's happening.

[Toby]

That makes sense actually. I've heard economists say that rich endowments of natural resources may actually be a detriment to development. All the Mideast countries that have oil don't try to develop manufacturing and trade industries that will help them out in the long run.

Not to mention that most of those countries have pretty corrupt and incompetent governments that can't provide social services and infrastructure like education. The Arab educational system is a fucking joke, and thats why parents send their kids to religious school which is almost as bad. In the end they grow up barely learning anything and can't get jobs. The Muslim countries have one of the highest illiteracy rates in the world. But I'm sure they'll say that the West is behind this somehow.

Good post, oil is a bit of a curse for some nations according to political scientists too. It is detrimental to spreading wealth appropriately across the country. Unless you make a social-democratic solution of redistribution, that is. Qatar has tried this to a lesser extent, but when it only takes place on a regional level, the ownership natural resources begins to converge around a tiny elite.

As a matter of fact, Albertan oil sands in Canada might produce the same effect in Canada. That would be interesting.

[maj1n]

When Islam spread insanely 1000 years ago a "muslim" meant an educated, cultured man with tons of ethics. The islamic state back then was seen as the most advanced state socially and culturally. Now when people think about muslims they think of Bin Laden, or some crazy barbaric parson suicide bombing himself or someone else with other retarded habits. When people think about Islamic states they think about corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything .

mmm not totally correct.

Arabia prior to Islam was in fact, quite advanced in academic fields for its time, they had academies (the academy of Juadinshapur) that taught medicine amongst other disciplines, most of this they got from Greek and Syriac knowledge.

For example, according to Islam itself, Muhammads first wife, before he married her (therefore before Islam) was a business-woman, unfortunately then his rulings barred women from those kinds of positions.

The sophistication of Arabia existed before and during Islam, so Islam really had little to do with it, though even in Islam there is evidence Islam pushed back the status of women in arabia (read up on the status of the Ansar women, whom was equal to their husband or even higher).

In fact, if you read up on history a bit, Islam suffered the 'dark ages' when 'free thinking' became too free for the Caliph's taste, and he cracked down on free thinkers, because people were starting to re-evaluate Islam.

This is called 'Closing of the Gates of Itjihad' if you want to look it up.


I am a Muslim, and yes we deserve what is happening to us, it's God punishment because we abandoned all the islamic principles and ethics. Ok not all of us did, but we are all in the same ship and we are all responsible in a way or another of what's happening.
Actually i'm happy if Muslims abandon Islamic practices more and more, this is why Turkey is better then Iran.


Good post, oil is a bit of a curse for some nations according to political scientists too. It is detrimental to spreading wealth appropriately across the country. Unless you make a social-democratic solution of redistribution, that is. Qatar has tried this to a lesser extent, but when it only takes place on a regional level, the ownership natural resources begins to converge around a tiny elite.

As a matter of fact, Albertan oil sands in Canada might produce the same effect in Canada. That would be interesting.

I think its possible that a great conflict may occur soon, you see Qatar and Dubai take advantage of foreign workers, they live in piss-poor conditions and don't get paid enough, in fact they usually are put into situations where they get into more debt.

This together with their oil is what is giving them such a rise in economy, but treating people like that is not good.

Apparently something like 90% of workers (or labour not sure) is made of these foreign workers, and their not happy.

There are protests now, and violent clashes, i have been told by some economists that if these foreign workers stopped working, the whole of that region would collapse, it is built on their backs.

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

mmm not totally correct.

Arabia prior to Islam was in fact, quite advanced in academic fields for its time, they had academies (the academy of Juadinshapur) that taught medicine amongst other disciplines, most of this they got from Greek and Syriac knowledge.

For example, according to Islam itself, Muhammads first wife, before he married her (therefore before Islam) was a business-woman, unfortunately then his rulings barred women from those kinds of positions.

The sophistication of Arabia existed before and during Islam, so Islam really had little to do with it, though even in Islam there is evidence Islam pushed back the status of women in arabia (read up on the status of the Ansar women, whom was equal to their husband or even higher).

In fact, if you read up on history a bit, Islam suffered the 'dark ages' when 'free thinking' became too free for the Caliph's taste, and he cracked down on free thinkers, because people were starting to re-evaluate Islam.

This is called 'Closing of the Gates of Itjihad' if you want to look it up.


I didn't mention Arabia in all of my post. Your comment does not relate in any way to what I have said.

Actually i'm happy if Muslims abandon Islamic practices more and more, this is why Turkey is better then Iran.

It's the opposite of what you are saying. Muslims should go back to Islam.

[maj1n]

I didn't mention Arabia in all of my post. Your comment does not relate in any way to what I have said.

You said


When Islam spread insanely 1000 years ago
The islamic state back then was seen as the most advanced state socially and culturally

That really is talking about Arabia, the insane spreading was during the 1st and 3rd Caliph when they consolidated and took control of all of Arabia and launched invasions into Spain and France.

'Muslims' (Arabs really) were as you said, considered sophisticated, from Arabia, during that time-period, there has never been any other time-period where they were even remotely seen as the 'most advanced'.


It's the opposite of what you are saying. Muslims should go back to Islam.
What is the opposite? the conditions of Turkey as compared to Iran?

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

That really is talking about Arabia, the insane spreading was during the 1st and 3rd Caliph when they consolidated and took control of all of Arabia and launched invasions into Spain and France.

'Muslims' (Arabs really) were as you said, considered sophisticated, from Arabia, during that time-period, there has never been any other time-period where they were even remotely seen as the 'most advanced'.


I if you notice, I said 1000 years ago, not 1300 years ago, so I'm talking about a different era that you are talking about first of all. Second I never went why the Islamic state was prosperous and whether it was prosperous before and why the image of a muslim was different than what it was now. So your comment is totally unrelated to what I said.

It's the opposite of what you are saying. Muslims should go back to Islam.

Iran is full of shit. It's the opposite, i.e. muslims should return to the religion they abandoned.

nfortunately then his rulings barred women from those kinds of positions.

This made me laugh. From where do you get your info? During the second calipha's rule, one of the ministers was a woman.

[maj1n]

I if you notice, I said 1000 years ago, not 1300 years ago, so I'm talking about a different era that you are talking about first of all. Second I never went why the Islamic state was prosperous and whether it was prosperous before and why the image of a muslim was different than what it was now. So your comment is totally unrelated to what I said.

Then your post was wrong, no Islamic state 1300 years ago was considered the most advanced cultural age.

The only time in history this was considered so was ancient Arabia.


This made me laugh. From where do you get your info? During the second calipha's rule, one of the ministers was a woman.

he said: a nation which places its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper
-Al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 4425

[niyesuH]

This thread is about Islam.

I have no love or respect for how Hindus treat women and "lower classes" either but that's a whole other thread.

dont confuse culture with religion..

[sadated_peon]

When Islam spread insanely 1000 years ago a "muslim" meant an educated, cultured man with tons of ethics. The islamic state back then was seen as the most advanced state socially and culturally. Now when people think about muslims they think of Bin Laden, or some crazy barbaric parson suicide bombing himself or someone else with other retarded habits. When people think about Islamic states they think about corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything .

I am a Muslim, and yes we deserve what is happening to us, it's God punishment because we abandoned all the islamic principles and ethics. Ok not all of us did, but we are all in the same ship and we are all responsible in a way or another of what's happening.
Do you believe that what made civilization successful 1,000 year ago, if implemented today would be successful?

Why?

Athens had a democracy that successfully governed and brought great cultural and educational advancement.

But apply it to a modern country and it would completely fail.
The idea of having all rich male citizens of a country come to a single forum and shout out their "yea or nay" is impractical to an extreme. Such a system of democracy could no longer work. Not mention the idea of restricting the vote to rich male is prejudice.

But that is just voting, the infrastructure of ancient Greece is completely different to today's countries, and process for taxation or management would fail to meet the demands that are needed to keep a modern city going.

Any policy based on the idea of returning to how the world was 1,000 years ago is inherently flawed.

[Willaien]

My comments: I can respect a person of any religion, but I have little respect for the religions themselves.

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

Do you believe that what made civilization successful 1,000 year ago, if implemented today would be successful?

Why?

Athens had a democracy that successfully governed and brought great cultural and educational advancement.

But apply it to a modern country and it would completely fail.
The idea of having all rich male citizens of a country come to a single forum and shout out their "yea or nay" is impractical to an extreme. Such a system of democracy could no longer work. Not mention the idea of restricting the vote to rich male is prejudice.

But that is just voting, the infrastructure of ancient Greece is completely different to today's countries, and process for taxation or management would fail to meet the demands that are needed to keep a modern city going.

Any policy based on the idea of returning to how the world was 1,000 years ago is inherently flawed.

Well what you said is true. However, if you go to what to I said:
When Islam spread insanely 1000 years ago a "muslim" meant an educated, cultured man with tons of ethics.

When people think about Islamic states they think about corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything .

we abandoned all the islamic principles and ethics.

You'll find that your reply is irrelevant. I'm not talking about political systems here ...

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

Then your post was wrong, no Islamic state 1300 years ago was considered the most advanced cultural age.


Well I guess you can't read well, I have to quote my self:

I if you notice, I said 1000 years ago, not 1300 years ago


a nation which places its affairs in the hands of a woman shall never prosper

How is your quote apply to this:

was a business-woman, unfortunately then his rulings barred women from those kinds of positions.

[sadated_peon]

Well what you said is true. However, if you go to what to I said:

You'll find that your reply is irrelevant. I'm not talking about political systems here ...
It is relevant, you're just not applying it.

The “education, cultured man with tons of ethics” a 1000 years ago = “corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything” of today.

The “principles and ethics” of 1,000 years ago produce what you see today. They fail because they were designed for a world that existed 1,000 years ago.

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

The “principles and ethics” of 1,000 years ago produce what you see today. They fail because they were designed for a world that existed 1,000 years ago.

Well we are not following the principles and ethics of 1000 years ago.

The “principles and ethics” of 1,000 years ago produce what you see today. They fail because they were designed for a world that existed 1,000 years ago.

Ethics and principles doesn't change, the human nature never change ...

[Cirus]

When Islam spread insanely 1000 years ago a "muslim" meant an educated, cultured man with tons of ethics. The islamic state back then was seen as the most advanced state socially and culturally. Now when people think about muslims they think of Bin Laden, or some crazy barbaric parson suicide bombing himself or someone else with other retarded habits. When people think about Islamic states they think about corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything .

I am a Muslim, and yes we deserve what is happening to us, it's God punishment because we abandoned all the islamic principles and ethics. Ok not all of us did, but we are all in the same ship and we are all responsible in a way or another of what's happening.
I have read this, and I agree with it. Yes Isam a 1000 yrs ago was advanced, but it didn't change with the times, and is causeing many problems for its people and the rest of the world now. Much like China hasn't changed as well. That is why Isam needs to change its practices and update so it can survive, cause I forsee a great war not to far off in the future if events continue they way they are going. One between countries and religion that will take half the worlds population.

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

That is why Isam needs to change its practices and update so it can survive, cause I forsee a great war not to far off in the future if events continue they way they are going. One between countries and religion that will take half the worlds population.

OMG, you are totally missing the point here. Islam didn't change, in fact Islam doesn't change, it won't be Islam anymore. The point is that muslims are not as they were used to be. They used to follow the teaching of Islam, now they are too far from it.

[Willaien]

OMG, you are totally missing the point here. Islam didn't change, in fact Islam doesn't change, it won't be Islam anymore. The point is that muslims are not as they were used to be. They used to follow the teaching of Islam, now they are too far from it.

No true Scotsman.

Yes, Muslim countries were the centers of learning and science, but the rise of fundamentalism has hurt it.

[Cirus]

OMG, you are totally missing the point here. Islam didn't change, in fact Islam doesn't change, it won't be Islam anymore. The point is that muslims are not as they were used to be. They used to follow the teaching of Islam, now they are too far from it.
When ever something becomes stagnant in it progression it is doomed to failure. NorthKorea, China, Cuba, and several other countries also refused to change and look how they are viewed by the world. In a not too kind light. All the other religons in the world have changed and advanced which allow them to survive and grow. Islam has not done such a thing. Yes the form of thinking Islam did 1000 years ago was perfect for that day in age, but with the rise of Western Culture, moderinazation of the world, industry, more free thinking, equal treatment, and human rights all across the world it comes into conflict with the that religion cause it hasn't changed.

Think about what would have happened to Christianity if it didn't change over the years. It would have created problems very similar to what Islam is creating today.

My point is things need to change. If things don't change then it will not survive.

For the record, I am Roman Catholic.

[sadated_peon]

Well we are not following the principles and ethics of 1000 years ago.
The closer a country gets to “principles and ethics” of 1,000 years ago the more
“corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything” they become.
All attempts to get to how things were 1,000 years ago fail because the system breaks apart the closer you get.

Ethics and principles doesn't change, the human nature never change ...
Yes, ethics and principles do change. 1,000 years ago you had slavery, serfdom, social hierarchy, conquests, provincialism, etc

Human nature does not change, but the world in which that human nature has changed. Principles that served a society of hundreds of thousand people with hand tools can not be applied to society of hundreds of million people with modern equipment.

Think of simple thing like economic distribution, principles that guided a society made up primarily of agricultural workers, can not be applied today. All social principles for the continuation of such a society fail today, as such a society can not exist.

Trying to return to how things were 1,000 years is like being in a hole and deciding to dig hole to get yourself out. You're going in the complete wrong direction.

[Axl Low]

Muslims should respect women's rights, science and freedom of speech - West.

Well, the west has to right sometime :zaru

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

The closer a country gets to “principles and ethics” of 1,000 years ago the more
“corrupted states with tyrants ruling, states falling way behind in law, environment, culture, science and almost everything” they become.
All attempts to get to how things were 1,000 years ago fail because the system breaks apart the closer you get.

I'm not talking about the "ethics and principles" of curtain society, these can change from one society to another. I'm talking about the absolute ethics and principles that should be practiced by every human regardless of time or society. These are the ethics of Islam. I believe in absoluteness of right and wrong.

Many practices that were considered right are now thought as wrong, because some men didn't understand why they were wrong and now they do. But that does not make them right at any point.

All ethics and principles of Islam are ones that are connected the the human nature not to a curtain society or culture and that's why they are always true. They are ethics and principles that target the inside of the human and his nature.

Trying to return to how things were 1,000 years is like being in a hole and deciding to dig hole to get yourself out. You're going in the complete wrong direction.

The thing is that you don't know about the ethics and principles I am talking about. Let me just name a couple of these principles:

Islam set the first ethical restrictions for a WAR, when no one had done before, these restriction include:
1- No attacking at night since this will scare the children.
2- No cutting trees
3- No destroying homes
4- No entering homes, he who stayed in his home is safe
5- No attacking children, women or elderly.
6- Whoever not wanting to fight shall not be fought

If we compare it to the rules of war now, those of more than a thousand years old are much more advanced.

In addition, even in war, when killing it should not be out of pleasure, or out of satisfying inner hatred or inner desire of killing, it should be only killing as a self defense as it is a war after all. I shall recall an incident that happened with "Omar Bin Al Khatab" on this. He was fighting during a war, and after he managed to disarm his opponent, his opponent spitted on him, then he refused to finish him off and left him for someone else. When asked why, he said if I killed him I will be satisfying an anger and hatred and a revenge inside of me, for he spitted on me, and that will be murder.

These principles are absolute principles that are much better than what's being practiced nowadays in war, though they are more than a thousand years old. All principles and ethics of Islam target the very basics of the human nature and are not bound by time.

[Altron]

Maybe mods should move this to the debate corner since this is getting more into a heated debate, than news.

[maj1n]

I'm not talking about the "ethics and principles" of curtain society, these can change from one society to another. I'm talking about the absolute ethics and principles that should be practiced by every human regardless of time or society. These are the ethics of Islam. I believe in absoluteness of right and wrong.

There are some ethics and morals in Islam which are wrong and bad for today's age.

For example, beating one's wife for any reason, killing ex-Muslims, waging war based on the other's disbelief of Islam.


All ethics and principles of Islam are ones that are connected the the human nature not to a curtain society or culture and that's why they are always true. They are ethics and principles that target the inside of the human and his nature.

Your being unnecessarily vague here, and more then likely, your going to go with the 'lets excuse the bad ethics in Islam as being time-dependant, and the good ones as being universal'.


The thing is that you don't know about the ethics and principles I am talking about. Let me just name a couple of these principles:

Islam set the first ethical restrictions for a WAR, when no one had done before, these restriction include:
1- No attacking at night since this will scare the children.
2- No cutting trees
3- No destroying homes
4- No entering homes, he who stayed in his home is safe
5- No attacking children, women or elderly.
6- Whoever not wanting to fight shall not be fought

If we compare it to the rules of war now, those of more than a thousand years old are much more advanced.

1 i have never heard of in Islam, evidence please.
2 I have never heard of in Islam, evidence please.
3 I have never heard of in Islam, evidence please.
4 I have never heard of in Islam, evidence please.
5 Is true
6 Is wrong.


In addition, even in war, when killing it should not be out of pleasure, or out of satisfying inner hatred or inner desire of killing, it should be only killing as a self defense as it is a war after all. I shall recall an incident that happened with "Omar Bin Al Khatab" on this. He was fighting during a war, and after he managed to disarm his opponent, his opponent spitted on him, then he refused to finish him off and left him for someone else. When asked why, he said if I killed him I will be satisfying an anger and hatred and a revenge inside of me, for he spitted on me, and that will be murder.

These principles are absolute principles that are much better than what's being practiced nowadays in war, thought they are more than a thousands years old. All principles and ethics of Islam target the very basics of the human nature and are not bound by time.
You would be wrong here too, Muhammad raided caravans of the Quraish, caravans that were just transport, the reason is that he hated the Quraish above all others.

The general ruling for Islamic warfare is this.

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.
-http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294


The command for warfare in Islam is simple.

1. Invite the others to Islam
2.If they don't, they have to pay a discriminatory tax
3.If they don't do the above, kill them

This isn't suitable for the modern age.

[impersonal]

It's really funny to hear a russian make claims about how the west should treat muslisms. Shouldn't that guy at least include his own country in the criticism?

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

maj1n, you are totally wrong, you know almost all the wrong stuff about islam and the worst thing is that you think that you are so right and all muslims are wrong! Maybe you should create a new religion called "maj1n Islam". I won't engage in any debate with you. BTW, every time I talk stuff about Islam you jump and you want to prove me wrong! Look man I'm a muslim who lives among millions of muslims and who read thousands times more about islam than you did and who hears thousands of speeches about islam more than you do. So please, if you are trying to convince me, and maybe all muslims, about your version of Islam like Bin Ladin's version, I cannot be easily brain washed like some of bin ladin's followers. You really remind me of the fundamentalists who want to brainwash people with wrong thoughts of Islam by throwing bits of "evidence" here and there. Please maj1n, leave Islam for the muslims, don't redefine it to them with all of your "evidence"!!!

[|)/-\\/\/|\|]

Tokoyami, I'm not obliged to search for hours through all my books and recorded speeches about Islam or to go ask all the scholars I knew to remember each reference for each word I say it about Islam. I know my religion far better than maj1n knows about it. Or do you think that I and the billion of muslims around the world should seek maj1n to "correct" our faith?

[Sarutobi sasuke]

Tokoyami, I'm not obliged to search for hours through all my books and recorded speeches about Islam or to go ask all the scholars I knew to remember each reference for each word I say it about Islam. I know my religion far better than maj1n knows about it. Or do you think that I and the billion of muslims around the world should seek maj1n to "correct" our faith?

Judging by your posts you cant see the forest for the trees.

[Tokoyami]

Tokoyami, I'm not obliged to search for hours through all my books and recorded speeches about Islam or to go ask all the scholars I knew to remember each reference for each word I say it about Islam. I know my religion far better than maj1n knows about it. Or do you think that I and the billion of muslims around the world should seek maj1n to "correct" our faith?...

I meant quote sites on islam sir.

Second why the hell would you go to anyone on a naruto site to correct your faith. I'm saying prove him wrong without a doubt and show the others who just might not KNOW AS MUCH AS YOU DO on the subject that your right. That way if he then criticizes you in some stupid way you'd be justified in not debating him. Right now without proving your claim you look like your whining.

[ztee]

I don't respect Islam (or any religion for that matter).

I have one reason for this and one reason alone. It teaches that faith is a virtue and that the more you hold on to your faith in the light of evidence to the contrary the more virtuous you are.
This is a poisonous teaching that undermines knowledge, the very foundation of our civilisation. Every other issue of critique leveled at Islam in this thread has it's roots in that one sickening teaching.

Well said, I couldn’t agree more. This is the fundamental problem this ALL religions (Though I do believe that religions based around spiritualism, such as Buddhism can always co-exist).

At least the west has separated religion from state governance, something that I don’t see many Islamic states achieving for a very long time (if ever). To truly co-exist and respect one another (yes, it goes both ways) I believe that many Islamic countries need to do this, whilst providing equality for all.

Ultimately, for the west to “Respect” the majority of Islamic nations, these countries need to respect their own people, with equality for all. Until that happens, you will receive NO respect.

[maj1n]

maj1n, you are totally wrong, you know almost all the wrong stuff about islam and the worst thing is that you think that you are so right and all muslims are wrong!

What are you talking about? i cite Islamic evidence, the hadith, Quran and numerous other's.

Who are these 'all Muslims' to whom i referred to? can you please cite when i said i think all Muslims are wrong?

You don't equal all muslims btw, that ego of yours sure is pretty big.


Maybe you should create a new religion called "maj1n Islam". I won't engage in any debate with you. BTW, every time I talk stuff about Islam you jump and you want to prove me wrong! Look man I'm a muslim who lives among millions of muslims and who read thousands times more about islam than you did and who hears thousands of speeches about islam more than you do.

Really? well i fail to see how you can make that claim, do you know me personally? no.

This seem's like a failed attempt to say 'but i know more then you so im right nananana'.


So please, if you are trying to convince me, and maybe all muslims, about your version of Islam like Bin Ladin's version, I cannot be easily brain washed like some of bin ladin's followers. You really remind me of the fundamentalists who want to brainwash people with wrong thoughts of Islam by throwing bits of "evidence" here and there. Please maj1n, leave Islam for the muslims, don't redefine it to them with all of your "evidence"!!!
All i read from here is

1.Your failure to support your assertions with evidence, so lets insult Maj1n by equatting him with fundamentalists.

2. Lets leave Islam to Muslims (btw the sources i cite are hadith and the QUran, written allegedly by very early Muslims, so...your arguing against them too really, this kinda voids you saying i think all muslims are wrong).

When you get a chance, can you provide evidence for the following assertions.


Islam set the first ethical restrictions for a WAR, when no one had done before, these restriction include:
1- No attacking at night since this will scare the children.
2- No cutting trees
3- No destroying homes
4- No entering homes, he who stayed in his home is safe
5- No attacking children, women or elderly.
6- Whoever not wanting to fight shall not be fought


Firstly, evidence that Islam set the first ethical restrictions, can you please cite for me every culture to have existed before Islam, and show me they lacked ethics pertaining to war (as in rules).

Then show me evidence of every assertion you made there (1-6) you can leave out 5 though, and 6 was wrong as i gave you the evidence.

[Uchiha Q]

Firstly, evidence that Islam set the first ethical restrictions, can you please cite for me every culture to have existed before Islam, and show me they lacked ethics pertaining to war (as in rules).
why dont you ask for a pizza too ? :D,but, I wont do that because it will take over a year to get them all,
however lets analyze the points he gave us and see if they apply to todays "ADVANCED" rules, since todays wars MUST be more humane .. right ?:S

"1- No attacking at night since this will scare the children."
Yeah right like the US army WONT attack at night, ive seen many videos of attacks during the night, thats why we have night vision goggles and infrared

"2- No cutting trees"
i dont think theres a slight possibility of a "no cutting trees" rule in the us military.

"3- No destroying homes"
Ive seen MANY mosque's and homes destroyed, in video's.


"4- No entering homes, he who stayed in his home is safe"
wasent there a girl raped in iraq ? after the military invaded the home for "evidense".

"5- No attacking children, women or elderly."
Maybe


"6- Whoever not wanting to fight shall not be fought"
nah i dont think theres a rule like that,
especialy during war, in the Quran it says during war if a guy gives up and asks for your protection you give it to him, in todays "more humane" wars if a guy did that, he will either get shot or tortured to death.

Were not saying ISLAM was the first to set some rules during war, were saying islam has one of the most humane and great rules during war,


Then show me evidence of every assertion you made there (1-6) you can leave out 5 though, and 6 was wrong as i gave you the evidence.
Ill try to do that.

[maj1n]

Ill try to do that.
You can forget 2, the Quran disproves it.

59:5 Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers.

You can forget 3 and 4, Quran disproves it.
59:2 He it is Who hath caused those of the People of the Scripture who disbelieved to go forth from their homes unto the first exile. Ye deemed not that they would go forth, while they deemed that their strongholds would protect them from Allah. But Allah reached them from a place whereof they recked not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So learn a lesson, O ye who have eyes!

So the only thing that Islam itself might agree with you is 1 (no fighting at night) and 5 and...thats it.

It is incredibly ironic that the attempt to paint Islam as humane actually directly contradicted the Quran.lol.

[Uchiha Q]

59:5 Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers.
where does it say "its ok to cut the trees" i dotn see it.

You can forget 3 and 4, Quran disproves it.
59:2 He it is Who hath caused those of the People of the Scripture who disbelieved to go forth from their homes unto the first exile. Ye deemed not that they would go forth, while they deemed that their strongholds would protect them from Allah. But Allah reached them from a place whereof they recked not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers. So learn a lesson, O ye who have eyes!

where does it say "go enter their homes" ?


and ermm how does "they ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers" mean "Muslims must destroy their homes" ?

It is incredibly ironic that the attempt to paint Islam as humane actually directly contradicted the Quran.lol.
whats funny is that when you read the quran you somehow read what you want to read.

Read up:

2:85 , 8:70,71 , 76:8 , al-Tabarani in Al-Mu'jam As-Saghir [part 1,250], [Narrated in the Al-Tabarany collection , volume " 8", page 36 ] ,

i mite find more.

[maj1n]

where does it say "its ok to cut the trees" i dotn see it.

...
59:5 Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers.

Allah allowed it.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
When the Messenger of Allah laid siege to Bani An-Nadir, to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down.

where does it say "go enter their homes" ?

and ermm how does "they ruined their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers" mean "Muslims must destroy their homes" ?

I pretty much equate to destroying someones home as entering it, especially back then, when destroying someones home is really hacking it down.

[Deimos]

...
59:5 Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers.

Allah allowed it.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
When the Messenger of Allah laid siege to Bani An-Nadir, to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down.

I pretty much equate to destroying someones home as entering it, especially back then, when destroying someones home is really hacking it down.

:D

maj1n, I think you've made your point, a long time ago already, that you're a pro at quoting the Qur'an without having any proper knowledge of the corresponding context(s). Seriously, why don't you just stop that habit of yours? It really doesn't make you look good or anything like it.

Want advice? If you want to know what Islam is about without having to go through complicated studies (such as studying the Qur'an), I suggest you study the Sunnah. Muhammad is the one person who knew what Allah wanted from Muslims. His lifestyle is what we're supposed to see in Islam. If something doesn't match what's written in the Qur'an, then we're likely the ones to be missing something.

Please, either carry appropriate research into this book before quoting it so casually and recklessly, or try to make Islam look bad using something else.

[maj1n]

:D

maj1n, I think you've made your point, a long time ago already, that you're a pro at quoting the Qur'an without having any proper knowledge of the corresponding context(s). Seriously, why don't you just stop that habit of yours? It really doesn't make you look good or anything like it.

Want advice? If you want to know what Islam is about without having to go through complicated studies (such as studying the Qur'an), I suggest you study the Sunnah. Muhammad is the one person who knew what Allah wanted from Muslims. His lifestyle is what we're supposed to see in Islam. If something doesn't match what's written in the Qur'an, then we're likely the ones to be missing something.

Please, either carry appropriate research into this book before quoting it so casually and recklessly, or try to make Islam look bad using something else.
Which part of the interpretation of Surah 59:5 do you disagree with?

I also gave a Tafsir to explain it (Tafsir being authorative Islamic scholars exegesis on Quranic verse).

59:5 Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
When the Messenger of Allah laid siege to Bani An-Nadir, to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down.


Its pretty obvious Islam does not fordid cutting down tree's in wartime, which part do you disagree with? and provide evidence for your disagreement please.

Btw the Tafsir does in fact give the Sunnah of Muhammad, do you know what Sunnah is?

[Black Wraith]

Jalalyn:
{ مَا قَطَعْتُمْ مِّن لِّينَةٍ أَوْ تَرَكْتُمُوهَا قَآئِمَةً عَلَىٰ أُصُولِهَا فَبِإِذْنِ ٱللَّهِ وَلِيُخْزِيَ ٱلْفَاسِقِينَ }


Whatever palm-trees you cut down, O Muslims, or left standing on their roots, it was by God’s leave: He gave you the choice in this matter, and in order that, by giving [you] leave to cut them down, He might disgrace those who are immoral, the Jews, in return for their objection that the cutting down of productive trees was [deliberate] spoiling [of the land].

...................

[sadated_peon]

I'm not talking about the "ethics and principles" of curtain society, these can change from one society to another. I'm talking about the absolute ethics and principles that should be practiced by every human regardless of time or society. These are the ethics of Islam. I believe in absoluteness of right and wrong.

Many practices that were considered right are now thought as wrong, because some men didn't understand why they were wrong and now they do. But that does not make them right at any point.

All ethics and principles of Islam are ones that are connected the the human nature not to a curtain society or culture and that's why they are always true. They are ethics and principles that target the inside of the human and his nature.
The ethic and principles of Islam were the ethics and principles of a civilization 1,000 years ago. They are principles that fit with the time, but that now do not fit with the current modern world.

No, they were not misunderstood, there was a cultural shift forced by a changing world that realized that these old principles no longer fit a modern world. All ethics and principles are the same as the ones that have changed, they are no different. The only difference is that some have been changed by all, others are changed by some, and some are still to be changed.

No, ethics or principles exist in a vacuum without context of the world around it.

The thing is that you don't know about the ethics and principles I am talking about. Let me just name a couple of these principles:

Islam set the first ethical restrictions for a WAR, when no one had done before, these restriction include:
One of the first nation to do with was the Greek city states, they had certain rules that included when they went to war(not during the Carneia), exchange of prisoners, treatment of land etc.
But most were abandoned when things became tough, the same with the Islamic ones.

1- No attacking at night since this will scare the children.
2- No cutting trees
3- No destroying homes
4- No entering homes, he who stayed in his home is safe
5- No attacking children, women or elderly.
6- Whoever not wanting to fight shall not be fought
1) Not attacking at night is an idiotic rule, which has no place in modern war. It is dated by the idea of siege warfare, where you would attack a defending city.
2) I assume this food bearing trees, and there is in place now regulation on destroying civilian agriculture.
3) Once again, this is dependent on the situation, if your enemy is hiding or using a home to fight, then it is justified. But as for destroying homes of the civilian population, no that is not allowed today, though it depends on how you define civilian. It is dated by the fact that most battles were fought by standing armies on a field of war. This doesn’t exist today.
4) Same as above, if you enemy is hiding in a home, and then you can enter to get him. It is from a time before war was fought in an urban setting. Nor does it apply to police actions.
5) Once again, from a time when women, children and elderly did not fight in wars. If a child has a bomb strapped to its chest and going to blow up in a crowd of people it is fair game.
6) This applies today. It applies under prisoners of war.
If we compare it to the rules of war now, those of more than a thousand years old are much more advanced.
No, they are dated, wrong or incomplete.
For example it says nothing against taken possessions, it says nothing about taking prisoners as slaves, or anything about the treatment of prisoners.

The taking of slaves being common place at the time.

In addition, even in war, when killing it should not be out of pleasure, or out of satisfying inner hatred or inner desire of killing, it should be only killing as a self defense as it is a war after all. I shall recall an incident that happened with "Omar Bin Al Khatab" on this. He was fighting during a war, and after he managed to disarm his opponent, his opponent spitted on him, then he refused to finish him off and left him for someone else. When asked why, he said if I killed him I will be satisfying an anger and hatred and a revenge inside of me, for he spitted on me, and that will be murder.

These principles are absolute principles that are much better than what's being practiced nowadays in war, though they are more than a thousand years old. All principles and ethics of Islam target the very basics of the human nature and are not bound by time.
Frankly what you have done is prove my point. You point out things where are obviously dated and based on culture of the time.

[Black Wraith]

Tafsir Ibn Kathir in it's entirety, Majin, from now it seems to me that I'll have to check all the verses that you post myself.

The Prophet Cut down the Date Trees of the Jews by the Leave of Allah





Allah said,


﴿مَا قَطَعْتُمْ مِّن لِّينَةٍ أَوْ تَرَكْتُمُوهَا قَآئِمَةً عَلَى أُصُولِهَا فَبِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَلِيُخْزِىَ الْفَـسِقِينَ ﴾


(What you cut down of the Linah, or you left them standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might disgrace the rebellious.) Linah is an especially good type of date tree. Abu `Ubaydah said that Linah is a different kind of dates than `Ajwah and Barni. Several others said that Linah refers to every type of date fruits, except for the `Ajwah (ripen dates), while Ibn Jarir said that it refers to all kinds of date trees. Ibn Jarir quoted Mujahid saying that it also includes the Buwayrah type. When the Messenger of Allah laid siege to Bani An-Nadir, to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down. Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Yazid bin Ruman, Qatadah and Muqatil bin Hayyan said, "Bani An-Nadir sent a message to the Messenger , saying that he used to outlaw mischief in the earth, so why did he order that their trees be cut down Allah sent down this honorable Ayah stating that whatever Linah was felled or left intact by the Muslims, has been done by His permission, will, leave and pleasure to humiliate and disgrace the enemy and degrade them.'' Mujahid said, "Some of the emigrants discouraged others from chopping down the date trees of Jews, saying that they were war spoils for Muslims. The Qur'an approved of the actions of those who discouraged and those who approved of cutting these trees, stating that those who cut them or did not, did so only by Allah's leave.'' There is also a Hadith narrated from the Prophet with this meaning. An-Nasa'i recorded that Ibn `Abbas said about Allah's statement,


﴿مَا قَطَعْتُمْ مِّن لِّينَةٍ أَوْ تَرَكْتُمُوهَا قَآئِمَةً عَلَى أُصُولِهَا فَبِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَلِيُخْزِىَ الْفَـسِقِينَ ﴾


(What you cut down of the Linah, or you left them standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might disgrace the rebellious.) "They forced them to come down from their forts and were ordered to cut their trees cut down. So the Muslims hesitated, and some of them said, `We cut down some and left some. We must ask Allah's Messenger if we will earn a reward for what we cut and if we will be burdened for what we left intact.' Allah sent down this Ayah, t


﴿مَا قَطَعْتُمْ مِّن لِّينَةٍ أَوْ تَرَكْتُمُوهَا قَآئِمَةً عَلَى أُصُولِهَا فَبِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ﴾


(What you cut down of the Linah, or you left them standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allah).'' Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah ordered that the date trees of Bani An-Nadir be cut down and burned. The Two Sahihs collected a similar narration. Al-Bukhari recorded that `Abdullah bin `Umar said,"Bani An-Nadir and Bani Qurayzah fought (against the Prophet ), and the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Qurayzah to remain in their area until later, when the Prophet fought against Qurayzah. Their men were executed and their women, children and wealth were confiscated and divided among Muslims. Some of them, however, were saved because they returned to the Prophet's side, who granted them asylum, and they embraced Islam. All of the Jews of Al-Madinah, Bani Qaynuqa`, the tribe of `Abdullah bin Salam, Bani Harithah and the rest of the Jewish tribes in Al-Madinah were exiled.'' The Two Sahihs also recorded from Ibn `Umar that the Messenger of Allah burned down the date trees of Bani An-Nadir and had them cut down the date palms of Al-Buwayrah. Allah the Exalted and Most Honored revealed this Ayah,


﴿مَا قَطَعْتُمْ مِّن لِّينَةٍ أَوْ تَرَكْتُمُوهَا قَآئِمَةً عَلَى أُصُولِهَا فَبِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَلِيُخْزِىَ الْفَـسِقِينَ ﴾


(What you cut down of the Linah, or you left them standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might disgrace the rebellious.)'' Muhammad bin Ishaq reported that the battle of Bani An-Nadir occurred after the battles of Uhud and Bi'r Ma`unah.


﴿وَمَآ أَفَآءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْهُمْ فَمَآ أَوْجَفْتُمْ عَلَيْهِ مِنْ خَيْلٍ وَلاَ رِكَابٍ وَلَـكِنَّ اللَّهَ يُسَلِّطُ رُسُلَهُ عَلَى مَن يَشَآءُ وَاللَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ قَدِيرٌ - مَّآ أَفَآءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِى الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَـكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ كَى لاَ يَكُونَ دُولَةً بَيْنَ الاٌّغْنِيَآءِ مِنكُمْ وَمَآ ءَاتَـكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَـكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُواْ وَاتَّقُواْ اللَّهَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ ﴾


(6. And what Allah gave as booty (Fai') to His Messenger from them -- for this you made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry. But Allah gives power to His Messengers over whomsoever He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things.) (7. What Allah gave as booty (Fai') to His Messenger from the people of the townships -- it is for Allah, His Messenger, the kindred, the orphans, the poor, and the wayfarer, in order that it may not become a fortune used by the rich among you. And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it). And have Taqwa of Allah, verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.)

[maj1n]

Not really, as a general practice, you quote a specific section of a citation that is relevant to your argument, rarely do you quote the whole work.

But really, what you quoted is supporting my argument, from your article.

"Bani An-Nadir sent a message to the Messenger , saying that he used to outlaw mischief in the earth, so why did he order that their trees be cut down Allah sent down this honorable Ayah stating that whatever Linah was felled or left intact by the Muslims, has been done by His permission, will, leave and pleasure to humiliate and disgrace the enemy and degrade them.''

'' Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah ordered that the date trees of Bani An-Nadir be cut down and burned."


Can you clarify what your intention is here? is it to support me? because what you cited did, well thank you then.

[Black Wraith]

I posted that because you quoted something from Ibn Kathir but not in context. You left this part out:
The Qur'an approved of the actions of those who discouraged and those who approved of cutting these trees, stating that those who cut them or did not, did so only by Allah's leave.''


Second you need to know about a thing called Khussu Siyyat/special. There are many cases with the Sahaba where they were given a special and preferable treatment e.g. the Ashara e Mubashara/Ten who were given glad-tidings (of heaven in this world), they were amongst the only people to know for certain that they would be entering heaven.

Now back on the topic, this verse was based on a particular event and to know the events is very important to understanding the verse, this verse was sent down specaily and only for this event and has more to do with another subject then to do with taking care of the Earth.

One verse that does have something to do with taking care of the Earth is the verse where it God states that he has made humans the viceroys of the earth. As viceroys we have to look after what God has given us.

[maj1n]

I posted that because you quoted something from Ibn Kathir but not in context. You left this part out:

uhh, it was already included, so there was no need.


59:5 Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers.



Now back on the topic, this verse was based on a particular event and to know the events is very important to understanding the verse, this verse was sent down specaily and only for this event and has more to do with another subject then to do with taking care of the Earth.

One verse that does have something to do with taking care of the Earth is the verse where it God states that he has made humans the viceroys of the earth. As viceroys we have to look after what God has given us.
Well no were not really back on topic, the argument was (from the person whos name is like lines), that Islam forbids cutting down tree's in warfare.

Clearly this is false since Muhammad did so, your citations only support my argument.

But you did actually show me something interesting.

"When the Messenger of Allah laid siege to Bani An-Nadir, to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down. Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Yazid bin Ruman, Qatadah and Muqatil bin Hayyan said, "Bani An-Nadir sent a message to the Messenger , saying that he used to outlaw mischief in the earth, so why did he order that their trees be cut down Allah sent down this honorable Ayah stating that whatever Linah was felled or left intact by the Muslims, has been done by His permission, will, leave and pleasure to humiliate and disgrace the enemy and degrade them.''

Well, no doubt the reasons is that, living in a desert, its practical not to cut down tree's, but what is interesting is that it is the Jewish who espoused this view, and Muhammad cut them down purely for warfare reasons (intimidating the enemy).

Well anyway, case is pretty much closed, cutting down tree's in warfare in Islam is not prohibited.

[Black Wraith]

Muhammed didn't order no such thing, read it again, they cut some down trees and left others before some of them went to the Prophet complaining about what some of the others cut down the trees.

God said (in my own words), what happened has happened because i wanted it to happen.

Muhammed did not say go and cut down those trees either before or after the event.

[Uchiha Q]

From what i read about this verse its that banu nadeer went to their castles and started shooting arrows and were hidden behind those palm trees,

so it was essential to cut down some of these trees.


Banu Nadeer resorted to their castles, mounted them and started shooting arrows and pelting stones at the Muslims enjoying the strategic advantage that their thick fields of palm trees provided. The Muslims were therefore ordered to fell and burn those trees. In this respect, Allâh, the All-Mighty, states in the Qur’ân:

"What you (O Muslims) cut down of the palm-trees (of the enemy), or you left them standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allâh." [59:5]

So there was a good reason for cutting the trees, however we cant cut them if theres no point in doing so.

[maj1n]

Muhammed didn't order no such thing, read it again, they cut some down trees and left others before some of them went to the Prophet complaining about what some of the others cut down the trees.

God said (in my own words), what happened has happened because i wanted it to happen.

Muhammed did not say go and cut down those trees either before or after the event.
Umm im going to have to ask you to re-read WHAT YOU QUOTED very carefully fenix.

"When the Messenger of Allah laid siege to Bani An-Nadir, to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down."

"Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah ordered that the date trees of Bani An-Nadir be cut down and burned. The Two Sahihs collected a similar narration."

Really...i think you just didn't read the tafsir carefully, please read it again slowly.

I don't wanna chug this thread down further, and its very clear the Tafsir states Muhammad ordered tree's cut down and burned, if you have any more disagreement, feel free to pm me.


So there was a good reason for cutting the trees, however we cant cut them if theres no point in doing so.

Umm, can you get a better source then an Islamic website that does not source its claims?

Because there is some holes in the story here.

from TAFSIR IBN KATHIR

"Bani An-Nadir sent a message to the Messenger , saying that he used to outlaw mischief in the earth, so why did he order that their trees be cut down

It's a bit strange that the Banir were firing arrows and stones into the Muslims, and they sent a messenger down to the Muslims, amongst those hurtling arrows and stones.

As to 'not cutting them down', if your claiming this is an Islamic ruling, can you provide evidence for it?

[Deimos]

Which part of the interpretation of Surah 59:5 do you disagree with?

I also gave a Tafsir to explain it (Tafsir being authorative Islamic scholars exegesis on Quranic verse).

59:5 Whatsoever palm-trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-livers.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
When the Messenger of Allah laid siege to Bani An-Nadir, to humiliate them and bring fear and terror to their hearts, he ordered their date trees to be cut down.


Its pretty obvious Islam does not fordid cutting down tree's in wartime, which part do you disagree with? and provide evidence for your disagreement please.

Btw the Tafsir does in fact give the Sunnah of Muhammad, do you know what Sunnah is?

Not all Tafsir does, you didn't get my point. I meant that, if you want to have a good idea about what Islam is about, read about Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his lifestyle. As far as I know, he didn't cut trees every day for fun.

Now, about your thing there, allow me to quote an article:

At Times of War

Prior to the advent of Islam, date palms, particularly the highly valued male trees, were often cut down and destroyed in battles between tribes. However, this practice was strongly discouraged by the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and subsequent leaders and viewed as an act of “sacrilege on this earth” (Farooqi, 1997).

During military expeditions, soldiers were instructed not to harm innocent people, nor to cut down any vegetation. However, during the siege of the Banu Nadir tribe in Madinah, Muslims were forced to cut down date palms to “facilitate the movement of the army” (Farooqi, 1997). The Banu Nadir were angry and wanted to know how the Prophet, “who always forbade corruption and injustice and castigated their perpetrators” (Haykal, 1990), could command the destruction of their orchards. This act greatly saddened the Muslims but was deemed necessary. A verse was revealed at this time that indicated the permissibility of their action in these circumstances.

“And what you (O Muslims) cut down of the palm-trees (of the enemy), or you left them standing on their stems, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might disgrace the Fasiqun (the rebellious, disobedient to Allah)” (59: 5)

Source: http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2004/04/article05.shtml

Muslims were instructed not to cut down trees etc without reason, but it appears there was something else to it this one time.

Again, it's not like Islam teaches that it's okay to cut trees because you feel like it.

Just because Allah gave permission for it at one time, and there probably was a reason to it, doesn't mean you can take that as a general rule. Or are you going to pretend now that Qur'an encourages doing such a thing? Please...

Just have some common sense alright? Reckless quoting ain't getting you nowhere.

Oh, and, BF, forget it. Are we seriously going to debate whether Islam encourages cutting trees or anything stupid of the sort? lol

I say let maj1n believe what he wants. :D

[Sarutobi sasuke]

Y'all realize there is a dedicated Islam debate thread don't ya?

[maj1n]

Umm, i think your operating under a grave misunderstanding here.


Islam set the first ethical restrictions for a WAR, when no one had done before, these restriction include:
1- No attacking at night since this will scare the children.
2- No cutting trees

This is the original debate, and what i am disputing.

Now your trying to say in warfare there are legitimate reasons to cut down tree's (if it gives you some type of strategic advantage over the enemy).

But this is exactly what i am saying, |)/-\\/\/|\| therefore is wrong, there is no ruling for 'no cutting trees' if you allow cutting tree's for strategic circumstances.

[Uchiha Q]

Muslims cant during war burn down tree's and basically ruin the hole village, because essentialy Wars happen in islam for one reason, and that is to fight opression and self-defence, so there wouldent be any point in burning tree's and destroying resources.

Abu-Bakr Al Siddiq (the verifier ), the 1st caliph to Muslims advised the first military expedition's leader in his era, Osama Bin Zaid saying: "Don't betray. Don't take illegally a part of booty. Don't mutilate the dead bodies. Don't kill a child, or an old man, or a woman. Do not cut down or burn palm trees and don't cut down a fruity tree. Don't slaughter a sheep, or a cow or a camel except for food. You will find on your way people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves).
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Science/2004/04/article05.shtml

[maj1n]

Muslims cant during war burn down tree's and basically ruin the hole village, because essentialy Wars happen in islam for one reason, and that is to fight opression and self-defence, so there wouldent be any point in burning tree's and destroying resources.
Umm.

Did you even read the posts above? Muslims can burn down tree's if theres some advantage to it.

Really this debate is ridiculous, it is very obvious there is no ruling that forbids cutting down tree's, obviously even Muhammad gave the order when he needed to, and it is contained in the Quran.

Have you Muslims been arguing as if i was saying Islam DOES WANT TREES CUT DOWN INDISCRIMINATELY?!

sigh, can you please read a discussion carefully, and dispassionately, really it is very apparent that your hatred of me due to me thinking Islam has problems makes you want to jump in at the drop of a hat.

No wonder this thread got derailed.

[zaphood]

Muslims should respect women's rights, science and freedom of speech - West.

QFT

can you explain how Muslims disrespect women, science and freedom of speech? You have to understand why Muslims punish their wives because in Islam, Muslim wives are not allowed to disobey their husband and disobeying your husband for woman is a big sin. That is why the husband can punish their wife IF their wife disobey them. Muslims need to respect freedom of speech? if other people insult your religion which you hold high faith on it, will you allow them to continue insulting your religion? ofcourse not. freedom of speech is acceptable but the freedom of speech has its limit aswell.

lol, gona assume this lad is joking.

bottom line is respect will be given when it is earned.

I have no problem with any faith, I respect peoples rights to believe in whatever they want. Where I draw the line is when those beliefs adversly affect the freedoms and rights of other people.

Ps: excluding Scientology.

[House]

Respect has to be earned.

[Uchiha Q]

Really this debate is ridiculous
guess who brought it up :D

[hcheng02]

The West buys their oil, thus perpetuating the economic and political pathology. It's all the fault of those evil Americans, and their gas-chugging SUVs. :zaru

Muslim nations: Damn the West for buying our products! :mad
Western countries: :huh

I can't wait till I see anti-Chinese and anti-Indian protests in the Middle East. :zaru They're both buying more and more oil and have Muslim populations. (One screams that it's repressed and wants independence, but no one seems to really care... And the other has a larger one with a long history is hate already.)

It'll happen soon enough. Jealousy is an ugly thing. Those countries had it just as bad as the other Muslim countries but they got their acts together and are now prospering and leaving the Arab and Muslim countries in the dust. What a difference competent governance makes.

Good post, oil is a bit of a curse for some nations according to political scientists too. It is detrimental to spreading wealth appropriately across the country. Unless you make a social-democratic solution of redistribution, that is. Qatar has tried this to a lesser extent, but when it only takes place on a regional level, the ownership natural resources begins to converge around a tiny elite.

As a matter of fact, Albertan oil sands in Canada might produce the same effect in Canada. That would be interesting.

For the developing countries its definitely a detriment to distributing the wealth simply because those kinds of industries don't employ a lot of people. It doesn't produce a lot of jobs and foreign investment which means that most of the populace can't really partake of the industries earnings. However, the governments don't want to invest in other industries because they can get money faster with oil. Whereas countries that have poor natural resources are forced by necessity to devote their time and energy on the only resource they got: their people. They usually start with high labor manufacturing and work their way up to high-tech manufacturing and resources. Its the case with China and a bunch of Asian countries. Its like the Chinese proverb: When you plan for one year, plant rice. When planning for 10 years, plant trees. When planning for a hundred years, educate people.

All government wealth redistribution plans are inefficient and produce dead weight. Its incredibly compounded by the fact that many of the Muslim country leaders treat the national treasury like a personal piggy bank. Saudi Arabia has the rulers spending money on stupid nonsense like building robotic horse jockeys and indoor ski resorts in the desert while neglecting fundamentals like public services and schools.

Still, finding a large amount of natural resource has that effect on any nation. I think the Netherlands got a bad case of this when they found a huge natural gas reserve in the 1950s. The government decided to expand government spending, which raised taxes and hurt other industries. It also caused the Netherland currency to rise and hurt their countries exports, which is the lifeblood of their economy. In the end it was a mixed blessing. If Canada finds a way to get oil from the Alberta sands then it will suddenly get as much oil resources as Saudi Arabia. I expect they would also get a case of the "Dutch Disease" as well.

[Zhongda]

Respect them for what?!

[The Sentry]

You are a hypocrite. I say "Islam :facepalm" but what you said isnt any better

[ZeroBlack]

i don't respect retards who blow themselves up in the name of God :facepalm

[The Sentry]

You dont respect people who believe in a god anyway

[ZeroBlack]

You dont respect people who believe in a god anyway

Wrong again, I shake my head at people who believe in the idea of god to ridiculous lengths, such as those crazed Creationists.

I'm pretty much agnostic leaning toward being atheist. Don't get the ideas mixed up, you god believer :zaru