Welcome to The Islamic Forum

We are pretty sure you will enjoy your stay wih us here

We welcome all people from around the world, regardless of their faith system.

Our discussions cover a wide range of topics.

So, what do you want to discuss today?

 

Jump to content

     

Photo

A Terrible Disease Of The Mind


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 freedslave

freedslave

    Senior Member

  • IF Guardians
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 05 May 2009 - 02:13 AM

[size=5]

A 'terrible disease of the mind'

[using large font size is not allowed]

By Zaid Nabulsi*

I lost my gloves one day in a coffee shop in Geneva, and I tell you, it's difficult to ride a motorcycle without them when it's really cold. So as I was paying for a new pair with a credit card, the salesman - who I knew was from israel - asked me what my family name means. I told him that it relates to the city of Nablus where my family is originally from. Suddenly, the most bewildered look got plastered on his face. "Where is Nablus?" he asked, "I've never heard of it". Then he pretended to remember. "Ah, Shkheim you mean?" With my insistence not to learn these ugly sounding names that the Zionists have dug up from oblivion to erase our identity, that name certainly didn't ring a bell . Now it was my turn. Although I knew where he was from, I asked: "And you're from?" As he smiled, I replicated the look on his face moments ago. "israel? Where is that?"

Then after a brief pause: "Ah, the land of Canaan you mean. Palestine." You see, if you want to get biblical, there was never such a thing as israel, and I made that very clear to this gentleman with obnoxious chutzpah. So here we were all of a sudden; my family descended from a place called Shkheim, and this guy became a Palestinian. God does work in mysterious ways, but I still thanked him for his small mercies; that at least my name was not Zaid Shkheimy.

While the gloves warmed up my grip on the bike, my heart was still frozen. I just cannot stand thieves who steal your gloves, or any other kind of thieves. Then it finally dawned on me. Zionism is a sickness, for it takes much more than just a twisted ideology to make people think like that. It requires a profound leap of immorality of a higher order to instill this mentality in your followers. Zionism is not merely a political movement, but in its essence represents a deeply disturbed view of the world, resulting from a terrible affliction of the mind.

Indeed, to deny the existence of a vibrant community such as the Palestinian society in the early 20th century and describe Palestine as "a land without a people for a people without a land" is a serious blinding ailment.

To assert property claims over real estate after thousands of years with the same certainty of title as if one resided there yesterday is the essence of arrogance.

To describe the colonial immigration to Palestine of a European people with no proven historical link to the ancient israelites - and whose great, great recorded ancestors have never set foot there - as some kind of a "return" to that land is a distorted misapplication of the verb to "return".

To blame the Palestinians for being unreasonable in rejecting a partition plan in 1947 which gave the Jews, who only owned 7 per cent of the land, an astounding half of Palestine, is an arithmetical impairment. To eventually grab 78 per cent of Palestine through war, evict the population through massacres and then live in their same houses is unashamed theft.

To deny the orchestrated eradications of hundreds of Palestinian villages in 1948 and then denounce the israeli historians who later exposed this truth as self-hating Jews is compulsive forgery.

To claim that having escaped the horrors of the Nazis is a justification for the murder, expulsion and occupation of another, guiltless, people is moral incapacity.

To legislate that any resident of Poland, New York or Brazil, who happens to be blessed with a Jewish mother (yet cannot point to Palestine on the map), has a right to "return" and settle in Palestine, unlike someone who has been expelled from his own land, confined to a squalid refugee camp and still holds the keys to his house, is racism.

To blame God for the theft and occupation of someone else's land by claiming that it was He who had pledged this land exclusively to the Jews, and to seriously promote the myth of a land promised by the Almighty to His favourite children as an excuse for this crime, is insanity.

To milk the pockets of the entire world for the atrocities of the Nazis, while stubbornly refusing a simple admission of guilt, let alone compensation or repatriation, for the catastrophe that befell the Palestinian people, is perverted conceit.

To keep blackmailing the world with expensive museums and endless movies of the plight of the Jews under Hitler 70 years ago, while at the same time inflicting on the Palestinians today the fate of the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto, is acute schizophrenia.

To impose collective guilt on the Western civilisation for the Holocaust and to criminalise all legitimate historical debate of the nature and extent of that horrific event is thuggery.

To incarcerate the Palestinian people inside degrading cages, destroy their livelihoods, confiscate their lands, steal their water and uproot their trees, and then to condemn their legitimate resistance as terrorism, and to exact vengeance on the innocent families of suicide bombers by punishing them with the dynamiting of their homes is sadistic cruelty.

To describe the offer of giving the Palestinians 80 per cent of 22 per cent of 100 per cent of what is originally their own land as a "generous" offer is macabre Shylockian humour.

To believe that you have the God-given right to continue to humiliate the Palestinians at gunpoint by making them queue for hours to move between their villages, forcing their mothers to give birth at checkpoints, is a predisposition to bestiality.

To flatten the camp of Jenin on its inhabitants' heads and deny any wrongdoing is a severe delusional disorder.

To build a huge separation wall which disconnects farmers from their farms and children from their schools, while stealing even more territory as the wall freely zigzags and encroaches on Palestinian land is unrepentant immorality.

To leave behind, in the last 10 days of a losing war in Lebanon, more than one million cluster bombs which have no purpose except to murder and maim unsuspecting civilians is murderous depravity.

To believe that the entire world is out to get you, and to denounce any critic of the racist policies of the state of israel as an anti-Semite, the latest victim being none other than peace-making Jimmy Carter, is hysterical mass paranoia.

To possess, in the midst of a non-nuclear Arab world, more than 200 nuclear warheads capable of incinerating the whole planet, in addition to having the most lethal arsenal of weaponry on earth, while continuing to demand sympathy, is the ultimate false victimisation syndrome.

And today, to blockade the world's most densely populated strip of land for 18 months, suffocate its already displaced and miserable inhabitants by asking them to die a slow death, and then punish them for refusing to die silently by deliberately bombing their schools, Masjids, hospitals and ambulances with internationally prohibited weapons and poisonous gasses in the ugliest televised massacre of children in modern history, all the while looking the world in the eyes and claiming that this is an act of self-defence, is a critical stage of dangerous psychosis, and is pure, unadulterated madness.

Yes, and for that salesman in peaceful Geneva to be as insecure as a common thief to refuse to acknowledge the name of the largest West Bank city under his country's brutal military occupation is, sadly, more of the same infectious and ultimately fatal disease of the mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* The writer is an attorney, partner in Nabulsi & Associates law firm. He contributed this article to The Jordan Times. JAN. 14-09

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/05/terrible-disease-of-mind.html"]Link[/url]

#2 Mirage

Mirage

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 06 July 2010 - 12:04 AM

I mean no offense, but your "psychological analysis" is not founded in any psychological science used by humans on Earth in 2010.

Your post seems to be more of a rant than anything else.

#3 freedslave

freedslave

    Senior Member

  • IF Guardians
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 06 July 2010 - 03:02 AM

Psychological science is an ever-expanding field, an even if a mental condition is undefined, well rest assured in the near future it would be.

On a more serious note, you know very well this is not a psychological issue but more of a political one. The psychological phrasing is just a literary tool that the author uses to convey his point; that there is no psychological backing or justification for the political movement of Zionism. No mentally sound or sane human would support it.

Everything said in the post is true rather than a rant, I believe. I believe all the injustices above really happened, did it not?

#4 Redeem

Redeem

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,832 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Georgia, USA
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 06 July 2010 - 04:46 AM

I mean no offense, but your "psychological analysis" is not founded in any psychological science used by humans on Earth in 2010.

Your post seems to be more of a rant than anything else.


The article isn't a professional analysis of the israel problem - more like it's meant to emphasize the absurdity of the situation. I found it rather stimulating.

Salam.

#5 Mirage

Mirage

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 07 July 2010 - 04:38 AM

On a more serious note, you know very well this is not a psychological issue but more of a political one. The psychological phrasing is just a literary tool that the author uses to convey his point; that there is no psychological backing or justification for the political movement of Zionism.


I think that everyone who believes in something can find justification for their actions. I'm certainly not a Zionist, but I think that's a bit of a broad statement to make. There are those who feel that some Islamic practices and/or attitudes have no sane justification, but I'm sure that those who practice them believe otherwise. That's the nature of human beings: we find reasons to do the things we do, regardless of whether they make sense to other people.

No mentally sound or sane human would support it.


I don't mean to offend you (and I know there's a big debate about it; I read the threads) but I think that the arguments that some Muslims use against music and singing might cross the line into irrational thought.

Everything said in the post is true rather than a rant, I believe.


I'm glad you qualified it by saying "I believe". Anything we perceive in reality is ultimately filtered through what we, as individuals, believe.

I believe all the injustices above really happened, did it not?


It's a matter of perspective as to whether something is an "injustice". To be quite honest with you, I don't know the ins and outs of the israeli policy, Zionism, Judaic Tradition and Law, or any of the other factors that you mentioned.

I am not saying that you are wrong; only that what is "injustice" is a term relative to the person who is making the claim. For example, in my own city, there is huge debate going on over the building of a power plant. Some people feel that it's an "injustice" because it will wreck the ecosystem. Others feel that it would be an "injustice" not to build the plant as it will not only provide jobs, but will be cheaper to operate than the existing power system. Each side has a valid point even through they both see the actions of the other as being an "injustice".

My point is that truth, especially in socio-political situations, is often relative to the beholder.

#6 freedslave

freedslave

    Senior Member

  • IF Guardians
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 07 July 2010 - 06:15 PM

I think that everyone who believes in something can find justification for their actions. I'm certainly not a Zionist, but I think that's a bit of a broad statement to make. There are those who feel that some Islamic practices and/or attitudes have no sane justification, but I'm sure that those who practice them believe otherwise. That's the nature of human beings: we find reasons to do the things we do, regardless of whether they make sense to other people.


How convenient of you to link Islamic practices/attitudes to Zionism.
The two are separate issues.

One describes a belief system that a faithful Muslim practices. In an ideal Islamic state, political affairs would also be in accordance to the Shariah.

The other describes a political thought put into action by the current israeli state since our great-parents and grand-parents generations and times, which have and continue to oppress Palestinians.

The former does not oppress people who do not profess to the faith, the other wantonly oppresses and seeks to crush dissenting opinions of those who dare to oppose it.

I don't mean to offend you (and I know there's a big debate about it; I read the threads) but I think that the arguments that some Muslims use against music and singing might cross the line into irrational thought.


How a Muslim chooses to follow his faith with regard to music is up to factors in his society, as well as his personal upbringing, attitude and intellect. One thing all Muslims who know their faith would agree, we don't force our beliefs about music, or any other matter, on non-Muslim. Even in Saudi Arabia, where clerics have issued strict fatwas against music, you never find the authorities there going into the residences in housing compounds where the foreign expatriates employed by the oil-companies live, and arrest them for listening to music. They are not expected to live to our ideals, and certainly we don't expect them to, and that is the path Islam takes with regards to non-Muslims.

Oppression is clearly prohibited in the verses of the Quran.

Can we say that Zionism has the same principle?

Things which you and I take for granted, like the freedom of expression, the right to own land, to seek work, the right to seek justice, the right to live even, are robbed from the Palestinians so that israel can have their state. As you've said, the Zionists may have their own 'perspective', perhaps on how they should run their lives, and at a political level run their state, but their injustices have to be pointed out. A group of people's rights, a word the first world champions with their ideals, are being trampled on, and here you have the audacity to talk about different perspectives.

It's a matter of perspective as to whether something is an "injustice". To be quite honest with you, I don't know the ins and outs of the israeli policy, Zionism, Judaic Tradition and Law, or any of the other factors that you mentioned.


What is the perspective of Zionists?

They believe the land belongs to them for two reasons - political and religous ones. Both these can be strongly rebutted by political arguments, and the religous scriptures. I'm afraid I can't go into detail here, as it would entail a great deal of length.

If only it was as simple as a matter of perspective.

#7 Mirage

Mirage

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 08 July 2010 - 07:11 AM

Before I reply, please note that I mean no disrespect to Islam with my comments. My comments are primarily to the user "Freedslave" and any aggressive posturing toward his arguments (which I find quite silly) ends there.


How convenient of you to link Islamic practices/attitudes to Zionism.


I mean no disrespect to Islam, but I call you a liar. I never linked Islamic practices to Zionism. You have made an implication without merit. Anybody can read my post on this topic and see the truth for themselves. I submit that you have twisted my words to your own purpose.

One describes a belief system that a faithful Muslim practices. In an ideal Islamic state, political affairs would also be in accordance to the Shariah.


Is there such a thing as a "ideal Islamic state"? Where is that? -- Let us not speak in what may come but in what is.

The other describes a political thought put into action by the current israeli state since our great-parents and grand-parents generations and times, which have and continue to oppress Palestinians.


No argument from me that the current israeli government oppresses Palestinians. I have two good friends who are Palestinians. Both visited Palestine last year (to visit relatives) and both were subject to unreasonable delays by IMF forces at the airport for over 24 hours. One of my friends commented to me: "israel doesn't keep you from leaving, but they sure make it difficult for you to arrive."

The former does not oppress people who do not profess to the faith, the other wantonly oppresses and seeks to crush dissenting opinions of those who dare to oppose it.


Now, now... Let's be realistic here. You are claiming that Islamic thinkers do not crush dissenting opinions? -- I can easily prove you wrong on this very forum. Please refer to my threads about the Sufis in the Non-Muslim Question And Answer base. Orthodox, Redeem, and others gave very well-supported arguments as to why discussions of the Sufis are not allowed here -- and also ignored the issue that discussion of the the Sufi vewpoint is not allowed because it can cause strife and discord.

How is that any different than what you accuse others of?

(I ask you, not in support of Zionism, but in opposition to the logical contradiction you've created with your argument.)

You say: "How a Muslim chooses to follow his faith with regard to music is up to factors in his society, as well as his personal upbringing, attitude and intellect."

Oh? So you'd agree that those who are brought up with faith in this scripture:

"That he heard the Prophet saying “from amongst my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful. And there will be some people who will stay near the side of mountain and in the evening their shepherded will come to them with their sheep and ask them for something, but they will say to him, ‘return to us tomorrow.’ Allah will destroy them during the night and will let the mountain fall on them, and He will transform the rest of them into monkeys and pigs and they will remain so till the Day of Resurrection."
(Sahih Al Bukhari. Vol. 7. Book 69. Hadith 494B)

are truly "free" to choose to listen to music in opposition to the teachings?

Really? I seriously doubt that.

You say: "One thing all Muslims who know their faith would agree, we don't force our beliefs about music, or any other matter, on non-Muslim."

Again, this is a relative concept. What exactly constitutes a "non-muslim"? Is it someone born to Islam who rejects some of the teachings or cultural principles or is it those who are not born to Islam?

The reason I ask this is that there are some who have been born to Islam and later killed / murdered (depending on how you look at it) for not following the faith as their family believed it. Are these people "non-Muslims" according to their own choice, or is the choice made for them by a family member?

I am very interested in hearing your response to this issue.

Even in Saudi Arabia, where clerics have issued strict fatwas against music, you never find the authorities there going into the residences in housing compounds where the foreign expatriates employed by the oil-companies live, and arrest them for listening to music.


Well, of course not. Those who are not Islam are obviously not subject to the prohibitions of Islam; those who are not Christian are not subject to the prohibitions of Christianity. This is no surprise to me.

However, it's also a political move (and let's not kid ourselves about that; you know as well as I do that this is the truth).

They are not expected to live to our ideals, and certainly we don't expect them to, and that is the path Islam takes with regards to non-Muslims.

Oppression is clearly prohibited in the verses of the Quran.


"Oppression" is a relative notion. To the Roman Catholics who landed in Central America in the early 16th century, the wiping out of the religion of the indigenous peoples (eg. the Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayans, etc) was an act of "liberation" to the faith of Christianity. Do you think the indigenous peoples, however, might have viewed it as "oppression"? -- I (and history) say they did.

You say that "oppression" is prohibited by the Qur'aan. I mean no disrespect to Islam, but I would submit that some Islamic practices could be construed as "oppression" by others. I also submit that the practices of israel, Jews, Christians, and pretty much any other religion could be construed as "oppression".

I know you are intelligent and educated so please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that "oppression" is a one-sided, non-relative issue.

Can we say that Zionism has the same principle?

Things which you and I take for granted, like the freedom of expression, the right to own land, to seek work, the right to seek justice, the right to live even, are robbed from the Palestinians so that israel can have their state. As you've said, the Zionists may have their own 'perspective', perhaps on how they should run their lives, and at a political level run their state, but their injustices have to be pointed out.


I agree.

A group of people's rights, a word the first world champions with their ideals, are being trampled on, and here you have the audacity to talk about different perspectives.


It's quite ironic that you should make this argument. There is a saying in America: "The pot should not call the kettle black."

You claim "people's rights", but from what? -- I submit that your perception of what constitutes "people's rights' is completely relative to your own perceptions of reality. Are you claiming, in an absolutist way, that there are some rights that all people have?

Be careful how your respond. It's very easy to dig one's self into a hole with claims of absolutism. I have seen many fall to this on all manner of religious forums.

Regardless, I say that it is ironic that you make this claim for this reason: women.

Should women have completely equal rights as men? If not, then who is not to argue that women are being "oppressed"?

I am not saying that you think this, but I submit that Allaah did not create women as unintelligent sex-objects who lack wisdom. I submit that women are equally intelligent to men, equally capable of receiving wisdom from Allaah, and equally capable of any job that a man is capable of. Further, I claim that all women, eveywhere, have the "right" to express themselves openly to the public through whatever means is relative to their culture.

Do you agree or disagree?

What is the perspective of Zionists?

They believe the land belongs to them for two reasons - political and religous ones.


Again, I mean no offense to you, but I must ask: is this any different than what you believe?

If you say "yes", then please demonstrate how your view are NOT politically or religiously motivated.

You said: "Both these can be strongly rebutted by political arguments, and the religous scriptures."

Whose political arguments and whose religious scriptures? Those of the Jews or those of the Muslims?

I'm sure if you asked each you'd get very different answers.

Please allow me to stress, once again, that I'm NOT supporting the Zionists...! What I am doing, however, is pointing out how you are using the exact same arguments that the Zionists use to justify their positions.

Christians do this all the time: they argue that "Muslims want to convert the whole world to Islam!" and 'forget' to mention that their own faith calls for them to do the exact same thing:

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
-- Galatians 3:8


When I've confronted Christians on this, they claim that they are trying to "save" people. So, therefore, do you as a Muslim claim otherwise? Are you not called by The Prophet to bring Islam to the world?

You said: "I'm afraid I can't go into detail here, as it would entail a great deal of length."

Actually, I wish that you would because I'm interested in learning. I may not agree with your personal interpretation of Islam, but I can I always learn something from the faith of others.

That's why I post here and engage in these discussions.

I apologize to you if I have offended you with any of my comments - as you are a fellow child of God, even as I am - however, I stand by the reasoning of them.

I hope that the Moderators will allow this discussion to continue because you are one of the first people on this site who I feel i not trying to 'sugar-coat' the responses I receive, but is honestly saying what you think. (Redeem has done a good job of this as well.)

Thank you for your time.

#8 Mirage

Mirage

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 08 July 2010 - 12:59 PM

I must apologize to the user Freedslave for saying that you are a liar. I am in no place to make such accusations of others. I do believe that you misunderstood the nature of what I wrote, but in retrospect, I feel that it was wrong of me to make this comment to you and I ask your apology for doing so.

#9 freedslave

freedslave

    Senior Member

  • IF Guardians
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 13 July 2010 - 05:11 PM

I must apologize to the user Freedslave for saying that you are a liar. I am in no place to make such accusations of others. I do believe that you misunderstood the nature of what I wrote, but in retrospect, I feel that it was wrong of me to make this comment to you and I ask your apology for doing so.


None taken. I'm glad we can discuss things in a civil manner. On my part, it was a misunderstanding, as I viewed your discussion of music as an attempt to link it to Zionism. After all, the topic was about Zionism, and so happens that the first offshoot idea expressed here is about music. One whould be inclined to think there's an effort to link the two.

In any case, I guess it was a misunderstanding, and hopefully we can move along.

I will address the other issues you mentioned briefly, and hopefully we can keep to the topic at hand.

Is there such a thing as a "ideal Islamic state"? Where is that? -- Let us not speak in what may come but in what is.


We don't have an ideal Islamic state. The closest we have to that is where Shariah is applied in its near totality in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen. Yes there are endemic problems in those countries in the way how the law is applied, and how leadership is structured, but it has to be conceded that the countries which legislate Shariah in its entirety are the closest to the ideal.

No argument from me that the current israeli government oppresses Palestinians. I have two good friends who are Palestinians. Both visited Palestine last year (to visit relatives) and both were subject to unreasonable delays by IMF forces at the airport for over 24 hours. One of my friends commented to me: "israel doesn't keep you from leaving, but they sure make it difficult for you to arrive."


Good to see you acknowledge the hardships endured by the Palestinians.

Now, now... Let's be realistic here. You are claiming that Islamic thinkers do not crush dissenting opinions? -- I can easily prove you wrong on this very forum. Please refer to my threads about the Sufis in the Non-Muslim Question And Answer base. Orthodox, Redeem, and others gave very well-supported arguments as to why discussions of the Sufis are not allowed here -- and also ignored the issue that discussion of the the Sufi vewpoint is not allowed because it can cause strife and discord.


The moderators of the forum are just doing their job. It is the forum policy. Our target group (non-Muslims who have questions about Islam, and Muslims who have questions on how to apply their faith in our lives), may be confused about discussion of more complicated issues such as the one you've mentioned.

If you want your answers you can always ask or contact an reliable person with good credentials in Islamic studies. If you crave discussion you can always discuss this on other forums, and you'll find Muslims ready to answer you.

There is truth that we refrain from discussion of topics that may cause division and strife (fitnah). There is a religious obligation to not openly discuss these issues. But that doesn't mean these issues can be discussed, they can be through the right channels. On our forum in fact there is a Controversial section in this forum, where you can post your opinions.

Oh? So you'd agree that those who are brought up with faith in this scripture:

are truly "free" to choose to listen to music in opposition to the teachings?


Are you trying to get into the heads of us Muslims and or is this how you interpret the issue, as you understand it?
Are you telling us that the real stance in Islam towards music is total prohibition, and should be interpreted and followed as such by Muslims?
Why do you raise this issue, when you've said you've read the Controversial Issues threads?? You know that there are many opinions about this. Why keep harping on the issue?

I still maintain that Muslims are free to choose with regards to this issue. In the historic and current climate listening to music alone is not an issue with the authorities. In terms of whether it is permissible in one's personal life this is up to one's interpretaion and understanding, and has always been as such.

Again, this is a relative concept. What exactly constitutes a "non-muslim"? Is it someone born to Islam who rejects some of the teachings or cultural principles or is it those who are not born to Islam?


A person who does not make the shahadah (the declaration that he accepts Islam as his faith) is a disbeliever.
If a person has some doubts of the teachings of Islam (religious, not cultural), but he has not denounced his faith, he is still a Muslim.
If a person is born from non-Muslim parents, and Islamic practices were not instilled and done at the time of his birth and upbringing, (i.e. person being born out of Islam), he is a non-Muslim.

Islam is very clear on this, and there are no relative concepts to this.

The reason I ask this is that there are some who have been born to Islam and later killed / murdered (depending on how you look at it) for not following the faith as their family believed it. Are these people "non-Muslims" according to their own choice, or is the choice made for them by a family member?

I am very interested in hearing your response to this issue.


Noone, not even a respected member of the family can denounce a person’s faith and claim him to be an apostate.
A person may commit a sin or a crime, but he is still a Muslim nonetheless, unless he denounces his faith.

"Oppression" is a relative notion. To the Roman Catholics who landed in Central America in the early 16th century, the wiping out of the religion of the indigenous peoples (eg. the Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayans, etc) was an act of "liberation" to the faith of Christianity. Do you think the indigenous peoples, however, might have viewed it as "oppression"? -- I (and history) say they did.


Oppression in Islamic terms means the persecution of peoples in many ways, such as the usurping and stealing of land, damage to property, violence committed against unarmed people, and where justice is not meted out in these instances.

Propagation of a faith is not oppression. I believe when the Roman Catholics from Europe did so, propagation alone was not oppression. If violence was not committed, the indigenous people would have a choice, and no oppression would have been carried out. It was the violence that came along with their missionary activities, that was oppression.

You say that "oppression" is prohibited by the Qur'aan. I mean no disrespect to Islam, but I would submit that some Islamic practices could be construed as "oppression" by others. I also submit that the practices of israel, Jews, Christians, and pretty much any other religion could be construed as "oppression".


Well, you're here in an Islamic forum, so I think you can always clear your doubts about what you perceive as oppression in the Quran here (maybe its best if its done on another thread).

Will reply to the rest of your post soon.

#10 freedslave

freedslave

    Senior Member

  • IF Guardians
  • 2,636 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Malaysia
  • Religion: Islam

Posted 14 July 2010 - 02:59 AM

I know you are intelligent and educated so please do not insult my intelligence by suggesting that "oppression" is a one-sided, non-relative issue.


A group of people or political group may have their own justifications for oppression.

Whatever their reasons may be, oppression is unacceptable, and has no legitimacy in any of the world's main religions or by international standards, even if the oppressors have their justifications.

You claim "people's rights", but from what? -- I submit that your perception of what constitutes "people's rights' is completely relative to your own perceptions of reality. Are you claiming, in an absolutist way, that there are some rights that all people have?


People's rights are subject to the ideology their governments subscribe to, be it a religious code or political thought. They are also subject to how their governments apply the law in practise.

I think we can agree though, that there are shared thoughts amongst most creeds of people regarding what rights people should have. This is why people have the UN and Geneva Constitutions. I mentioned these rights in my previous post (the rights which the Palestinians do not have).

Regardless, I say that it is ironic that you make this claim for this reason: women.

Should women have completely equal rights as men? If not, then who is not to argue that women are being "oppressed"?

I am not saying that you think this, but I submit that Allaah did not create women as unintelligent sex-objects who lack wisdom. I submit that women are equally intelligent to men, equally capable of receiving wisdom from Allaah, and equally capable of any job that a man is capable of. Further, I claim that all women, eveywhere, have the "right" to express themselves openly to the public through whatever means is relative to their culture.

Do you agree or disagree?


Agreed.

You can read more about women's rights in Islam here.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=6501&hl=women"]Women in the Quran and Sunnah[/url]
(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=650687&hl=women"]Women In Islam[/url]
(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=267957&hl=women"]Women Rights[/url]

I acknowledge that there are shortcomings, wrongdoing and neglect of women’s rights among some Muslims due to a straying from the religion's teachings and ignorance (I would argue mistreatment of women occurs in non-Muslim societies as well), but each one will be answerable for himself.

Again, I mean no offense to you, but I must ask: is this any different than what you believe?

If you say "yes", then please demonstrate how your view are NOT politically or religiously motivated.


Mine are motivated by politics and religion as well.

The problem of the Zionists is they impose their political and religous will (though nowadays Zionists are not religous) on others through violent means, for the past 60 years.

You said: "Both these can be strongly rebutted by political arguments, and the religous scriptures."

Whose political arguments and whose religious scriptures? Those of the Jews or those of the Muslims?


Both.
Yes, political arguments have been brought up by both Muslims and non-Muslims, including Jews against the founding of the state of israel.

From the Muslim's perspective, I recall reading online (though I can't seem to find the link now) about a letter written from one of the royal members of the House of Saud (King Faisal in the 1970s, if I'm not wrong) to an American government official. In it, he writes about Zionism and makes a plea to the Americans to understand the plight of the Palestinians. In it he also states that he acknowledged that what Nazi Germany did to the Jews was horrendous, but that did not entitle them to a land their ancestors lived in thousands of years ago.

From a non-Muslim's perspective, Mahatma Gandhi, well renowned for his peaceful persona, would be regarded by an anti-Semite if he lived today for his views on the Jews' claim to the holy land. You can read more about it in the link here.
I think even though he's not Jewish he has written one of the most comprehensive letters on the subject.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetriazhaq(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2009/01/gandhi-opposed-creation-of-israel.html"]Gandhi opposed the creation of israel[/url]

Orthodox Jews, from the Neutri Karta, have also rejected claims of Jewish statehood, using political arguments as well as religious ones.

I will post the religious arguments next.